https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853055 gil cattaneo <puntogil(a)libero.it&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends On| |853052, 853050 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853055 --- Comment #2 from Erik Schilling <ablu.erikschilling(a)googlemail.com&gt; --- Sorry just saw this request: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853050 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853055 --- Comment #3 from gil cattaneo <puntogil(a)libero.it&gt; --- Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/mqtt-client.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/mqtt-client-1.5-1.fc18.src.rpm - update to 1.5 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=CQYtRlKqWA&a=cc_unsubscribe

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853055 Douglas Schilling Landgraf <dougsland(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Douglas Schilling Landgraf <dougsland(a)redhat.com&gt; --- Reviewed manually + fedora-review tool 0.4.1 b2e211f [OK] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build produces. The output should be posted in the review Rpmlint ------- Checking: mqtt-client-1.5-1.fc18.noarch.rpm mqtt-client-javadoc-1.5-1.fc18.noarch.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint mqtt-client-javadoc mqtt-client 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [OK] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines [OK] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec [OK] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines [OK] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines . [OK] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. [OK] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [OK] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible [OK] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use sha256sum for this task as it is used by the sources file once imported into git. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this. CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 65f26569e488412545b209816132a4ed9eec4c89098b612d35056b1e856d9f6c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 65f26569e488412545b209816132a4ed9eec4c89098b612d35056b1e856d9f6c [OK] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture [OK] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense. [OK] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.[ [OK] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. [OK] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. [OK] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [OK] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [OK] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. [OK] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8 Java: ======== [OK]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils Note: Maven packages do not need to (Build)Require jpackage-utils. It is pulled in by maven-local [OK]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [OK]: Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc subpackage [OK]: Javadoc subpackages should not have Requires: jpackage-utils [OK]: Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink) [OK]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build [OK]: Packages are noarch unless they use JNI Maven: [OK]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used [OK]: Packages DOES NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on jpackage- utils for %update_maven_depmap macro [OK]: Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun [OK]: Packages use %{_mavenpomdir} instead of %{_datadir}/maven2/poms Should: [OK]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [OK]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [OK]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [OK]: Buildroot is not present [OK]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [OK]: Dist tag is present. [OK]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [OK]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [OK]: SourceX is a working URL. [OK]: Spec use %global instead of %define. Suggestion: ========== - Maven packages should use new style packaging Note: If possible update your package to latest guidelines See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Apache_Maven Final status: APPROVED. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=pvZ9eU8gr1&a=cc_unsubscribe

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853055 Jon Ciesla <limburgher(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-cvs? | Flags| |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=ddSvmB2933&a=cc_unsubscribe

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853055 Bug 853055 depends on bug 853052, which changed state. Bug 853052 Summary: Review Request: hawtdispatch - The libdispatch style API for Java https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853052 What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=KKMIJXUHLc&a=cc_unsubscribe

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853055 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- mqtt-client-1.5-1.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mqtt-client-1.5-1.fc19 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=etDO1gOMZN&a=cc_unsubscribe

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853055 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- mqtt-client-1.5-1.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=zXmFj7EeQX&a=cc_unsubscribe

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853055 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version|mqtt-client-1.5-1.fc19 |mqtt-client-1.5-1.fc18 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- mqtt-client-1.5-1.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=WJJvIgp62R&a=cc_unsubscribe