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/show_bug.cgi?id=359911
Summary: Review Request: drupal-views - Provides a method for site designers to control content presentation Product: Fedora Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: limb@jcomserv.net QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: fedora-package-review@redhat.com,notting@redhat.com
Spec URL: http://zanoni.jcomserv.net/fedora/drupal-views/drupal-views.spec SRPM URL: http://zanoni.jcomserv.net/fedora/drupal-views/drupal-views-1.6-1.fc7.src.rp... Description: The views module provides a flexible method for Drupal site designers to control how lists of content (nodes) are presented. Traditionally, Drupal has hard-coded most of this, particularly in how taxonomy and tracker lists are formatted.
This tool is essentially a smart query builder that, given enough information, can build the proper query, execute it, and display the results. It has four modes, plus a special mode, and provides an impressive amount of functionality from these modes.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: drupal-views - Provides a method for site designers to control content presentation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=359911
limb@jcomserv.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO| |359941 nThis| |
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: drupal-views - Provides a method for site designers to control content presentation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=359911
bugzilla@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Version|devel |rawhide
------- Additional Comments From ben.lewis@benl.co.uk 2008-02-10 18:20 EST ------- rpmlint is complaining about: drupal-views.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /usr/share/drupal/modules/views/modules 02755 drupal-views.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /usr/share/drupal/modules/views/po 02755 drupal-views.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/share/drupal/modules/views/modules/views_forum.inc
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: drupal-views - Provides a method for site designers to control content presentation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=359911
------- Additional Comments From limb@jcomserv.net 2008-02-11 07:21 EST ------- Odd, I just rebuilt based on this spec on f8 and I only get:
drupal-views.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/share/drupal/modules/views/modules/views_forum.inc
Which isn't a problem, not sure.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: drupal-views - Provides a method for site designers to control content presentation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=359911
------- Additional Comments From ben.lewis@benl.co.uk 2008-02-11 07:32 EST ------- I do a lot of work with Drupal, so I'll ask upstream about that zero-length file (I've got a few of them on different servers, and I'm wondering why its like that).
I'm definitely still getting those rpmlint errors... and when I rpm -i the package they are set mode 02755. If you untar the source then they are set to that mode in there, which is probably the problem.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: drupal-views - Provides a method for site designers to control content presentation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=359911
------- Additional Comments From limb@jcomserv.net 2008-02-11 07:43 EST ------- On my system, whether installed or in BUILD/views, they're 0755.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: drupal-views - Provides a method for site designers to control content presentation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=359911
------- Additional Comments From ben.lewis@benl.co.uk 2008-02-11 13:12 EST ------- Upstream say that that blank file is just a placeholder: http://drupal.org/node/220326 so it can be ignored.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: drupal-views - Provides a method for site designers to control content presentation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=359911
------- Additional Comments From limb@jcomserv.net 2008-02-13 11:09 EST ------- Ok. I'll leave it in place in case it's used.
What about the perms issue? I can't reproduce it.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: drupal-views - Provides a method for site designers to control content presentation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=359911
------- Additional Comments From ben.lewis@benl.co.uk 2008-02-13 14:12 EST ------- I don't know, sorry, and I'm not sponsored so i can't actually approve this, I havn't looked too deeply, but it seems ok to me.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: drupal-views - Provides a method for site designers to control content presentation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=359911
------- Additional Comments From limb@jcomserv.net 2008-02-13 14:16 EST ------- Ok. Thanks! I'd sponsor you myself but I'm not a sponsor. :)
I assume you have a review request out there that indicates you need a sponsor?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: drupal-views - Provides a method for site designers to control content presentation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=359911
------- Additional Comments From ben.lewis@benl.co.uk 2008-02-13 14:32 EST ------- Actually, no. I was originally going to take over the Yakuake package, but was beaten to it. I'm actually thinking of packaging up some Drupal modules and themes myself now, thats why I 'reviewed' this.
