https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1484166

Björn "besser82" Esser besser82@fedoraproject.org changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request: fstransform |Review Request: fstransform |- File-system |- Tool for in-place |transformation tool |filesystem conversion | |without backup

--- Comment #1 from Björn "besser82" Esser besser82@fedoraproject.org --- Updated Koji Builds:

el6: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=21418056 el7: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=21418061 f28: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=21418068

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1484166

Björn "besser82" Esser besser82@fedoraproject.org changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request: fstransform |Review Request: fstransform |- Tool for in-place |- Tool for in-place |filesystem conversion |file-system conversion |without backup |without backup

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1484166

Robert Scheck redhat@linuxnetz.de changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |redhat@linuxnetz.de Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+

--- Comment #2 from Robert Scheck redhat@linuxnetz.de --- Package Review ==============

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

Issues: ======= - All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. Note: These BR are not needed: gcc-c++ See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2

===== 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. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 3 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/robert/1484166-fstransform/licensecheck.txt [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [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 61440 bytes in 7 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]: 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]: 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. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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]: 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 debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.

Rpmlint ------- Checking: fstransform-0.9.3-0.1.el7.centos.x86_64.rpm fstransform-0.9.3-0.1.el7.centos.src.rpm fstransform.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.9.3-0.1 ['0.9.3-0.1.el7.centos', '0.9.3-0.1.centos'] fstransform.src: W: patch-not-applied Patch0: %{name}-0.9.3-use_bash.patch fstransform.src: W: patch-not-applied Patch1: %{name}-0.9.3-fix_Wdeprecated.patch fstransform.src: W: patch-not-applied Patch2: %{name}-0.9.3-fix_Wliteral-suffix.patch fstransform.src: W: patch-not-applied Patch3: %{name}-0.9.3-fix_Wmaybe-uninitialized.patch fstransform.src: W: patch-not-applied Patch4: %{name}-0.9.3-fix_Wreturn-type.patch 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings.

Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: fstransform-debuginfo-0.9.3-0.1.el7.centos.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- fstransform-debuginfo.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib fstransform.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.9.3-0.1 ['0.9.3-0.1.el7.centos', '0.9.3-0.1.centos'] 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.

Requires -------- fstransform (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/bash coreutils libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) util-linux which

Provides -------- fstransform: fstransform fstransform(x86-64)

Source checksums ---------------- http://downloads.sourceforge.net/fstransform/fstransform-0.9.3-src.tar.bz2 : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 2151913cbf042f30b49634e23bdcf0f4fa4474661f05bb9e7ee37477c16e71db CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 2151913cbf042f30b49634e23bdcf0f4fa4474661f05bb9e7ee37477c16e71db

Generated by fedora-review 0.5.3 (bcf15e3) last change: 2015-05-04 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1484166 Buildroot used: epel-7-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, EPEL6

-> Approved.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1484166

Robert Scheck redhat@linuxnetz.de changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|redhat-bugzilla@linuxnetz.d |redhat@linuxnetz.de |e |

--- Comment #3 from Robert Scheck redhat@linuxnetz.de --- Flipping "Assigned To" e-mail address, given our new fancy fedrepo_req does not not seem to care about who set the flag fedora-review+, but if the e-mail address of "Assigned To" matches also the e-mail address of the person setting the flag to fedora-review+.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1484166

--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- fstransform-0.9.3-1.el6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 6. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-9f1825da7f

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1484166

--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- fstransform-0.9.3-1.fc26 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 26. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-5284fd387d

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1484166

--- Comment #9 from mprahl@redhat.com mprahl@redhat.com --- (fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.stg.fedoraproject.org/rpms/fstransform

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1484166

mprahl@redhat.com mprahl@redhat.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mprahl@redhat.com

--- Comment #10 from mprahl@redhat.com mprahl@redhat.com --- Please disregard my comment from above. This was testing in staging.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1484166

--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- fstransform-0.9.3-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 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-2017-872be06842

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1484166

--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- fstransform-0.9.3-1.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-2017-8d38c5b2e6

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1484166

--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- fstransform-0.9.3-1.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=1484166

--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- fstransform-0.9.3-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.