[Bug 481064] Review Request: squeak-image - the standard image file for the Squeak VM
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=481064 Peter Lemenkov changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- 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 481064] Review Request: squeak-image - the standard image file for the Squeak VM
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=481064 Gavin Romig-Koch changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|needinfo?(ga...@redhat.com) | --- Comment #7 from Gavin Romig-Koch 2009-04-30 16:51:42 EDT --- I have built, tested, and pushed this package into Bodhi for both f10 and f9. Please test, comment, and karma++/-- as appropriate. -- 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 481064] Review Request: squeak-image - the standard image file for the Squeak VM
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=481064 Peter Lemenkov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||lemen...@gmail.com Flag||needinfo?(ga...@redhat.com) --- Comment #6 from Peter Lemenkov 2009-04-19 01:33:39 EDT --- Ping. What's the status of this ticket? Why squeak-image was not rebuilt? -- 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 481064] Review Request: squeak-image - the standard image file for the Squeak VM
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=481064 Kevin Fenzi changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #5 from Kevin Fenzi 2009-02-20 15:30:51 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 481064] Review Request: squeak-image - the standard image file for the Squeak VM
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=481064 Gavin Romig-Koch changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Gavin Romig-Koch 2009-02-19 14:46:14 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: squeak-image Short Description: Standard Squeak image as distributed by squeak.org. Owners: gavin Branches: F-9 F-10 InitialCC: gavin -- 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 481064] Review Request: squeak-image - the standard image file for the Squeak VM
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=481064
Steven M. Parrish changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||smparr...@shallowcreek.net
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|smparr...@shallowcreek.net
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Steven M. Parrish 2009-02-18
18:47:51 EDT ---
MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the
review.
OK.
- 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 documentation files shou
[Bug 481064] Review Request: squeak-image - the standard image file for the Squeak VM
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=481064 --- Comment #3 from Steven M. Parrish 2009-02-18 18:48:17 EDT --- Package approved -- 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 481064] Review Request: squeak-image - the standard image file for the Squeak VM
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=481064 --- Comment #1 from Gavin Romig-Koch 2009-01-21 18:16:12 EDT --- I've run rpmlint on the spec file, the SRPM, and the x86 and x86_64 RPMs, no errors, no warnings. -- 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
