Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: git-bugzilla - Attach patches to a bugzilla bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=546620
Summary: Review Request: git-bugzilla - Attach patches to a bugzilla bug Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: lkundrak@v3.sk QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora
SPEC: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SPECS/git-bugzilla.spec SRPM: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SRPMS/git-bugzilla-0-0.1.20091211git.fc12.src.rpm scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1869497
Description:
Add commits as attachments to a Bugzilla bug.
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=546620
--- Comment #1 from Lubomir Rintel lkundrak@v3.sk 2009-12-11 08:20:12 EDT --- rpmlint silent
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=546620
Joshua Roys roysjosh@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |roysjosh@gmail.com
--- Comment #2 from Joshua Roys roysjosh@gmail.com 2009-12-14 14:26:18 EDT --- Hello,
You could use the snapshot link in the comments instead of the git clone/archive: http://git.collabora.co.uk/?p=user/cassidy/git-bugzilla;a=snapshot;h=fc2be92...
Here's an unofficial review:
MUST: * rpmlint $ rpmlint -vi /var/lib/mock/fedora-12-x86_64/result/git-bugzilla-0-0.1.20091211git.fc12.* git-bugzilla.noarch: I: checking git-bugzilla.src: I: checking 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
* named according to guidelines * spec is %{name}.spec * meets package guidelines * license is ok: GPLv2+ * license tag matches source ~ n/a no separate license file * spec file is written in American English * ... and is legible * source matches * builds on x86_64 (as noarch) * builds under mock (BuildRequires are correct) ~ n/a locales ~ n/a ldconfig * does not bundle copies of system libraries ~ n/a relocatable * does not make any directories * %files list is ok * permissions are correct * %clean section is correct * macro usage is consistent * package contains code ~ n/a no large doc files ~ n/a no doc files ~ n/a no header files ~ n/a no static libraries ~ n/a no pkgconfig files ~ n/a no library files ~ n/a no -devel subpackage * no .la files ~ n/a no GUI app * doesn't duplicate file/dir ownership * %install has rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT * file names are valid UTF-8
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. - The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
Hope to help.
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=546620
Thomas Spura tomspur@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |tomspur@fedoraproject.org
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Spura tomspur@fedoraproject.org 2009-12-15 12:55:18 EDT --- Shouldn't this be patched, so bugzilla.redhat is the default one and *not* the gnome one?
Of course, this would be fedora/red hat specific, but the reasonablest way.
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=546620
--- Comment #4 from Lubomir Rintel lkundrak@v3.sk 2009-12-19 11:14:11 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=379357) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=379357) [PATCH] Do not default to GNOME bugzilla
git-send-bugzilla.pl | 8 +++++++- 1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
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=546620
--- Comment #5 from Lubomir Rintel lkundrak@v3.sk 2009-12-19 11:14:57 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=379358) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=379358) [PATCH] Do not default to GNOME bugzilla
git-send-bugzilla.pl | 8 +++++++- 1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
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=546620
--- Comment #6 from Lubomir Rintel lkundrak@v3.sk 2009-12-19 11:31:46 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2)
Hello,
You could use the snapshot link in the comments instead of the git clone/archive: http://git.collabora.co.uk/?p=user/cassidy/git-bugzilla;a=snapshot;h=fc2be92...
Good idea. Done.
Here's an unofficial review:
Why unofficial? I see you're in packager group now.
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.
This is basically just one file; I'm not sure if upstream would include license separately.
- The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
Not available.
(In reply to comment #3)
Shouldn't this be patched, so bugzilla.redhat is the default one and *not* the gnome one?
Of course, this would be fedora/red hat specific, but the reasonablest way.
I'm reluctant to do a default here (I don't think people would use this much against Red Hat bugzilla). I've made it work against Red Hat bugzilla (oh, sorry for the attachments above) and removed GNOME bugzilla default. Now it demands that you configure a bugzilla instance to use and provides examples for GNOME and Red Hat bugzillas.
New package:
SPEC: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SPECS/git-bugzilla.spec SRPM: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SRPMS/git-bugzilla-0-0.2.20091211git.fc13.src.rpm
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=546620
Lubomir Rintel lkundrak@v3.sk changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment #379358|0 |1 is obsolete| |
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=546620
Lubomir Rintel lkundrak@v3.sk changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment #379357|0 |1 is obsolete| |
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=546620
--- Comment #7 from Thomas Spura tomspur@fedoraproject.org 2009-12-23 10:23:53 EDT --- (In reply to comment #6)
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.
This is basically just one file; I'm not sure if upstream would include license separately.
Upstream don't *have* to include a license file, you just need to say hi and ask them to do so. If they don't, it'll ok, too.
Joshua, you started good. Do you intent continuing this review?
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=546620
Thomas Spura tomspur@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |tomspur@fedoraproject.org Flag| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #8 from Thomas Spura tomspur@fedoraproject.org 2010-01-03 21:47:20 EDT --- (In reply to comment #7)
Joshua, you started good. Do you intent continuing this review?
He seems to don't...
I agree to his informal review.
############################
APPROVED
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=546620
Lubomir Rintel lkundrak@v3.sk changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #9 from Lubomir Rintel lkundrak@v3.sk 2010-01-04 04:07:00 EDT --- Thank you!
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: git-bugzilla Short Description: Attach patches to a bugzilla bug Owners: lkundrak Branches: F-11 F-12 EL-5
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=546620
Kevin Fenzi kevin@tummy.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
--- Comment #10 from Kevin Fenzi kevin@tummy.com 2010-01-04 15:24:33 EDT --- cvs done.
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=546620
Lubomir Rintel lkundrak@v3.sk changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE
--- Comment #11 from Lubomir Rintel lkundrak@v3.sk 2010-01-04 16:47:24 EDT --- Thank you. Imported and built.
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=546620
Ken Dreyer ktdreyer@ktdreyer.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |ktdreyer@ktdreyer.com
--- Comment #12 from Ken Dreyer ktdreyer@ktdreyer.com 2011-04-08 19:24:54 EDT --- If you want to re-try building for EL-5, the missing dep (WWW::Mechanize) is now present.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla