Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=906486 Jos de Kloe <josdekloe(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |josdekloe(a)gmail.com Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |josdekloe(a)gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Jos de Kloe <josdekloe(a)gmail.com&gt; --- This package builds fine. The rpmlint results show an error and 2 warnings. Rpmlint ------- Checking: erlang-cowboy-0.6.1-1.fc18.x86_64.rpm erlang-cowboy.x86_64: E: no-binary erlang-cowboy.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib erlang-cowboy.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/erlang-cowboy-0.6.1/doc/overview.edoc 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings. The no-binary thing has been discussed before for erlang packages (see for example this bug #906473) and can be ignored. So only the not-utf8 thing should be fixed. A fix is documented here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#file-not-utf8 After that, I'll be happy to do the review. -- 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=3tmoJOix53&a=cc_unsubscribe

Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=906486 --- Comment #3 from Jos de Kloe <josdekloe(a)gmail.com&gt; --- Two small issues for this package: -the rebar executable is part of the source package. To make sure the proper fedora copy in /usr/bin/rebar from the erlang-rebar package is used, I think it is best to delete the rebar copy delivered in this package before starting the build. -there is no license file in the package, and I don't see license information in the upstream repository (but maybe I overlooked it?). Could you please inquire upstream what the license status is, and ask them to include a license file, or in case it is hidden somewhere, post the proper URL to it so I can review it. -- 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=Z0Xi4s2nsy&a=cc_unsubscribe

Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=906486 --- Comment #5 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov(a)gmail.com&gt; --- (In reply to comment #4) Hello Jos! I terribly terribly sorry for leaving you alone here for a very long time. I'll provide a new build shortly - please wait for a few hours more. -- 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=iKeWzmUrIT&a=cc_unsubscribe

Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=906486 --- Comment #7 from Jos de Kloe <josdekloe(a)gmail.com&gt; --- Hi Peter, my russian is not very strong, but google is your friend in these cases, and looking at google's translation I am happy with this reply. Don't worry about the language, I am not so easily offended. Mock and Koji tests ran fine. Koji results are here: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5281760 Thanks for your updated package. Looking at the review results there are 2 should issues still open: Package Review ============== Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - 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... As for example mentioned here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=953379 a BSD license requires the license text to be part of the software, so if upstream doesn't supply it, the packager should do so. Could you please add this license file? Note that the same thing applies to erlang_mimetypes https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=906482 (which has already been approved) - timestamps are not preserved in install step, see comment below ===== 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]: %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 [-]: 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 complies to the Packaging Guidelines [-]: 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]: Package consistently uses macro is (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]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 9 files. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [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 [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). ===== 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. [-]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [-]: 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. [!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. ==>needs work, i.e. add '-p' option to install step [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]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. ==>manually tested retrieving upstream source, and this seems fine to me. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [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: erlang-parsexml-0-0.2.20121126.fc18.x86_64.rpm erlang-parsexml.x86_64: E: no-binary erlang-parsexml.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings. ==>the no-binary error is a known 'feature' for erlang packages and can safely be ignored. The following warning is related to this. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint erlang-parsexml erlang-parsexml.x86_64: E: no-binary erlang-parsexml.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- erlang-parsexml (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): erlang-erts(x86-64) erlang-eunit(x86-64) erlang-stdlib(x86-64) Provides -------- erlang-parsexml: erlang-parsexml erlang-parsexml(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.4.0 (660ce56) last change: 2013-01-29 Buildroot used: fedora-18-x86_64 Command line :/bin/fedora-review -b 906486 -m fedora-18-x86_64 --- Comment #8 from Jos de Kloe <josdekloe(a)gmail.com&gt; --- Hi Peter, my russian is not very strong, but google is your friend in these cases, and looking at google's translation I am happy with this reply. Don't worry about the language, I am not so easily offended. Mock and Koji tests ran fine. Koji results are here: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5281760 Thanks for your updated package. Looking at the review results there are 2 should issues still open: Package Review ============== Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - 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... As for example mentioned here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=953379 a BSD license requires the license text to be part of the software, so if upstream doesn't supply it, the packager should do so. Could you please add this license file? Note that the same thing applies to erlang_mimetypes https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=906482 (which has already been approved) - timestamps are not preserved in install step, see comment below ===== 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]: %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 [-]: 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 complies to the Packaging Guidelines [-]: 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]: Package consistently uses macro is (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]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 9 files. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [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 [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). ===== 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. [-]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [-]: 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. [!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. ==>needs work, i.e. add '-p' option to install step [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]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. ==>manually tested retrieving upstream source, and this seems fine to me. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [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: erlang-parsexml-0-0.2.20121126.fc18.x86_64.rpm erlang-parsexml.x86_64: E: no-binary erlang-parsexml.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings. ==>the no-binary error is a known 'feature' for erlang packages and can safely be ignored. The following warning is related to this. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint erlang-parsexml erlang-parsexml.x86_64: E: no-binary erlang-parsexml.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- erlang-parsexml (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): erlang-erts(x86-64) erlang-eunit(x86-64) erlang-stdlib(x86-64) Provides -------- erlang-parsexml: erlang-parsexml erlang-parsexml(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.4.0 (660ce56) last change: 2013-01-29 Buildroot used: fedora-18-x86_64 Command line :/bin/fedora-review -b 906486 -m fedora-18-x86_64 -- 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=MfPa6eATAf&a=cc_unsubscribe

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=906486 Christopher Meng <cickumqt(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |cickumqt(a)gmail.com -- 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=CJkyEicXLR&a=cc_unsubscribe