https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829030 Troy Dawson <tdawson(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |tdawson(a)redhat.com --- Comment #1 from Troy Dawson <tdawson(a)redhat.com&gt; --- Informal Package Review ============== If you are planning on building this for EPEL, than I would pass this rpm. If you are not planning on building this for EPEL, then you need to clean up the buildroot stuff. See the issues at the bottom. ============== Key: - = N/A x = Pass ! = Fail ? = Not evaluated ==== Generic ==== [X]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [X]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [!]: MUST Buildroot is not present Note: Buildroot is not needed unless packager plans to package for EPEL5 [X]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries. [X]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format. [!]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: Clean is needed only if supporting EPEL [X]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content. [!]: MUST 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 [-]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [-]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [X]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [X]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [!]: MUST 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 [-]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [x]: MUST 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]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [X]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [X]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict. [X]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [X]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates. [X]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [X]: MUST Package installs properly. [X]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary. [X]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent. [x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [X]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [-]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one. [x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8. [-]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [!]: SHOULD 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]: SHOULD Dist tag is present. [X]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [X]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [-]: SHOULD Package functions as described. [X]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged. [!]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL. [-]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [-]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass. [X]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define. Issues: [!]: MUST Buildroot is not present Note: Buildroot is not needed unless packager plans to package for EPEL5 See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag [!]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: Clean is needed only if supporting EPEL See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#.25clean [!]: MUST 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 See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions [!]: MUST 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 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829030 Troy Dawson <tdawson(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |tdawson(a)redhat.com --- Comment #3 from Troy Dawson <tdawson(a)redhat.com&gt; --- Formal Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Pass ! = Fail ? = Not evaluated ==== Generic ==== [x]: EXTRA Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: EXTRA Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. [X]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [X]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [X]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries. [X]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format. [X]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content. [!]: MUST 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 [-]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [-]: MUST Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [X]: MUST Development files must be in a -devel package [X]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [X]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [X]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [X]: MUST Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [!]: MUST 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 [-]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [x]: MUST 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. [!]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [X]: MUST Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: MUST Package is named using only allowed ascii characters. [X]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [X]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict. Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s) [X]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: MUST If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [X]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates. [X]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: MUST Package installs properly. [X]: MUST Package is not relocatable. [X]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: MUST Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [X]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [-]: MUST Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [!]: SHOULD Buildroot is not present Note: Buildroot is not needed unless packager plans to package for EPEL5 [!]: SHOULD Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: Clean is needed only if supporting EPEL5 [!]: SHOULD 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]: SHOULD Dist tag is present. [x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [X]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [?]: SHOULD Package functions as described. [X]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged. [ ]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: SHOULD SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [!]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. Note: Source2 (LICENSE.txt) Source0 (flag-6.x-1.3.tar.gz) [x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL. [-]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [X]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass. [X]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define. Issues: [!]: MUST 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 See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions [!]: MUST 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 [X]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#ValidLicenseS... [!]: SHOULD If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. Rpmlint ------- Checking: drupal6-flag-1.3-3.fc18.noarch.rpm drupal6-flag-1.3-3.fc18.src.rpm drupal6-flag.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US customizable -> customization drupal6-flag.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US customizable -> customization 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Requires -------- drupal6-flag-1.3-3.fc18.noarch.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): drupal6 Provides -------- drupal6-flag-1.3-3.fc18.noarch.rpm: drupal6-flag = 1.3-3.fc18 MD5-sum check ------------- http://ftp.drupal.org/files/projects/flag-6.x-1.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 6d9dc1f41faa0f8bcc683de44b26b8b546ddfcb94b7aeb9c3b4889b6d38780b9 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 6d9dc1f41faa0f8bcc683de44b26b8b546ddfcb94b7aeb9c3b4889b6d38780b9 Generated by fedora-review 0.2.2 (9f8c0e5) last change: 2012-08-09 Command line :/bin/fedora-review -b 829030 External plugins: =========== I am confused about the LICENSE. You have it provided as SOURCE2, but if I open up the upstream tarball, it already has it's own LICENSE.txt file. Please use the Upstreams License file, or give a reason for not using it. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829030 --- Comment #5 from Troy Dawson <tdawson(a)redhat.com&gt; --- That was the only problem I found, so I approve this request. It would be a good idea to inform upstream of this license problem, if you haven't already. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829030 Anderson Silva <ansilva(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Anderson Silva <ansilva(a)redhat.com&gt; --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: drupal6-flag Short Description: Flag is a flexible flagging system that is completely customizable by the administrator Owners: afsilva siwinski Branches: f17 f18 f19 el6 InitialCC: -- 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=ZMjoFjM5OW&a=cc_unsubscribe

Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829030 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |MODIFIED -- 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=zGkeptnzdR&a=cc_unsubscribe

Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829030 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- drupal6-flag-1.3-3.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/drupal6-flag-1.3-3.fc18 -- 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=76TH6n0Q1X&a=cc_unsubscribe

Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829030 --- Comment #11 from Jon Ciesla <limburgher(a)gmail.com&gt; --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- 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=9q1xadSxqa&a=cc_unsubscribe

Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829030 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA -- 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=rptD3jW1gF&a=cc_unsubscribe

Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829030 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2013-04-01 18:27:40 -- 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=3oHjvLtsrU&a=cc_unsubscribe

Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829030 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- drupal6-flag-1.3-3.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 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=pUkr1GEtzP&a=cc_unsubscribe

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829030 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- drupal6-flag-2.1-3.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/drupal6-flag-2.1-3.el6 -- 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