https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871629

Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) sanjay.ankur@gmail.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |alexeskin@yahoo.com

--- Comment #1 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) sanjay.ankur@gmail.com --- *** Bug 470155 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871629

--- Comment #3 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) sanjay.ankur@gmail.com --- I know. The software, though, is simple and works. Not a lot of updates required IMO. It's only one python file, so shouldn't be much of an issue.

Ankur

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871629

--- Comment #5 from Robin Lee robinlee.sysu@gmail.com ---

Package Review ==============

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

Issues: ======= [!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required [!]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: %defattr present but not needed [!]: Buildroot is not present Note: Buildroot: present but not needed [!]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: %clean present but not required

Comments: ========= [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. Note: It is better to follow the exact scriptlets recommended in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets

===== 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]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [-]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [!]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: %defattr present but not needed [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install if there is such a file. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [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 %doc. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: CheckResultdir [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

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

Generic: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [!]: Buildroot is not present Note: Buildroot: present but not needed [!]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: %clean present but not required [x]: 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]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [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]: Spec use %global instead of %define.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched.

Rpmlint ------- Checking: xword-1.0-1.fc19.src.rpm xword-1.0-1.fc19.noarch.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint xword 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:'

Requires -------- xword-1.0-1.fc19.noarch.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

/bin/sh /usr/bin/python gnome-python2-gnomeprint pygtk2

Provides -------- xword-1.0-1.fc19.noarch.rpm:

mimehandler(application/x-crossword) xword = 1.0-1.fc19

SHA256-sum check ------------- http://x-word.org/xword-1.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 77bec223351173acb194a293299dcbf6668ec72b799480564ade84499625dc85 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 77bec223351173acb194a293299dcbf6668ec72b799480564ade84499625dc85

Generated by fedora-review 0.3.1 (b71abc1) last change: 2012-10-16 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 871629

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871629

Robin Lee robinlee.sysu@gmail.com changed:

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

--- Comment #7 from Robin Lee robinlee.sysu@gmail.com --- (In reply to comment #6)

Can you please set the review flag to "?" as required, so folks know the review is under way?

Oh, I forgot that. After all it is approved

Approved by cheeselee

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871629

--- Comment #9 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests).

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871629

--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- xword-1.0-2.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/xword-1.0-2.fc18

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871629

Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:

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

Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871629

Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed| |2012-11-23 02:47:12

Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871629

--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- xword-1.0-2.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository.