[Bug 1535292] Review Request: vagrant-openstack-provider - Vagrant plugin for OpenStack provider
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1535292 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2018-02-14 12:28:47 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- vagrant-openstack-provider-0.11.0-2.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1535292] Review Request: vagrant-openstack-provider - Vagrant plugin for OpenStack provider
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1535292 Bug 1535292 depends on bug 1535291, which changed state. Bug 1535291 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-terminal-table - Simple, feature rich ascii table generation library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1535291 What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1535292] Review Request: vagrant-openstack-provider - Vagrant plugin for OpenStack provider
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1535292 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- vagrant-openstack-provider-0.11.0-2.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-16e56293b6 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1535292] Review Request: vagrant-openstack-provider - Vagrant plugin for OpenStack provider
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1535292 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1535292] Review Request: vagrant-openstack-provider - Vagrant plugin for OpenStack provider
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1535292 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- vagrant-openstack-provider-0.11.0-2.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-16e56293b6 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1535292] Review Request: vagrant-openstack-provider - Vagrant plugin for OpenStack provider
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1535292 --- Comment #7 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/vagrant-openstack-provider -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1535292] Review Request: vagrant-openstack-provider - Vagrant plugin for OpenStack provider
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1535292 --- Comment #6 from greg.helli...@gmail.com --- Thanks for the review. I offered to swap reviews on the devel list, but I didn't catch any replies from you. I'm happy to return the favor if you need. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1535292] Review Request: vagrant-openstack-provider - Vagrant plugin for OpenStack provider
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1535292 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Robert-André Mauchin --- Ok, package is approved. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1535292] Review Request: vagrant-openstack-provider - Vagrant plugin for OpenStack provider
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1535292 --- Comment #4 from greg.helli...@gmail.com --- Sorry for the delay. The flu hit my household in January. Here's the updated file. https://fedorapeople.org/~greghellings/vagrant-openstack-provider/vagrant-openstack-provider.spec https://fedorapeople.org/~greghellings/vagrant-openstack-provider/vagrant-openstack-provider-0.11.0-2.fc27.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1535292] Review Request: vagrant-openstack-provider - Vagrant plugin for OpenStack provider
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1535292 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com --- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin --- It's okay for me, please proceed with the update SPEC file. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1535292] Review Request: vagrant-openstack-provider - Vagrant plugin for OpenStack provider
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1535292 --- Comment #2 from greg.helli...@gmail.com --- I have addressed all of your comments in the code save one. I'll address it here: I do not believe that stackrc is supposed to be executable. It's designed to be sourced into the current environment, not to be executed as a standalone script. I believe the shebang line at the top is intended to give syntax highlighting in vim and similar situations. It's presented as a doc file, so I don't believe it will be important either way. I'll be happy to make it executable if that's preferred or edit out the shebang line if you agree it should be left with 0644 permissions. Either one should resolve the lint error. Once we have an agreement I'll post the updated SRPM file. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1535292] Review Request: vagrant-openstack-provider - Vagrant plugin for OpenStack provider
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1535292
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- License files should be included with the %license macro, not doc:
%doc CHANGELOG.md
%license LICENSE
%dir %{vagrant_plugin_instdir}
%license %{vagrant_plugin_instdir}/LICENSE
Also in this case, the second license file will overwrite the first one since
they have the same name, if they are different, please rename the second one to
avoid this. IMHO they're the same and you should just include %license
%{vagrant_plugin_instdir}/LICENSE
- Group: is not needed in Fedora. See:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags_and_Sections
- Please add a comment explaining what the patch does/why it is needed
- This script should probably be executable:
vagrant-openstack-provider-doc.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/share/vagrant/gems/gems/vagrant-openstack-provider-0.11.0/stackrc 644
/bin/bash
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for
licenses manually.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[-]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/vagrant/gems/doc,
/usr/share/vagrant/gems, /usr/share/vagrant
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages.
Note: Package contains font files
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
justified.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English lan
[Bug 1535292] Review Request: vagrant-openstack-provider - Vagrant plugin for OpenStack provider
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1535292 greg.helli...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1535291 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1535291 [Bug 1535291] Review Request: rubygem-terminal-table - Simple, feature rich ascii table generation library -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