I thought of an odd issue though, to do with Drupal Module versioning schemes: Say a module is currently 5.x-2.0, it would be packaged as 2.0, yes, but when that module is ported to core 6.0 it would now be 6.x-1.0, necessitating an epoch bump if we wish to call it version 1.0? Is that the intention?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: drupal-views - Provides a method for site designers to control content presentation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=359911
------- Additional Comments From limb@jcomserv.net 2008-02-13 14:53 EST ------- (In reply to comment #9)
Actually, no. I was originally going to take over the Yakuake package, but was beaten to it. I'm actually thinking of packaging up some Drupal modules and themes myself now, thats why I 'reviewed' this.
I see. Practice makes perfect. :)
I thought of an odd issue though, to do with Drupal Module versioning schemes: Say a module is currently 5.x-2.0, it would be packaged as 2.0, yes, but when that module is ported to core 6.0 it would now be 6.x-1.0, necessitating an epoch bump if we wish to call it version 1.0? Is that the intention?
Well, not necessarily. As this is the first drupal module in Fedora, this would be the place to decide that. The versioning as I have it now strips ouit the drupal core version and leaves just the module version. I handle the drupal core requirement in the Requires.
My assumption going forward is that there will only be one major version of drupal in each Fedora release, so that I should probably put a 'less than' clause in the Requires. The catch is that this would mean that I'd really need to coordinate the updating of drupal core with all the modules. I suppose I could look at perl and it's modules as a model for how to handle that.
Not being a heavy drupal customizer myself, I'm curious how quickly after a major version release modules get updated.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: drupal-views - Provides a method for site designers to control content presentation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=359911
------- Additional Comments From ben.lewis@benl.co.uk 2008-02-13 15:08 EST ------- I'm thinking of the CAPTCHA module is currently on version 5.x-3.1, whenever that is ported to Drupal 6 (and I may have to do it myself for a client in a week or so if it isn't) its version number will become 6.x-1.0, hence the problem as the upgrade path 3.1 -> 1.0 would be broken, requiring and epoch bump so it becomes 1:3.1 -> 2:1.0 (I _think_ that is what happens).
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: drupal-views - Provides a method for site designers to control content presentation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=359911
------- Additional Comments From ben.lewis@benl.co.uk 2008-02-13 15:09 EST ------- My bad, it has a -dev version! But that dosn't affect the above.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: drupal-views - Provides a method for site designers to control content presentation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=359911
------- Additional Comments From limb@jcomserv.net 2008-02-13 15:26 EST ------- Yeah, maybe including major version would help. You're right, an epoch bump would be required in that instance, if they restart the module versioning at 1.0. I'll play with it.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: drupal-views - Provides a method for site designers to control content presentation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=359911
------- Additional Comments From limb@jcomserv.net 2008-02-14 13:20 EST ------- Spec URL: http://zanoni.jcomserv.net/fedora/drupal-views/drupal-views.spec SRPM URL: http://zanoni.jcomserv.net/fedora/drupal-views/drupal-views-5.x.1.6-1.fc8.sr...
Altered version format to address the above.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: drupal-views - Provides a method for site designers to control content presentation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=359911
------- Additional Comments From limb@jcomserv.net 2008-02-22 13:22 EST ------- Drupal 6.0 hitting rawhide, 6.x version of this module not yet ready.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: drupal-views - Provides a method for site designers to control content presentation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=359911
------- Additional Comments From limb@jcomserv.net 2008-06-16 15:58 EST ------- Spec URL: http://zanoni.jcomserv.net/fedora/drupal-views/drupal-views.spec SRPM URL: http://zanoni.jcomserv.net/fedora/drupal-views/drupal-views-6.x.2.0-0.beta4....
Updated for drupal 6.0, ready to review.
