[Bug 879878] New: Review Request: xs-tools - OLPC XS Tools
by Red Hat Bugzilla
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879878
Bug ID: 879878
Summary: Review Request: xs-tools - OLPC XS Tools
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: Package Review
Severity: medium
Priority: unspecified
Reporter: kparmar4(a)myseneca.ca
Spec URL: https://www.dropbox.com/s/sd3fchjiyxwy2l9/xs-tools.spec
SRPM URL:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/eks4q3mts7lw5hd/xs-tools-0.5.5.g49ddc07-1.0.2.f...
Description: Hi, I have rebuild this package to meet Fedora Packaging Guideline
and require a review. I obtained the original package from
build.laptop.org.au/xs/XS-0.7+/repos/XS-F17ARM/SRPMS/xs-tools-0.5.5.g49ddc07-1.fc17.src.rpm
I would appreciate your feedback and review.
Fedora Account System Username: kparmar4
Output of Fedora-Review Tool:
Package Review
==============
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
=======
[!]: Package installs properly.
Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines
===== MUST items =====
Generic:
[ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries.
[ ]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
[ ]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[ ]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[ ]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[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 %doc.
[ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"Unknown or generated". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/kparmar4/rpmbuild/SRPMS/review-xs-
tools/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: No %config files under /usr.
[ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.
Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[ ]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[!]: Package installs properly.
Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
[ ]: Package is not relocatable.
[ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: CheckResultdir
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[ ]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 92160 bytes in 33 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
[ ]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process.
[ ]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[ ]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic:
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[ ]: Buildroot is not present
Note: Buildroot: present but not needed
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[ ]: 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]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[ ]: Latest version is packaged.
[ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[ ]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments
[x]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[ ]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[ ]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic:
[!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: Mock build failed
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
arched.
Installation errors
-------------------
INFO: mock.py version 1.1.26 starting...
Start: init plugins
INFO: selinux enabled
Finish: init plugins
Start: run
Mock Version: 1.1.26
INFO: Mock Version: 1.1.26
Start: lock buildroot
INFO: installing package(s):
/home/kparmar4/rpmbuild/SRPMS/review-xs-tools/results/xs-tools-0.5.5.g49ddc07-1.0.2.fc17.noarch.rpm
ERROR: Command failed:
# ['/usr/bin/yum', '--installroot', '/var/lib/mock/fedora-17-i386/root/',
'install',
'/home/kparmar4/rpmbuild/SRPMS/review-xs-tools/results/xs-tools-0.5.5.g49ddc07-1.0.2.fc17.noarch.rpm',
'--setopt=tsflags=nocontexts']
Error: Package: xs-tools-0.5.5.g49ddc07-1.0.2.fc17.noarch
(/xs-tools-0.5.5.g49ddc07-1.0.2.fc17.noarch)
Requires: xs-config
You could try using --skip-broken to work around the problem
You could try running: rpm -Va --nofiles --nodigest
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: xs-tools-0.5.5.g49ddc07-1.0.2.fc17.noarch.rpm
xs-tools-0.5.5.g49ddc07-1.0.2.fc17.src.rpm
xs-tools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary xs-restore
xs-tools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary xs-sum
xs-tools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary xs-check
xs-tools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary xs-encrypt
xs-tools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary xs-backup
xs-tools.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
http://dev.laptop.org/git/packages/xs-tools/snapshot/xs-tools-0.5.5.g49dd...
HTTP Error 404: Not found
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings.
