Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: drupal6-filefield - Defines a file field type
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=682488
Summary: Review Request: drupal6-filefield - Defines a file field type Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: eric@christensenplace.us QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: http://sparks.fedorapeople.org/Packages/drupal6-filefield.spec
SRPM URL: http://sparks.fedorapeople.org/Packages/drupal6-filefield-6.x.3.9-1.fc14.src...
Description: FileField provides a universal file upload field for CCK. It is a robust alternative to core's Upload module and an absolute must for users uploading a large number of files. Great for managing video and audio files for podcasts on your own site.
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=682488
Eric Christensen eric@christensenplace.us changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |682489
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=682488
Tim Lauridsen tla@rasmil.dk changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |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=682488
Tim Lauridsen tla@rasmil.dk changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |tla@rasmil.dk
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=682488
--- Comment #1 from Tim Lauridsen tla@rasmil.dk 2011-03-08 01:29:40 EST --- I will review this 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=682488
Tim Lauridsen tla@rasmil.dk changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-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=682488
Tim Lauridsen tla@rasmil.dk changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Tim Lauridsen tla@rasmil.dk 2011-03-08 01:36:48 EST ---
Package Review ==============
Key: - = N/A x = Check ! = Problem ? = Not evaluated
[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 architecture. [-] : MUST - %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [-] : 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. [-] : MUST - %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [x] : MUST - Each %files section contains %defattr [x] : MUST - Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [-] : MUST - Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install file if it is a GUI application. [x] : 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. [-] : MUST - Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [-] : MUST - Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x] : MUST - Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [-] : MUST - ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [-] : MUST - Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [x] : MUST - Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [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. [x] : MUST - License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [-] : MUST - License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [-] : MUST - The spec file handles locales properly. [x] : MUST - Package consistently uses macros. instead of hard-coded directory names. [x] : MUST - Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x] : MUST - Package meets the Packaging Guidelines. [x] : MUST - Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [-] : MUST - No %config files under /usr. [x] : MUST - Package does not genrate any conflict. [x] : MUST - Package does not contains kernel modules. [x] : MUST - Package contains no static executables. [x] : MUST - Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [x] : 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. [x] : MUST - Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x] : MUST - Package is not relocatable. [x] : MUST - Requires correct, justified where necessary. [!] : MUST - Rpmlint output is silent.
rpmlint drupal6-filefield-6.x.3.9-1.fc16.src.rpm
================================================================================ drupal6-filefield.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US podcasts -> podcast, pod casts, pod-casts 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
================================================================================
rpmlint drupal6-filefield-6.x.3.9-1.fc16.noarch.rpm
================================================================================ drupal6-filefield.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US podcasts -> podcast, pod casts, pod-casts 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
================================================================================
[-] : MUST - Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x] : MUST - Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. MD5SUM this package : 43aff980408beff7d8f5554282aad15b MD5SUM upstream package : 43aff980408beff7d8f5554282aad15b [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 - Static libraries in -static subpackage, if present. [x] : MUST - Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one. [x] : MUST - File names are valid UTF-8. [-] : MUST - Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [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. [x] : SHOULD - Latest version is packaged. [x] : SHOULD - Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-] : SHOULD - Man pages included for all executables. [-] : SHOULD - Uses parallel make. [-] : SHOULD - Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-] : SHOULD - The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x] : SHOULD - Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[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.
Issues: [!] : SHOULD - SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. Source0: http://ftp.drupal.org/files/projects/filefield-6.x-3.9.tar.gz (filefield-6.x-3.9.tar.gz)
should be Source0: http://ftp.drupal.org/files/projects/%%7Bmodname%7D-%%7Bversion%7D.tar.gz I make it easier to bump the version Not a deal breaker.
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=682488
Eric Christensen eric@christensenplace.us changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #3 from Eric Christensen eric@christensenplace.us 2011-03-08 07:23:56 EST --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: drupal6-filefield Short Description: Defines a file field type in Drupal. Owners: sparks Branches: f15 f14 f13 el5 el6 InitialCC:
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=682488
--- Comment #4 from Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu 2011-03-08 15:55:14 EST --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
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=682488
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
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=682488
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2011-03-08 20:49:38 EST --- drupal6-filefield-6.x.3.9-1.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/drupal6-filefield-6.x.3.9-1.fc14
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=682488
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2011-03-08 20:49:45 EST --- drupal6-filefield-6.x.3.9-1.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/drupal6-filefield-6.x.3.9-1.fc13
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=682488
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2011-03-08 20:49:52 EST --- drupal6-filefield-6.x.3.9-1.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/drupal6-filefield-6.x.3.9-1.fc15
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=682488
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2011-03-08 20:50:00 EST --- drupal6-filefield-6.x.3.9-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/drupal6-filefield-6.x.3.9-1.el6
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=682488
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2011-03-08 20:50:07 EST --- drupal6-filefield-6.x.3.9-1.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/drupal6-filefield-6.x.3.9-1.el5
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=682488
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2011-03-09 13:27:15 EST --- drupal6-filefield-6.x.3.9-1.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 testing repository.
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=682488
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2011-03-14 01:36:37 EDT --- drupal6-filefield-6.x.3.9-1.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 stable repository.
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=682488
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |drupal6-filefield-6.x.3.9-1 | |.fc15 Resolution| |ERRATA Last Closed| |2011-03-14 01:36:42
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=682488
Peter Borsa peter.borsa@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |peter.borsa@gmail.com
--- Comment #12 from Peter Borsa peter.borsa@gmail.com 2011-03-14 16:06:31 EDT --- *** Bug 656160 has been marked as a duplicate of this 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=682488
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2011-03-17 14:49:49 EDT --- drupal6-filefield-6.x.3.9-1.fc14 has been pushed to the Fedora 14 stable repository.
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=682488
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version|drupal6-filefield-6.x.3.9-1 |drupal6-filefield-6.x.3.9-1 |.fc15 |.fc14
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=682488
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2011-03-17 14:50:52 EDT --- drupal6-filefield-6.x.3.9-1.fc13 has been pushed to the Fedora 13 stable repository.
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=682488
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version|drupal6-filefield-6.x.3.9-1 |drupal6-filefield-6.x.3.9-1 |.fc14 |.fc13
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=682488
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2011-04-01 12:27:33 EDT --- drupal6-filefield-6.x.3.9-1.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository.
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=682488
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version|drupal6-filefield-6.x.3.9-1 |drupal6-filefield-6.x.3.9-1 |.fc13 |.el5
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=682488
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2011-04-01 12:28:08 EDT --- drupal6-filefield-6.x.3.9-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository.
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=682488
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version|drupal6-filefield-6.x.3.9-1 |drupal6-filefield-6.x.3.9-1 |.el5 |.el6
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org