https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1281532

Pavel Raiskup praiskup@redhat.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |praiskup@redhat.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |praiskup@redhat.com Flags| |fedora-review?

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1281532

Pavel Raiskup praiskup@redhat.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |pkajaba@redhat.com Flags| |needinfo?(pkajaba@redhat.co | |m)

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1281532

--- Comment #3 from Pavel Raiskup praiskup@redhat.com --- Thanks for working on this!

We plan to build

- '%global pginstdir %{_libdir}/pgsql' -- this does not seem to be used

- Requires: postgresql-server(:MODULE_COMPAT_%{postgresql_major}) This won't work unless you install postgresql-devel: $ rpm -qpR ./results/pagila-0.10.1-1.fc24.noarch.rpm postgresql-server(:MODULE_COMPAT_%{postgresql_major}) But should be (only when really needed): $ rpm -qpR ./results/pagila-0.10.1-1.fc24.noarch.rpm postgresql-server(:MODULE_COMPAT_9.4) Please, remove. We don't need postgresql-server to install this package, neither postgresql.

- general EPEL5 leftovers we do not need %buildroot/Buildroot usage (rm -rf)

- %defattr is not needed even on EPEL5, the %attr is also neither needed

- would it be possible to try the sql scripts in %check phase? Start local postgresql server and load those into the new database? (optional)

------- I'll check '$ fedora-review -b 1281532 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -d EPEL6' and post the results once this is fixed.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1281532

Pavel Raiskup praiskup@redhat.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+

--- Comment #5 from Pavel Raiskup praiskup@redhat.com --- Package Review ==============

Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed

===== 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. [-]: 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. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: 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. [-]: 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 10240 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [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

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

Generic: [-]: 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). [ ]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: 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. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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]: Buildroot is not present [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]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

===== 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.

Rpmlint ------- Checking: pagila-0.10.1-1.fc24.noarch.rpm pagila-0.10.1-1.fc24.src.rpm pagila.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.10.1-2 ['0.10.1-1.fc24', '0.10.1-1'] 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

praiskup: This has been fixed.

Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory pagila.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.10.1-2 ['0.10.1-1.fc24', '0.10.1-1'] 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

praiskup: This has been fixed.

Requires -------- pagila (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

Provides -------- pagila: pagila

Source checksums ---------------- http://pgfoundry.org/frs/download.php/1719/pagila-0.10.1.zip : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 5779c4c819609bffbfca363b69493ae83a80a38014663e867c42fa65870f1921 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 5779c4c819609bffbfca363b69493ae83a80a38014663e867c42fa65870f1921

Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1281532 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -D EPEL6 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1281532

--- Comment #7 from Pavel Kajaba pkajaba@redhat.com --- Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/cgit/pkajaba/public_git/pagila.git/plain/pagila.spe... SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/cgit/pkajaba/public_git/pagila.git/plain/pagila-0.1...

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1281532

--- Comment #9 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/Pagila

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1281532

--- Comment #11 from Pavel Raiskup praiskup@redhat.com --- Also note that we probably want EPEL-6 and EPEL-7 branches too.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1281532

--- Comment #13 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/pagila

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1281532

Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1281532

--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- pagila-0.10.1-3.el6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 6. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-1721a136c5

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1281532

Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA

--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- pagila-0.10.1-3.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with $ su -c 'yum --enablerepo=epel-testing update pagila' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-204b26af2b

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1281532

--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- pagila-0.10.1-3.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with $ su -c 'yum --enablerepo=epel-testing update pagila' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-1721a136c5

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1281532

--- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- pagila-0.10.1-3.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1281532

--- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- pagila-0.10.1-3.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1281532

Pavel Raiskup praiskup@redhat.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |pingou@pingoured.fr Flags| |needinfo?(pingou@pingoured. | |fr)

--- Comment #26 from Pavel Raiskup praiskup@redhat.com --- Huh :), I'm just curious why scratch build of 'example.spec' resulted into update of this bug. Except for my nick I doubt those spec files have anything in common.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1281532

--- Comment #29 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- pagila-0.10.1-3.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1281532

Pavel Raiskup praiskup@redhat.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed| |2018-06-11 04:00:39