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=359911
Till Maas opensource@till.name changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |opensource@till.name AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |opensource@till.name
--- Comment #17 from Till Maas opensource@till.name 2008-08-08 18:03:47 EDT --- [OK] rpmlint output: silent under normal conditions [OK] Spec in %{name}.spec format
[OK] license allowed: GPLv2 [OK] license matches shortname in License: tag LICENSE.txt indicates GPLv2 [OK] license in tarball and included in %doc:
[OK] package is code or permissive content: [OK] Source0 is a working URL [OK] Source0 matches Upstream: 7c69feceffdef7e12ca42a479335f2bc views-6.x-2.0-beta4.tar.gz
[OK] Package builds on all platforms: noarch [OK] BuildRequires are complete (mock builds) (OK) No file dependencies outside of /etc /bin /sbin /usr/bin /usr/sbin
[OK] Prefix: /usr not used (not relocatable)
[OK] Owns all created directories [NOT OK] no duplicates in %files The following files are also copied in /usr/share/drupal/modules/views CHANGELOG.txt LICENSE.txt README.txt drupal-views-fedora-README.txt
[OK] %defattr(-,root,root,-) is in every %files section [OK] Does not own files or dirs from other packages [OK] included filenames are in UTF-8
[OK] %clean is rm -rf %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [OK] %install starts with rm -rf %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[OK] Consistent macro usage
[OK] large documentation is -doc subpackage [OK] %doc does not affect runtime
{OK} no pre-built binaries (.a, .so*, executable)
{Ok} well known BuildRoot %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
{Ok} PreReq not used
{Ok} no duplication of system libraries
{OK} no rpath
{NOT OK} Timestamps preserved with cp and install https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Timestamps The drupal-views-fedora-README.txt file is copied without preserving the timestamp, install -p -m 0644 would be probably the best option
{OK} Requires(pre,post) style notation not used
{Ok} only writes to tmp /var/tmp $TMPDIR %{_tmppath} %{_builddir} (and %{buildroot} on %install and %clean)
{Ok} no Conflicts
{Ok} nothing installed in /srv
{Ok} Changelog in allowed format https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Changelogs
{OK} does not use Scriptlets
<Ok> Architecture independent packages have: BuildArch: noarch
{NOT OK} Follows Naming Guidelines http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Pre-Release_package... The Release is missing and additional integer, it should be:
0.1.beta4%{?dist} ^- this is missing
The second number needs to be bumped every time you change something, until it is properly released.
Additional: The Copying SOURCE1 should go into %prep, because it is not a build step. You can leave the %build section empty.
In conclusion: - The duplicate .txt files should not be copied - The timestamp of SOURCE1 should be preserved - The release should be created according to the Naming Guidelines Iirc, these issues are present in your other drupal review requests.
Btw. I also see the 02755 permissions warnings, but I know why they are there! ;-) The BUILD directory of by rpmbuild user has this permissions and therefore every directory that is created there, too. You could run a recursive chmod on everything after copying it, to avoid this.
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=359911
--- Comment #18 from Jon Ciesla limb@jcomserv.net 2008-08-11 14:17:54 EDT --- Fixed all but the last chmod comment. I don't see the error you mention, are these in rpmlint? rpmlint -i is clean for me.
Spec URL: http://zanoni.jcomserv.net/fedora/drupal-views/drupal-views.spec SRPM URL: http://zanoni.jcomserv.net/fedora/drupal-views/drupal-views-6.x.2.0-0.1.beta...
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=359911
--- Comment #19 from Till Maas opensource@till.name 2008-08-12 09:04:02 EDT --- (In reply to comment #18)
Fixed all but the last chmod comment. I don't see the error you mention, are these in rpmlint? rpmlint -i is clean for me.
You see the error after you run "chmod g+s BUILD" where BUILD is the BUILD directory you use for rpmbuild, afaik the default is ~/rpmbuild/BUILD. I normally build rpms as a differenty user and therefore I set the BUILD directy sgid, to have some permissions as my normal user. But this is not really something that needs to be fixed, because in Fedora the rpms are built within mock.
Spec URL: http://zanoni.jcomserv.net/fedora/drupal-views/drupal-views.spec SRPM URL: http://zanoni.jcomserv.net/fedora/drupal-views/drupal-views-6.x.2.0-0.1.beta...
Everything you fixed looks good. I was about to approve the package, but then I noticed the 6.x in the version tag. I am not sure, whether it should be there or better be a part of the package name:
Name: drupal-views-6.x Version: 2.0
Because there are seveveral releases for several drupal branches listed on http://drupal.org/project/views
What is your opinion about this?
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=359911
--- Comment #20 from Jon Ciesla limb@jcomserv.net 2008-08-12 10:25:14 EDT --- (In reply to comment #19)
(In reply to comment #18)
Fixed all but the last chmod comment. I don't see the error you mention, are these in rpmlint? rpmlint -i is clean for me.
