[Bug 1014385] New: Review Request: openid-selector - A user-friendly way to select an OpenID
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1014385
Bug ID: 1014385 Summary: Review Request: openid-selector - A user-friendly way to select an OpenID Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: puiterwijk@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: http://puiterwijk.fedorapeople.org//openid-selector.spec SRPM URL: http://puiterwijk.fedorapeople.org//openid-selector-1.3-1.fc19.src.rpm
Description: A user-friendly way to select an OpenID
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1014385
Patrick Uiterwijk puiterwijk@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1014344
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1014385
Andrea Veri andrea.veri@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |andrea.veri@gmail.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |andrea.veri@gmail.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1014385
Andrea Veri andrea.veri@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEW Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Andrea Veri andrea.veri@gmail.com --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== 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. [-]: 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. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "BSD (2 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/averi/1014385-openid- selector/licensecheck.txt
Seems the sources are using two different headers for the BSD 3 Clause license, which is actually just fine given the 'New BSD License' matches the 'BSD 3 Clause'.
[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 [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [-]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 6 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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). [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [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]: 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
===== 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.
Please make sure to have a LICENSE file included sooner or later.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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 (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: openid-selector-1.3-1.fc19.noarch.rpm openid-selector-1.3-1.fc19.src.rpm openid-selector.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/openid-selector/generate-sprite.js 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint openid-selector openid-selector.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/openid-selector/generate-sprite.js 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:'
Requires -------- openid-selector (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/bash /usr/bin/env
Provides -------- openid-selector: openid-selector
Source checksums ---------------- http://openid-selector.googlecode.com/files/openid-selector-1.3.zip : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 03eef71c1fd212be51200e77bef4a93fda8eeb2fee726bec32660fc786c98dcd CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 03eef71c1fd212be51200e77bef4a93fda8eeb2fee726bec32660fc786c98dcd
Generated by fedora-review 0.5.0 (920221d) last change: 2013-08-30 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1014385 Buildroot used: fedora-19-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, SugarActivity, Perl, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EPEL5, EXARCH, DISTTAG
The package is approved.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1014385
Patrick Uiterwijk puiterwijk@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |POST Flags| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #2 from Patrick Uiterwijk puiterwijk@gmail.com --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: openid-selector Short Description: A user-friendly way to select an OpenID Owners: puiterwijk Branches: f19 f20 el6 InitialCC:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1014385
Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1014385
--- Comment #3 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1014385
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1014385
--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- gallery3-openid-2.0-0.2.beta.fc19,php-lightopenid-0.6-1.fc19,openid-selector-1.3-1.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gallery3-openid-2.0-0.2.beta.fc19,ph...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1014385
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- gallery3-openid-2.0-0.2.beta.fc19, php-lightopenid-0.6-1.fc19, openid-selector-1.3-1.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 testing repository.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1014385
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |gallery3-openid-2.0-0.2.bet | |a.fc19 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2013-10-18 15:58:46
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- gallery3-openid-2.0-0.2.beta.fc19, php-lightopenid-0.6-1.fc19, openid-selector-1.3-1.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1014385
--- Comment #7 from Ken Dreyer ktdreyer@ktdreyer.com --- *** Bug 1014382 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla