[Bug 1033797] New: Review Request: golang-labix-mgo - The mgo rich MongoDB driver for Go
by Red Hat Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1033797
Bug ID: 1033797
Summary: Review Request: golang-labix-mgo - The mgo rich
MongoDB driver for Go
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: Package Review
Severity: medium
Priority: medium
Assignee: nobody(a)fedoraproject.org
Reporter: vbatts(a)redhat.com
QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: http://vbatts.fedorapeople.org/rpmbuild/SPECS/golang-labix-mgo.spec
SRPM URL:
http://vbatts.fedorapeople.org/rpmbuild/SRPMS/golang-labix-mgo-2013.11.18...
Description: The mgo rich MongoDB driver for Go
Fedora Account System Username: vbatts
$ rpmlint golang-labix-mgo.spec
golang-labix-mgo.spec:41: W: setup-not-quiet
golang-labix-mgo.spec: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install
golang-labix-mgo.spec: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %clean
golang-labix-mgo.spec: W: no-buildroot-tag
golang-labix-mgo.spec: W: no-%clean-section
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
$ fedpkg scratch-build --srpm
/home/vbatts/rpmbuild/SRPMS/golang-launchpad-goyaml-0-0.1.bzr50.el6.src.rpm
Exception AttributeError: '_read_only' in <bound method write.__del__ of
<git.config.write object at 0x1d78e50>> ignored
[====================================] 100% 00:00:00 57.36 KiB 95.22 KiB/sec
Building golang-launchpad-goyaml-0-0.1.bzr50.el6.src.rpm for rawhide
Created task: 6215573
Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6215573
Watching tasks (this may be safely interrupted)...
6215573 build (rawhide, golang-launchpad-goyaml-0-0.1.bzr50.el6.src.rpm): open
(buildvm-21.phx2.fedoraproject.org)
6215574 buildArch (golang-launchpad-goyaml-0-0.1.bzr50.el6.src.rpm, armv7hl):
free
6215575 buildArch (golang-launchpad-goyaml-0-0.1.bzr50.el6.src.rpm, x86_64):
free
6215576 buildArch (golang-launchpad-goyaml-0-0.1.bzr50.el6.src.rpm, i686):
free
6215574 buildArch (golang-launchpad-goyaml-0-0.1.bzr50.el6.src.rpm, armv7hl):
free -> open (arm02-builder02.arm.fedoraproject.org)
6215575 buildArch (golang-launchpad-goyaml-0-0.1.bzr50.el6.src.rpm, x86_64):
free -> open (buildvm-04.phx2.fedoraproject.org)
6215576 buildArch (golang-launchpad-goyaml-0-0.1.bzr50.el6.src.rpm, i686):
free -> open (buildvm-01.phx2.fedoraproject.org)
6215576 buildArch (golang-launchpad-goyaml-0-0.1.bzr50.el6.src.rpm, i686):
open (buildvm-01.phx2.fedoraproject.org) -> closed
0 free 3 open 1 done 0 failed
6215575 buildArch (golang-launchpad-goyaml-0-0.1.bzr50.el6.src.rpm, x86_64):
open (buildvm-04.phx2.fedoraproject.org) -> closed
0 free 2 open 2 done 0 failed
6215574 buildArch (golang-launchpad-goyaml-0-0.1.bzr50.el6.src.rpm, armv7hl):
open (arm02-builder02.arm.fedoraproject.org) -> closed
0 free 1 open 3 done 0 failed
6215573 build (rawhide, golang-launchpad-goyaml-0-0.1.bzr50.el6.src.rpm): open
(buildvm-21.phx2.fedoraproject.org) -> closed
0 free 0 open 4 done 0 failed
6215573 build (rawhide, golang-launchpad-goyaml-0-0.1.bzr50.el6.src.rpm)
completed successfully
--
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
8 years, 8 months
[Bug 759818] Review Request: buffer - General purpose buffer program
by Red Hat Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=759818
Miroslav Suchý <msuchy(a)redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |msuchy(a)redhat.com
Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |msuchy(a)redhat.com
--- Comment #8 from Miroslav Suchý <msuchy(a)redhat.com> ---
Please use macros consistently
I.e. instead of $RPM_BUILD_ROOT please use %{buildroot}.
BuildRoot tag is not needed unless you target EL5.
French translation of description:
1) does not start with capital
2) does not end with dot
3) is not full translation of the original text
Therefore I would suggest to remove it completly.
%install
%{__rm} -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
is not needed unless you target EL5
The same for
%clean
%{__rm} -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
and
%defattr(-,root,root,-)
You should mark COPYING as license. i.e. use
%license COPYING
Dist tag should be used conditionally:
%{?dist}
- Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /tmp/review-buffer/diff.txt
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL
--
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
8 years, 8 months
[Bug 1148460] New: Review Request: golang-github-SeanDolphin-bqschema - Package for creating Google Big Query from Go structs
by Red Hat Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1148460
Bug ID: 1148460
Summary: Review Request: golang-github-SeanDolphin-bqschema -
Package for creating Google Big Query from Go structs
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: Package Review
Severity: medium
Priority: medium
Assignee: nobody(a)fedoraproject.org
Reporter: jchaloup(a)redhat.com
QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL:
https://jchaloup.fedorapeople.org/reviews/golang-github-SeanDolphin-bqsch...
SRPM URL:
https://jchaloup.fedorapeople.org/reviews/golang-github-SeanDolphin-bqsch...
Description: BQSchema is a package used to created Google Big Query schema
directly from Go structs and import BigQuery QueryResponse into arrays of Go
structs.
Fedora Account System Username: jchaloup
Koji: Depends on golang-github-onsi-gomega and golang-github-onsi-ginkgo, which
waits for review. Locally package is building succesfully.
$ rpmlint golang-github-SeanDolphin-bqschema.spec
/root/rpmbuild/SRPMS/golang-github-SeanDolphin-bqschema-0-0.0.gita713d26.fc21.src.rpm
/root/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/golang-github-SeanDolphin-bqschema-devel-0-0.0.gita713d26.fc21.noarch.rpm
golang-github-SeanDolphin-bqschema.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US)
structs -> struts, instructs, destructs
golang-github-SeanDolphin-bqschema.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
structs -> struts, instructs, destructs
golang-github-SeanDolphin-bqschema-devel.noarch: W: spelling-error
Summary(en_US) structs -> struts, instructs, destructs
golang-github-SeanDolphin-bqschema-devel.noarch: W: spelling-error %description
-l en_US structs -> struts, instructs, destructs
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
--
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
8 years, 8 months
[Bug 673585] Review Request: perl-Apache-Htgroup - Manage Apache htgroup files
by Red Hat Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=673585
Parag AN(पराग) <panemade(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flags|needinfo?(panemade(a)gmail.co |
|m) |
--- Comment #11 from Parag AN(पराग) <panemade(a)gmail.com> ---
I just asked a simple question if submitter is around? If he is, I will sponsor
him.
(In reply to Mamoru TASAKA from comment #10)
> Also, it is reasonable that FE-NEEDSPONSOR people has no FAS.
Sorry, but I really think FAS is MUST when you want to contribute a package in
Fedora which is also documented on package review process wiki page by
following
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers#Cr...
Anyways as you suggested here is my review for srpm submitted in comment#7
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
=======
- Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
Note: Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#macros
==> I think this is self-explanatory how to fix this in spec file.
- 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.
Note: License file LICENSE is marked as %doc instead of %license
See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
=> For this please move LICENSE file to %license macro just below %doc as
%license LICENSE
- Ask upstream to update fsf address in LICENSE file.
- Group tag is optional in spec, you can remove it.
===== 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: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in /home/parag/Downloads/perl-Apache-
Htgroup/licensecheck.txt
[-]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
must be documented in the spec.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
Note: Dirs in package are owned also by:
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Apache(perl-Apache-DBI, ocsinventory-
server, perl-Apache-LogRegex, perl-XMLRPC-Lite, perl-Apache-Session-
LDAP, perl-Apache-Session-NoSQL, perl-Apache-DBI-Cache, perl-Apache-
Session-Browseable, perl-SOAP-Lite, perl-Apache-LogFormat-Compiler,
perl-Apache-Htpasswd, perl-Apache-RPC, perl-Apache-Session, perl-
Frontier-RPC, perl-Maypole)
==> This is okay based on
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_and_Directory_Ow...
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required
=> Please remove this removal of buildroot line from spec as its not needed
nowadays as rpm will take care of it.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[!]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
Note: %defattr present but not needed
=> Please remove this defattr line from spec as its not needed nowadays as rpm
will take care of it.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[-]: 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 30720 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
=> Except the optional things now in spec is not removed.
[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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[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
Perl:
[x]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires and Requires:.
[x]: CPAN urls should be non-versioned.
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic:
[!]: Buildroot is not present
Note: Buildroot: present but not needed
=> Please remove this defattr line from spec as its not needed nowadays as rpm
will take care of it.
[-]: 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).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[-]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: 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.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[!]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
Note: %define requiring justification: %define realname Apache-Htgroup
=> As given above please use %global. See more on this
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#.25global_preferred_o...
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: perl-Apache-Htgroup-1.23-2.fc24.noarch.rpm
perl-Apache-Htgroup-1.23-2.fc24.src.rpm
perl-Apache-Htgroup.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/share/doc/perl-Apache-Htgroup/LICENSE
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory
perl-Apache-Htgroup.noarch: W: invalid-url URL:
http://search.cpan.org/dist/Apache-Htgroup/ <urlopen error [Errno -5] No
address associated with hostname>
perl-Apache-Htgroup.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/share/doc/perl-Apache-Htgroup/LICENSE
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings.
Requires
--------
perl-Apache-Htgroup (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.22.0)
perl(strict)
perl(vars)
Provides
--------
perl-Apache-Htgroup:
perl(Apache::Htgroup)
perl-Apache-Htgroup
Source checksums
----------------
http://search.cpan.org/CPAN/authors/id/R/RB/RBOW/Apache-Htgroup-1.23.tar.gz :
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
915ddf0d60c7889f417646a6f998c264626336306b906e3a7e21d25eaafb986c
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
915ddf0d60c7889f417646a6f998c264626336306b906e3a7e21d25eaafb986c
Please fix the issues reported above and submit new update by updating release
tag and adding relevant changelog entry.
thanks
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
8 years, 8 months
[Bug 673585] Review Request: perl-Apache-Htgroup - Manage Apache htgroup files
by Red Hat Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=673585
Mamoru TASAKA <mtasaka(a)fedoraproject.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flags| |needinfo?(panemade(a)gmail.co
| |m)
--- Comment #9 from Mamoru TASAKA <mtasaka(a)fedoraproject.org> ---
Parag, why are you setting needinfo from the reporter although the last comment
on this bug is from the "reporter"? What we must do is to respond to the
comment 7, not asking the response from the reporter.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
8 years, 8 months