You see the error after you run "chmod g+s BUILD" where BUILD is the BUILD directory you use for rpmbuild, afaik the default is ~/rpmbuild/BUILD. I normally build rpms as a differenty user and therefore I set the BUILD directy sgid, to have some permissions as my normal user. But this is not really something that needs to be fixed, because in Fedora the rpms are built within mock.
I don't see were in the spec or build process this happens. Maybe it's just the time of day and my caffiene level, but. . .
Spec URL: http://zanoni.jcomserv.net/fedora/drupal-views/drupal-views.spec SRPM URL: http://zanoni.jcomserv.net/fedora/drupal-views/drupal-views-6.x.2.0-0.1.beta...
Everything you fixed looks good. I was about to approve the package, but then I noticed the 6.x in the version tag. I am not sure, whether it should be there or better be a part of the package name:
Name: drupal-views-6.x Version: 2.0
Because there are seveveral releases for several drupal branches listed on http://drupal.org/project/views
What is your opinion about this?
I was thinking it's best left in the version, for easier dependency referencing, and so we don't need a whole new review for each module when Drupal bumps it's major version number.
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=359911
--- Comment #21 from Till Maas opensource@till.name 2008-08-12 11:01:55 EDT --- (In reply to comment #20)
(In reply to comment #19)
(In reply to comment #18)
Fixed all but the last chmod comment. I don't see the error you mention, are these in rpmlint? rpmlint -i is clean for me.
You see the error after you run "chmod g+s BUILD" where BUILD is the BUILD directory you use for rpmbuild, afaik the default is ~/rpmbuild/BUILD. I normally build rpms as a differenty user and therefore I set the BUILD directy sgid, to have some permissions as my normal user. But this is not really something that needs to be fixed, because in Fedora the rpms are built within mock.
I don't see were in the spec or build process this happens. Maybe it's just the time of day and my caffiene level, but. . .
It does not happen anywhere. I set the BUILD directory on my build machine to sgid and then I get the 02755 errors from rpmlint for packages that do not set the permissions explicitly. It only meant to explain how one can get the rpmlint error because Benjamin experienced them, too.
Spec URL: http://zanoni.jcomserv.net/fedora/drupal-views/drupal-views.spec SRPM URL: http://zanoni.jcomserv.net/fedora/drupal-views/drupal-views-6.x.2.0-0.1.beta...
Everything you fixed looks good. I was about to approve the package, but then I noticed the 6.x in the version tag. I am not sure, whether it should be there or better be a part of the package name:
Name: drupal-views-6.x Version: 2.0
Because there are seveveral releases for several drupal branches listed on http://drupal.org/project/views
What is your opinion about this?
I was thinking it's best left in the version, for easier dependency referencing, and so we don't need a whole new review for each module when Drupal bumps it's major version number.
ok. I noticed there is atleast one other packages with this version-scheme in Fedora, so I guess it is not a problem. This packages is hereby APPROVED.
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=359911
--- Comment #22 from Jon Ciesla limb@jcomserv.net 2008-08-12 13:01:31 EDT ---
Ah, I see. Many thanks!
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: drupal-views Short Description: Provides a method for site designers to control content presentation Owners: limb Branches: F-9 InitialCC: Cvsextras Commits: yes
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=359911
--- Comment #23 from Kevin Fenzi kevin@tummy.com 2008-08-12 13:15:01 EDT --- cvs done.
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=359911
--- Comment #24 from Jon Ciesla limb@jcomserv.net 2008-09-15 13:36:40 EDT --- Built, update requested.
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=359911
--- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2008-09-16 19:28:07 EDT --- drupal-views-6.x.2.0-0.1.beta4.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
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=359911
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE
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=359911
Jon Ciesla limb@jcomserv.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #26 from Jon Ciesla limb@jcomserv.net 2010-10-14 10:01:48 EDT --- Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: drupal-views New Branches: el5 el6 Owners: limb
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=359911
--- Comment #27 from Kevin Fenzi kevin@tummy.com 2010-10-16 17:11:38 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org