https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=848108

--- Comment #1 from Ryan O'Hara rohara@redhat.com --- All sources can be found on my fedorapeople page, too.

http://rohara.fedorapeople.org/stud/bumptech-stud-0.3-51-g0b88039.tar.gz http://rohara.fedorapeople.org/stud/stud.service http://rohara.fedorapeople.org/stud/stud.cfg

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=848108

Michael Scherer misc@zarb.org changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |misc@zarb.org Flags| |fedora-review?

--- Comment #3 from Michael Scherer misc@zarb.org --- Additional note : - tarball generation should also be documented ( just how you downloaded would be enough )

here is the review, I will approve once the above point are fixed :

Package Review ==============

Key: - = N/A x = Pass ! = Fail ? = Not evaluated

===== MUST items =====

C/C++: [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

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]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: %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. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [x]: 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 [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf is only needed if supporting EPEL5 [x]: Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "BSD (2 clause)" For detailed output of licensecheck see file: /home/misc/checkout/git/FedoraReview/848108-stud/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: No %config files under /usr. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s) [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]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [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. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine [!]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: Clean is needed only if supporting EPEL5 [x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [!]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: defattr(....) present in %files section. This is OK if packaging for EPEL5. Otherwise not needed [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [x]: Package functions as described. [-]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [!]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [!]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. Note: Source0 (bumptech-stud-0.3-51-g0b88039.tar.gz) [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: 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. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.

Issues: ======= [!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf is only needed if supporting EPEL5 See: None [!]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [!]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: defattr(....) present in %files section. This is OK if packaging for EPEL5. Otherwise not needed [!]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: Clean is needed only if supporting EPEL5

Rpmlint ------- Checking: stud-0.3-1.20120814git.fc17.src.rpm stud-debuginfo-0.3-1.20120814git.fc17.x86_64.rpm stud-0.3-1.20120814git.fc17.x86_64.rpm stud.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unencrypted -> encrypted stud.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US backend -> backed, back end, back-end stud.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multicore -> multicolored stud.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US haproxy -> ha proxy, ha-proxy, proxy stud.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US nginx -> ginning, gigging stud.src: W: invalid-url Source0: bumptech-stud-0.3-51-g0b88039.tar.gz stud.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unencrypted -> encrypted stud.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US backend -> backed, back end, back-end stud.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multicore -> multicolored stud.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US haproxy -> ha proxy, ha-proxy, proxy stud.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US nginx -> ginning, gigging stud.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib stud.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /var/lib/stud stud stud.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /var/lib/stud stud 0 2589503 /var/lib/stud 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 14 warnings.

Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Requires -------- stud-debuginfo-0.3-1.20120814git.fc17.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

stud-0.3-1.20120814git.fc17.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

/bin/sh config(stud) = 0.3-1.20120814git.fc17 libc.so.6()(64bit) libcrypto.so.10()(64bit) libev.so.4()(64bit) libssl.so.10()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) systemd-units

Provides -------- stud-debuginfo-0.3-1.20120814git.fc17.x86_64.rpm:

stud-debuginfo = 0.3-1.20120814git.fc17 stud-debuginfo(x86-64) = 0.3-1.20120814git.fc17

stud-0.3-1.20120814git.fc17.x86_64.rpm:

config(stud) = 0.3-1.20120814git.fc17 stud = 0.3-1.20120814git.fc17 stud(x86-64) = 0.3-1.20120814git.fc17

MD5-sum check -------------

Generated by fedora-review 0.2.0 (a5c4ced) last change: 2012-07-22 Command line :./try-fedora-review -b 848108 External plugins:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=848108

--- Comment #5 from Ryan O'Hara rohara@redhat.com --- (In reply to comment #2)

• the patch should be commented and sent upstream

The patch is distribution specific.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=848108

--- Comment #7 from Michael Scherer misc@zarb.org --- Ryan, since the package is approved, you can ask for a git repository to store it ( in case you missed the approval notice )

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=848108

--- Comment #9 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests).

Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=848108

Michael Scherer misc@zarb.org changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed| |2012-12-10 12:04:13

--- Comment #11 from Michael Scherer misc@zarb.org --- It should have been done automatically, but I think this requires to give the bug number to bodhi. But if the package is there, let's close the bug.