[Bug 1564720] Review Request: watchman - a file watching service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1564720 Mattia Verga changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||201449 (FE-DEADREVIEW) --- Comment #10 from Mattia Verga --- (In reply to Laurent Rineau from comment #9) > Now that the spec file is approved, could this package taken over by an > approved maintainer? Well, I think it must be resubmitted within a new package review request since that spec file was created 2 years ago. You can ask on the packaging or devel mailing list for info. Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=201449 [Bug 201449] FE-DEADREVIEW -- Reviews stalled due to lack of submitter response should be blocking this bug. -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1564720] Review Request: watchman - a file watching service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1564720 --- Comment #9 from Laurent Rineau --- Now that the spec file is approved, could this package taken over by an approved maintainer? -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1564720] Review Request: watchman - a file watching service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1564720 Lars Kellogg-Stedman changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |WONTFIX Flags|needinfo?(l...@redhat.com) | Last Closed||2020-06-15 13:59:44 --- Comment #8 from Lars Kellogg-Stedman --- I think we can just cancel this request. -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1564720] Review Request: watchman - a file watching service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1564720 Mattia Verga changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mattia.ve...@protonmail.com Flags||needinfo?(l...@redhat.com) --- Comment #7 from Mattia Verga --- This package was approved but never imported. Are you still interested in getting it into Fedora repositories? -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1564720] Review Request: watchman - a file watching service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1564720 --- Comment #6 from Jon Dufresne --- IIUC, this package was approved 2018-04-11 any reason it is still not available in the repository? -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1564720] Review Request: watchman - a file watching service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1564720 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Robert-André Mauchin --- Package 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 1564720] Review Request: watchman - a file watching service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1564720 --- Comment #4 from Lars Kellogg-Stedman --- Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/larsks/watchman/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00739568-watchman/watchman.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/larsks/watchman/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00739568-watchman/watchman-4.9.0-2.fc29.src.rpm Description: Watchman exists to watch files and record when they change. It can also trigger actions (such as rebuilding assets) when matching files change. -- 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 1564720] Review Request: watchman - a file watching service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1564720
--- Comment #3 from Lars Kellogg-Stedman ---
> - Use %{_rundir} instead of /run
Done.
> - I don't think BuildRequires: systemd is necessary.
Without that the %{_tmpfilesdir} macro is undefined.
> - Dubious files permissions:
Those are required. It's basically just like /tmp. I think the project should
default to using the user's home directory rather than a global directory like
that, but that's how it operates right now.
> - Files in /run should be ghosted:
Done.
> - This file should probably not included:
Good catch, fixed.
> - Some parts are also BSD and MIT
Yeah, upon inspection, the licensing is a little crazy.
--
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 1564720] Review Request: watchman - a file watching service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1564720 --- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin --- - After reading how the program works (one instance per user), the permissions with setgid 2777 might be okay. -- 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 1564720] Review Request: watchman - a file watching service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1564720
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Use %{_rundir} instead of /run
- I don't think BuildRequires: systemd is necessary.
- Dubious files permissions:
watchman.x86_64: E: world-writable /run/watchman 2777
watchman.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /run/watchman 2777
Should probably be 0755.
- Files in /run should be ghosted:
watchman.x86_64: W: non-ghost-in-run /run/watchman
- This file should probably not included:
watchman.x86_64: W: non-ghost-in-run /run/watchman/.not-empty
watchman.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /run/watchman/.not-empty
watchman.x86_64: E: zero-length /run/watchman/.not-empty
- Some parts are also BSD and MIT
BSD (3 clause)
--
watchman-4.9.0/python/pywatchman/__init__.py
watchman-4.9.0/python/pywatchman/bser.c
watchman-4.9.0/python/pywatchman/capabilities.py
watchman-4.9.0/python/pywatchman/compat.py
watchman-4.9.0/python/pywatchman/encoding.py
watchman-4.9.0/python/pywatchman/load.py
watchman-4.9.0/python/pywatchman/pybser.py
watchman-4.9.0/ruby/ruby-watchman/LICENSE.txt
watchman-4.9.0/ruby/ruby-watchman/ext/ruby-watchman/watchman.c
watchman-4.9.0/ruby/ruby-watchman/ext/ruby-watchman/watchman.h
watchman-4.9.0/thirdparty/libart/LICENSE
watchman-4.9.0/winbuild/getopt_long.cpp
MIT/X11 (BSD like) BSD (3 clause)
-
watchman-4.9.0/python/LICENSE
Add it to the License field and add a comment explaning the license
breakdown.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)
BSD (3 clause)", "BSD (unspecified)", "*No copyright* BSD
(unspecified)", "BSD (3 clause)", "BSD (2 clause)", "FSF All
Permissive", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 240 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/watchman/review-watchman/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[-]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/tmpfiles.d
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[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 10240 bytes in 1 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]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: 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 is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by o
