[Bug 481513] Review Request: sugar-pippy - Pippy for Sugar
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=481513 Bug 481513 depends on bug 478382, which changed state. Bug 478382 Summary: Review Request: sugar-tamtam-edit - A music and sound exploration application for Sugar https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478382 What|Old Value |New Value Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||WONTFIX -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 481513] Review Request: sugar-pippy - Pippy for Sugar
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=481513 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-03-04 11:20:39 EDT --- sugar-pippy-25-2.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 481513] Review Request: sugar-pippy - Pippy for Sugar
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=481513 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version||25-2.fc10 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 481513] Review Request: sugar-pippy - Pippy for Sugar
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=481513 Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Comment #6 from Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net 2009-02-20 06:53:02 EDT --- Was pushed to stable https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F10/FEDORA-2009-1511 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 481513] Review Request: sugar-pippy - Pippy for Sugar
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=481513
Steven M. Parrish smparr...@shallowcreek.net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||smparr...@shallowcreek.net
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|smparr...@shallowcreek.net
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Steven M. Parrish smparr...@shallowcreek.net 2009-02-05
08:43:49 EDT ---
MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the
review.
1 warning, but not an issue
- MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
OK.
- MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption on Package Naming Guidelines
.
OK.
- MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
OK.
- MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines .
OK.
- MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
Ok
- MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package must be included in %doc.
OK.
- MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
OK.
- MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. If the reviewer is
unable to read the spec file, it will be impossible to perform a review. Fedora
is not the place for entries into the Obfuscated Code Contest
(http://www.ioccc.org/).
OK.
- MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no
upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL
Guidelines for how to deal with this.
OK.
- MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one supported architecture.
OK.
- MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch needs to have a bug filed
in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work
on that architecture. The bug number should then be placed in a comment, next
to the corresponding ExcludeArch line. New packages will not have bugzilla
entries during the review process, so they should put this description in the
comment until the package is approved, then file the bugzilla entry, and
replace the long explanation with the bug number. The bug should be marked as
blocking one (or more) of the following bugs to simplify tracking such issues:
FE-ExcludeArch-x86 , FE-ExcludeArch-x64 , FE-ExcludeArch-ppc ,
FE-ExcludeArch-ppc64
OK.
- MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
OK.
- MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
OK.
- MUST: Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files (not just
symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in
%post and %postun. If the package has multiple subpackages with libraries, each
subpackage should also have a %post/%postun section that calls /sbin/ldconfig.
An example of the correct syntax for this is:
%post -p /sbin/ldconfig
%postun -p /sbin/ldconfig
NA.
- MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker.
NA.
- MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not
create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
create that directory. Refer to the Guidelines for examples.
OK.
- MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
OK.
- MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
%defattr(...) line.
OK.
- MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} ( or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT ).
OK.
- MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros
section of Packaging Guidelines .
OK.
- MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. This is
described in detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines .
OK.
- MUST: Large
[Bug 481513] Review Request: sugar-pippy - Pippy for Sugar
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=481513 Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net 2009-02-05 10:00:33 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: sugar-pippy Short Description: Pippy for Sugar Owners: fab Branches: F-10 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 481513] Review Request: sugar-pippy - Pippy for Sugar
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=481513 Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #5 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2009-02-05 21:53:32 EDT --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 481513] Review Request: sugar-pippy - Pippy for Sugar
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=481513 --- Comment #1 from Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net 2009-01-27 04:50:05 EDT --- This activity is more or less working on Fedora. Some examples/scripts need olpcgames. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 481513] Review Request: sugar-pippy - Pippy for Sugar
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=481513 Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||478382 --- Comment #2 from Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net 2009-01-27 17:50:10 EDT --- Updates files: Spec URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/XO/sugar-pippy.spec SRPM URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/XO/sugar-pippy-25-2.fc10.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 481513] Review Request: sugar-pippy - Pippy for Sugar
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=481513 Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net changed: What|Removed |Added External Bug ID||OLPC 9213 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 481513] Review Request: sugar-pippy - Pippy for Sugar
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=481513 Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||462625 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
