[Bug 788815] New: Review Request: python-ZSI - python Zolera Soap Infrastructure
by Red Hat Bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: python-ZSI - python Zolera Soap Infrastructure
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=788815
Summary: Review Request: python-ZSI - python Zolera Soap
Infrastructure
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Platform: All
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: medium
Priority: medium
Component: Package Review
AssignedTo: nobody(a)fedoraproject.org
ReportedBy: tim.fenn(a)gmail.com
QAContact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: notting(a)redhat.com,
package-review(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Classification: Fedora
Story Points: ---
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Spec URL: https://sites.google.com/site/timfenn/python-ZSI.spec
SRPM URL: https://sites.google.com/site/timfenn/python-ZSI-2.0-10.fc16.src.rpm
Description: The Zolera SOAP Infrastructure provides libraries for developing
web services
using the python programming language. The libraries implement the various
protocols used when writing web services including SOAP, WSDL, and other
related protocols.
Note: This package was retired due to lack of a maintainer, I came a bit too
late to volunteer to do so, thus the "new package."
--
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.
11 years, 1 month
[Bug 787293] New: Review Request: sparkleshare - Easy file sharing based on git repositories
by Red Hat Bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: sparkleshare - Easy file sharing based on git repositories
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=787293
Summary: Review Request: sparkleshare - Easy file sharing based
on git repositories
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Platform: All
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: medium
Priority: medium
Component: Package Review
AssignedTo: nobody(a)fedoraproject.org
ReportedBy: nikos(a)autoverse.net
QAContact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: notting(a)redhat.com,
package-review(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Classification: Fedora
Story Points: ---
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Spec URL: http://comzeradd.fedorapeople.org/specs/sparkleshare.spec
SRPM URL:
http://repos.fedorapeople.org/repos/comzeradd/autoverse/fedora-16/SRPMS/s...
Description: Easy file sharing based on git repositories. A special folder is
setup and directories/files placed within are placed in a git-based version
control system and synchronized elsewhere.
rpmlint sparkleshare.spec
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
rpmlint ../SRPMS/sparkleshare-0.8.0-1.fc16.src.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
These is my first mono package, so any help is much appreciated
--
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.
11 years, 1 month
[Bug 794725] Review Request: txw2 - Typed XML writer for Java
by Red Hat Bugzilla
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=794725
Andy Grimm <agrimm(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #2 from Andy Grimm <agrimm(a)gmail.com> 2012-03-01 20:00:19 EST ---
Package Review
==============
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x] Rpmlint output:
txw2.src: W: invalid-url Source0: txw2-20110809.tar.gz
txw2-javadoc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Javadocs -> Java docs,
Java-docs, Avocados
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
[x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines[1].
[x] Spec file name must match the base package name, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines[2].
[x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms.
[x] Buildroot definition is not present
[x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines[3,4].
[x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type: CDDL and GPLv2 with exceptions
[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.
[x] All independent sub-packages have license of their own
[x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
MD5SUM this package : 5f324bbcf133eea42305c994f2c575b4
MD5SUM upstream package: 5f324bbcf133eea42305c994f2c575b4
[x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines[5].
[x] Package must own all directories that it creates or must require other
packages for directories it uses.
[x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x] File sections do not contain %defattr(-,root,root,-) unless changed with
good reason
[x] Permissions on files are set properly.
[x] Package does NOT have a %clean section which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}
(or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). (not needed anymore)
[x] Package consistently uses macros (no %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
mixing)
[x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
[x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x] Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
subpackage
[x] Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlinks)
[x] Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
[x] Javadoc subpackages have Require: jpackage-utils
[-] Package uses %global not %define
[x] If package uses tarball from VCS include comment how to re-create that
tarball (svn export URL, git clone URL, ...)
[-] If source tarball includes bundled jar/class files these need to be
removed prior to building
[x] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
[!] Jar files are installed to %{_javadir}/%{name}.jar (see [6] for details)
[x] If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even when
building with ant
[x] pom files has correct add_maven_depmap
=== Maven ===
[x] Use %{_mavenpomdir} macro for placing pom files instead of
%{_datadir}/maven2/poms
[-] If package uses "-Dmaven.test.skip=true" explain why it was needed in a
comment
[-] If package uses custom depmap "-Dmaven.local.depmap.file=*" explain why
it's needed in a comment
[x] Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun
[x] Packages DOES NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on
jpackage-utils for %update_maven_depmap macro
=== Other suggestions ===
[x] If possible use upstream build method (maven/ant/javac)
[x] Avoid having BuildRequires on exact NVR unless necessary
[x] Package has BuildArch: noarch (if possible)
[x] Latest version is packaged.
[x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
Tested on: rawhide
=== Issues ===
1. You've renamed the pom and jar files, and I'm not sure why. The artifact
names are txw2-project (the "master" pom for the build), txw2, and txwc2, and
the package name is txw2, so I don't think that renaming the jars to
"txw2-runtime" and "txw2-compiler" is correct.
=== Final Notes ===
In one of my recent reviews, a reviewer mentioned that when adding your own
patches to a build, it's a good idea to comment in the spec file about the
purpose of each patch. It's a minor thing, but one we should start paying
attention to.
Please fix (or explain) issue #1 and I'll approve the package.
--
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.
11 years, 1 month