https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822926 Miroslav Suchý <msuchy(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |msuchy(a)redhat.com Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |msuchy(a)redhat.com Flags| |fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822926 --- Comment #2 from Lukáš Zapletal <lzap(a)redhat.com&gt; --- Mirek, thanks for your time. All fixed, except the last one (pushd man/popd), I think it is appropriate to use it as I expect more commands in the build section later on. Please note version bumped a bit, because we use tito and guys are working on the package. Hope that's not an issue for ya. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4100590 http://lzap.fedorapeople.org/fedora-packaging/katello-cli/0.2.38-1/katell... http://lzap.fedorapeople.org/fedora-packaging/katello-cli/0.2.38-1/katell... ps - "Note: Clean is needed only if supporting EPEL" - I hope for EPEL6 we don't need it anymore, removing. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822926 --- Comment #4 from Miroslav Suchý <msuchy(a)redhat.com&gt; --- Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Pass ! = Fail ? = Not evaluated ==== Generic ==== [x]: EXTRA Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [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. [-]: 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. [x]: MUST %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5 [x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [-]: MUST Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: MUST Development files must be in a -devel package [!]: 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 Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x]: MUST Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [-]: 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. Licenses found: "UNKNOWN", "*No copyright* UNKNOWN", "GPL (v3 or later)" [x]: MUST License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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 No %config files under /usr. [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 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. [-]: 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 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). [x]: SHOULD Package functions as described. [!]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged. [x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. [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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: katello-cli-0.2.38-1.fc14.noarch.rpm katello-cli-common-0.2.38-1.fc14.noarch.rpm katello-cli-0.2.38-1.fc14.src.rpm katello-cli.noarch: W: non-executable-in-bin /usr/bin/katello-debug-certificates 0644L katello-cli.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/bin/katello-debug-certificates 0644L /bin/bash katello-cli.noarch: W: non-executable-in-bin /usr/bin/katello 0644L katello-cli.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/bin/katello 0644L /usr/bin/python katello-cli-common.noarch: W: no-documentation katello-cli.src:28: W: macro-in-comment %{name} katello-cli.src:28: W: macro-in-comment %{version} katello-cli.src: W: invalid-url Source0: katello-cli-0.2.38.tar.gz 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 6 warnings. All this rpmlint warnings and error are fixed in recent upstream version. Please rebase to recent version Only oustanding issues remains: [!]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates. %config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/%{base_name}/client.conf but this package neither own %{_sysconfdir}/%{base_name} nor require package, which owns this directory [!]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. src/katello/client/shell.py contains GPLv3 header, but package is marked as GPLv2 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822926 --- Comment #6 from Lukas Zapletal <lzap(a)redhat.com&gt; --- Everything fixed: http://lzap.fedorapeople.org/fedora-packaging/katello-cli/1.1.2-1/ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822926 --- Comment #8 from Lukas Zapletal <lzap(a)redhat.com&gt; --- https://github.com/Katello/katello/pull/502 Thanks for the fix. Can you APPROVE now? ;-) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822926 Lukas Zapletal <lzap(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #10 from Lukas Zapletal <lzap(a)redhat.com&gt; --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: katello-cli Short Description: Client package for Katello Owners: lzap msuchy Branches: f16 f17 el6 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822926 --- Comment #12 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.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822926 Lukas Zapletal <lzap(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_DEV |ASSIGNED --- Comment #14 from Lukas Zapletal <lzap(a)redhat.com&gt; --- Oh sorry ignore it ^ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822926 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- katello-cli-1.1.5-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/katello-cli-1.1.5-1.el6 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822926 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- katello-cli-1.1.5-1.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/katello-cli-1.1.5-1.fc17 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822926 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA --- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- katello-cli-1.1.5-1.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.