Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226359
Summary: Merge Review: rdist Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: nobody@fedoraproject.org QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com CC: pknirsch@redhat.com
Fedora Merge Review: rdist
http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/devel/rdist/ Initial Owner: pknirsch@redhat.com
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=226359
Lukáš Nykrýn lnykryn@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |lnykryn@redhat.com AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |lnykryn@redhat.com
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=226359
Lukáš Nykrýn lnykryn@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Lukáš Nykrýn lnykryn@redhat.com 2011-08-15 10:32:39 EDT --- Checked git commit: 2f508312795b1acf021efff24f2376326b60e268
source files match upstream YES rdist-6.1.5.tar.gz NO rdist-eu-license.txt - no longer exist, now http://www.magnicomp.com/rdist/rdist-eu-license.shtml YES rdist-v1.1.tar.bz2
YES package meets naming and versioning guidelines. NO specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. -- buildprereq is deprecated YES dist tag is present. YES clean section and buildroot present YES license field matches the actual license YES license is open source-compatible YES license text included in package YES latest version is being packaged YES BuildRequires are proper. N/A compiler flags are appropriate. NO package builds in mock (Rawhide/x86_64). -- YES after changing BuildPreReq to BuildRequires YES debuginfo package looks complete.
NO rpmlint is silent. $ rpmlint rdist.spec rdist.spec:33: E: buildprereq-use byacc bison rdist.spec: E: specfile-error warning: line 33: buildprereq is deprecated: BuildPreReq: byacc bison 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings. rdist.spec: W: invalid-url Source1: http://www.magnicomp.com/rdist/rdist-eu-license.txt HTTP Error 404: Not Found 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
$ rpmlint rdist-6.1.5-51.fc17.src.rpm rdist.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot C Maintains identical copies of files on multiple machines. rdist.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mtime -> mime, time, m time rdist.src:33: E: buildprereq-use byacc bison rdist.src: E: specfile-error warning: line 33: buildprereq is deprecated: BuildPreReq: byacc bison 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 2 warnings.
$ rpmlint rdist-6.1.5-51.fc17.x86_64.rpm rdist.x86_64: W: summary-ended-with-dot C Maintains identical copies of files on multiple machines. rdist.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mtime -> mime, time, m time rdist.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/rdist-6.1.5/rdist-licensing-email.txt rdist.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary oldrdist 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
YES final provides and requires look sane. N/A %check is present and all tests pass. YES no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. YES owns the directories it creates. YES doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. YES no duplicates in %files. N/A scriptlets must be sane. YES code, not content. N/A large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. YES %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. YES no headers. YES no pkgconfig files. YES no libtool .la droppings. YES not a GUI app.
Notes: Maybe put oldrdist in its own package. Licence change to BSD is based only on copy of email, I am not sure if it is OK.
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=226359
--- Comment #2 from Vojtech Vitek vvitek@redhat.com 2011-08-23 09:45:49 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1)
NO rdist-eu-license.txt - no longer exist, now http://www.magnicomp.com/rdist/rdist-eu-license.shtml
Fixed.
NO specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. -- buildprereq is deprecated
s/BuildPreReq/BuildRequires/ (it is tag, not macro, btw)
NO package builds in mock (Rawhide/x86_64). -- YES after changing BuildPreReq to BuildRequires
Ok now.
NO rpmlint is silent. $ rpmlint rdist.spec rdist.spec:33: E: buildprereq-use byacc bison rdist.spec: E: specfile-error warning: line 33: buildprereq is deprecated: BuildPreReq: byacc bison 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings. rdist.spec: W: invalid-url Source1: http://www.magnicomp.com/rdist/rdist-eu-license.txt HTTP Error 404: Not Found 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
$ rpmlint rdist-6.1.5-51.fc17.src.rpm rdist.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot C Maintains identical copies of files on multiple machines. rdist.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mtime -> mime, time, m time rdist.src:33: E: buildprereq-use byacc bison rdist.src: E: specfile-error warning: line 33: buildprereq is deprecated: BuildPreReq: byacc bison 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 2 warnings. $ rpmlint rdist-6.1.5-51.fc17.x86_64.rpm rdist.x86_64: W: summary-ended-with-dot C Maintains identical copies of files on multiple machines. rdist.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mtime -> mime, time, m time rdist.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/rdist-6.1.5/rdist-licensing-email.txt rdist.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary oldrdist 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
Fixed.
Notes: Maybe put oldrdist in its own package.
This would break the backward-compatibility -Server option. See man rdist(1).
Licence change to BSD is based only on copy of email, I am not sure if it is OK.
Re-license granted by the original author, thus OK.
Is there anything else, Lukas?
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=226359
--- Comment #3 from Lukáš Nykrýn lnykryn@redhat.com 2011-08-23 10:18:08 EDT --- %clean section and rm at the start of %install section are no longer necessary. So it will maybe good to remove them.
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=226359
--- Comment #4 from Vojtech Vitek vvitek@redhat.com 2011-08-24 09:09:39 EDT --- (In reply to comment #3)
%clean section and rm at the start of %install section are no longer necessary. So it will maybe good to remove them.
Both removed.
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=226359
Lukáš Nykrýn lnykryn@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Lukáš Nykrýn lnykryn@redhat.com 2011-08-24 09:24:42 EDT --- I think that everything is OK now.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org