Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225637
Summary: Merge Review: castor Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: nobody@fedoraproject.org QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com CC: pcheung@redhat.com
Fedora Merge Review: castor
http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/devel/castor/ Initial Owner: pcheung@redhat.com
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: castor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225637
bugzilla@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Severity|normal |medium Priority|normal |medium
pcheung@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |mwringe@redhat.com
------- Additional Comments From pcheung@redhat.com 2007-04-26 14:52 EST ------- Updated spec file and srpm at: https://pcheung.108.redhat.com/files/documents/174/379/castor.spec https://pcheung.108.redhat.com/files/documents/174/378/castor-0.9.5-1jpp.9.s...
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: castor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225637
kevin@tummy.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |kevin@tummy.com
------- Additional Comments From kevin@tummy.com 2007-06-09 00:39 EST ------- Hey Matt. I see this review is assigned to you, but still in the NEW state with the fedora-review flag not set.
Do you intent to review here?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: castor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225637
bugzilla@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Product|Fedora Extras |Fedora
mwringe@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review?
------- Additional Comments From mwringe@redhat.com 2007-07-06 18:07 EST ------- Package cannot be build this the current version of gcj in Fedora due to enum now being a reserved keyword. Please fix this by setting the source level or by patching the files.
MUST: * package is named appropriately - match upstream tarball or project name - try to match previous incarnations in other distributions/packagers for consistency - specfile should be %{name}.spec - non-numeric characters should only be used in Release (ie. cvs or something) - for non-numerics (pre-release, CVS snapshots, etc.), see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#PackageRelease - if case sensitivity is requested by upstream or you feel it should be not just lowercase, do so; otherwise, use all lower case for the name OK * is it legal for Fedora to distribute this? - OSI-approved - not a kernel module - not shareware - is it covered by patents? - it *probably* shouldn't be an emulator - no binary firmware OK, look ok to me * license field matches the actual license. OK * license is open source-compatible. - use acronyms for licences where common OK (its BSD-style) * specfile name matches %{name} OK * verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do) OK, the md5sums match * skim the summary and description for typos, etc. OK * correct buildroot - should be: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) OK * if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and % locations) OK * license text included in package and marked with %doc OK * keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old? useless?) OK * packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/) OK, looks OK to me * rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output rpmlint castor-0.9.5-1jpp.9.src.rpm W: castor non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java
OK (group warnings can be safely ignored)
* changelog should be in a proper formats: OK * Packager tag should not be used OK * Vendor tag should not be used OK * Distribution tag should not be used OK * use License and not Copyright OK * Summary tag should not end in a period OK * if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post) OK * specfile is legible OK * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 X package does not build * BuildRequires are proper ? Will check when it builds properly * summary should be a short and concise description of the package OK * description expands upon summary (don't include installation instructions) OK * make sure lines are <= 80 characters X Can you make line 134 multiple lines instead? * specfile written in American English OK * make a -doc sub-package if necessary OK * packages including libraries should exclude static libraries if possible * don't use rpath * config files should usually be marked with %config(noreplace) * GUI apps should contain .desktop files * should the package contain a -devel sub-package? * use macros appropriately and consistently OK * don't use %makeinstall OK * install section must begin with rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT or %{buildroot} OK * locale data handling correct (find_lang) - if translations included, add BR: gettext and use %find_lang %{name} at the end of %install * consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps OK * split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines OK * package should probably not be relocatable * package contains code OK * package should own all directories and files
* there should be no %files duplicates * file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present OK * %clean should be present OK * %doc files should not affect runtime * if it is a web apps, it should be in /usr/share/%{name} and *not* /var/www * verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs ? Waiting until package builds properly * run rpmlint on the binary RPMs ? waiting until package builds properly
SHOULD: * package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc ? * package should build on i386 ? * package should build in mock ?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: castor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225637
------- Additional Comments From pcheung@redhat.com 2007-07-09 12:05 EST ------- The latest version of the spec file is in Fedora cvs, I just tried that and it built fine. Please try that one.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: castor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225637
matthias@rpmforge.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
------- Additional Comments From matthias@rpmforge.net 2007-09-01 12:11 EST ------- Same remark as Kevin, here. I guess it's an oversight, so I'm changing from NEW to ASSIGNED.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225637
Alexander Kurtakov akurtako@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |akurtako@redhat.com
--- Comment #6 from Alexander Kurtakov akurtako@redhat.com 2011-12-20 17:58:00 EST --- I have done major revamp of the package, Matt are you interested to review it again?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225637
Matt Wringe mwringe@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|mwringe@redhat.com |nobody@fedoraproject.org
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org