Requires
--------
xs-tools-0.5.5.g49ddc07-1.0.2.fc17.noarch.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/bin/bash
/bin/sh
/usr/bin/python
config(xs-tools) = 0.5.5.g49ddc07-1.0.2.fc17
coreutils
pygpgme
python
python(abi) = 2.7
xs-config
Provides
--------
xs-tools-0.5.5.g49ddc07-1.0.2.fc17.noarch.rpm:
config(xs-tools) = 0.5.5.g49ddc07-1.0.2.fc17
xs-tools = 0.5.5.g49ddc07-1.0.2.fc17
MD5-sum check
-------------
Generated by fedora-review 0.3.1 (b71abc1) last change: 2012-10-16
Buildroot used: fedora-17-i386
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --rpm-spec --name xs-tools
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
11 years, 6 months
[Bug 832831] New: Review Request: php-pirum-Pirum - A simple PEAR channel server manager
by Red Hat Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=832831
Bug ID: 832831
QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
Severity: medium
Version: rawhide
Priority: medium
CC: notting(a)redhat.com,
package-review(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Assignee: nobody(a)fedoraproject.org
Summary: Review Request: php-pirum-Pirum - A simple PEAR
channel server manager
Regression: ---
Story Points: ---
Classification: Fedora
OS: Linux
Reporter: shawn.iwinski(a)gmail.com
Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Hardware: All
Mount Type: ---
Status: NEW
Component: Package Review
Product: Fedora
Spec URL:
http://people.redhat.com/~siwinski/rpmbuild/SPECS/php-pirum-Pirum.spec
SRPM URL:
http://people.redhat.com/~siwinski/rpmbuild/SRPMS/php-pirum-Pirum-1.1.4-1...
Description: Pirum is a simple and nice looking PEAR channel server manager
that lets you
setup PEAR channel servers in a matter of minutes. Pirum is best suited when
you want to create small PEAR channels for a few packages written by a few
developers.
Pirum consists of just one file: a command line tool written in PHP. There are
no external dependencies, no need for a database, and nothing needs to be
installed or configured.
As of Pirum 1.1, a composer repository is generated as well.
Fedora Account System Username: siwinski
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
11 years, 6 months
[Bug 879737] New: Review Request: mu-maildir - maildir indexer and query tool
by Red Hat Bugzilla
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879737
Bug ID: 879737
Summary: Review Request: mu-maildir - maildir indexer and query
tool
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: Package Review
Severity: medium
Priority: unspecified
Reporter: georgi.t.valkov(a)gmail.com
Spec URL: https://dl.dropbox.com/u/23916303/ee6phiYi/mu-maildir.spec
SRPM URL:
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/23916303/ee6phiYi/mu-maildir-0.9.9-1.fc17.src.rpm
Description:
> Mu is a tool for dealing with e-mail messages stored in the Maildir
> format. Mu's main purpose is to quickly find and manipulate
> messages. Features include:
>
> - Fast indexing of Maildir, Maildir+ and Maildir-on-VFAT
> - Searching for messages based on numerous criteria
> - Support for encrypted and signed messages
> - Access/case normalization
> - Integration with other email clients such as mutt and wanderlust
%description -n emacs-mu4e
> Mu4e is an email client for Emacs that uses the mu utility to interact
> with Maildir mailboxes. Mu4e is designed to enable super-efficient
> handling of email: searching, reading, replying, moving and
> deleting. Features include:
>
> - Fully search-based: there are no folders, only queries
> - UI optimized for speed with quick key strokes for common actions
> - Fully documented, with example configurations
> - Asynchronous: heavy actions never block emacs
> - Write rich-text emails using org-mode (experimental)
> - Address auto-completion based on your messages
> - Extendable in many places using custom actions
In short, this package provides the mu maildir indexer and the mu4e emacs mode
built on top of mu. They share the same code base. Packages that the attached
spec produces:
- mu-maildir
- emacs-mu4e
- emacs-mu4e-el
The upstream name is indeed just 'mu', but 'mu-maildir' seemed like a more
reasonable name for the main package. In Debian, 'mu' is packaged as
'maildir-utils'.
> $ rpmlint mu-maildir.spec
> mu-maildir.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: http://mu0.googlecode.com/files/mu-0.9.9.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not Found
> 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
The warning can be disregarded (see Bug 767739).
This is my first package review request. I would be thankful to anyone willing
to sponsor me.
Fedora Account System Username: gvalkov
Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4722684
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
11 years, 6 months