https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1393021 --- Comment #1 from marcindulak <Marcin.Dulak(a)gmail.com&gt; --- Update Spec URL: http://marcindulak.fedorapeople.org/packages/pulledpork/r01/pulledpork.spec SRPM URL: http://marcindulak.fedorapeople.org/packages/pulledpork/r01/pulledpork-0.... -- 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

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1393021 Jason Taylor <jtfas90(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #2 from Jason Taylor <jtfas90(a)gmail.com&gt; --- Hi Marcin, A couple of items: 1. LICENSE should be tagged as %license under %files. It is currently listed as %doc in the spec 2. It might be worth getting licensing clarification on contrib/oink-conv.pl. Either include a GPL2 header as pulledpork.pl does or similar indicator. 3. The spec as written does not define ownership of the /etc/pulledpork directory 4. The spec as written does not define ownership of /usr/share/pulledpork 5. Take a look at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Perl for additional items related to packaging perl. Thanks! JT -- 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

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1393021 --- Comment #4 from Jason Taylor <jtfas90(a)gmail.com&gt; --- #4 doesn't appear to be fixed. I show the files under /usr/share/pulledpork directory is still unowned. rpm -ql pulledpork shows: /etc/pulledpork /etc/pulledpork/disablesid.conf /etc/pulledpork/dropsid.conf /etc/pulledpork/enablesid.conf /etc/pulledpork/modifysid.conf /etc/pulledpork/pulledpork.conf /usr/bin/pulledpork /usr/share/doc/pulledpork /usr/share/doc/pulledpork/README.CATEGORIES /usr/share/doc/pulledpork/README.CHANGES /usr/share/doc/pulledpork/README.RULESET /usr/share/doc/pulledpork/README.SHAREDOBJECTS /usr/share/doc/pulledpork/README.md /usr/share/licenses/pulledpork /usr/share/licenses/pulledpork/LICENSE /usr/share/pulledpork/contrib /usr/share/pulledpork/contrib/README.CONTRIB /usr/share/pulledpork/contrib/oink-conv.pl the files are owned but the directory itself is not declared. -- 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

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1393021 --- Comment #6 from Jason Taylor <jtfas90(a)gmail.com&gt; --- looks good. 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. [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. [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. [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. [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 %license. [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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [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]: No %config files under /usr. [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: [-]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires and Requires:. Note: Requires: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_%(eval "`%{__perl} -V:version`"; echo $version)) missing? ===== 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). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [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. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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: pulledpork-0.7.2-1.fc24.noarch.rpm pulledpork-0.7.2-1.fc24.src.rpm pulledpork.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pulledpork 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory pulledpork.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pulledpork 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Requires -------- pulledpork (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/perl config(pulledpork) perl(Archive::Tar) perl(Carp) perl(Crypt::SSLeay) perl(Cwd) perl(Data::Dumper) perl(Digest::MD5) perl(File::Basename) perl(File::Copy) perl(File::Find) perl(File::Path) perl(Getopt::Long) perl(HTTP::Request::Common) perl(HTTP::Status) perl(LWP::Protocol::https) perl(LWP::UserAgent) perl(POSIX) perl(Sys::Syslog) perl(strict) perl(warnings) Provides -------- pulledpork: config(pulledpork) pulledpork Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/shirkdog/pulledpork/archive/v0.7.2.tar.gz#/pulledpork-... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 50046477d5d1a18aec131a56bd3f21170057d8a31fd6f30af706e31d5b14bd0a CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 50046477d5d1a18aec131a56bd3f21170057d8a31fd6f30af706e31d5b14bd0a Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1393021 Buildroot used: fedora-24-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Perl Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6 -- 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

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1393021 --- Comment #7 from marcindulak <Marcin.Dulak(a)gmail.com&gt; --- thanks -- 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

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1393021 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- pulledpork-0.7.2-1.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-6e20685523 -- 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

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1393021 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- pulledpork-0.7.2-1.el6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 6. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-b12d1389ac -- 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

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1393021 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- pulledpork-0.7.2-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-6e20685523 -- 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

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1393021 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- pulledpork-0.7.2-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- 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