8:55 p.m.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1618490
Bug ID: 1618490
Summary: Review Request: rpmbuild-order - Order RPM packages by
dependencies
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: Package Review
Assignee: nobody(a)fedoraproject.org
Reporter: petersen(a)redhat.com
QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org//rpmbuild-order.spec
SRPM URL: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org//rpmbuild-order-0.1-1.fc28.src.rpm
Description:
The rpmbuild-order tool orders RPM packages by dependencies, so that they can
be built in the correct order. It does this by reading RPM package spec files
and then topologically sorts them according to their dependencies. The code
originates from cabal-sort by Henning Thielemann. It can also output the
ordered dependencies or reverse depends for one or more packages, provided all
the packages are checked out in neighbouring directories. This is also useful
to see what packages are affected when a low-level package changes.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
8:55 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 1618490] Review Request:
rpmbuild-order - Order RPM packages by dependencies
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1618490
--- Comment #1 from Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> ---
This package built on koji:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=29121189
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
2:58 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 1618490] Review Request:
rpmbuild-order - Order RPM packages by dependencies
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1618490
Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |haskell-devel(a)lists.fedorap
| |roject.org
--- Comment #2 from Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> ---
Spec:
http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/rpmbuild-order/rpmbuild-order.spec
SRPM:
http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/rpmbuild-order/rpmbuild-order-0....
Added a simple manpage
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
6:07 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 1618490] Review Request:
rpmbuild-order - Order RPM packages by dependencies
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1618490
Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |POST
CC| |zebob.m(a)gmail.com
Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |zebob.m(a)gmail.com
Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m(a)gmail.com> ---
- Package approved.
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.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "BSD (3 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 7 files have
unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review
/rpmbuild-order/review-rpmbuild-order/licensecheck.txt
[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
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (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]: 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.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 3 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: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: 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 %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[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]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[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 does not use a name that already exists.
[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.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: 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.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[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]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[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: rpmbuild-order-0.2.1-1.fc29.x86_64.rpm
rpmbuild-order-0.2.1-1.fc29.src.rpm
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
10:30 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 1618490] Review Request:
rpmbuild-order - Order RPM packages by dependencies
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1618490
--- Comment #4 from Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> ---
Thank you, Robert-André, for the review
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/7695
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
10:32 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 1618490] Review Request:
rpmbuild-order - Order RPM packages by dependencies
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1618490
--- Comment #5 from Gwyn Ciesla <limburgher(a)gmail.com> ---
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rpmbuild-order
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
11:25 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 1618490] Review Request:
rpmbuild-order - Order RPM packages by dependencies
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1618490
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> ---
rpmbuild-order-0.2.1-1.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-9210e493f6
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
11:25 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 1618490] Review Request:
rpmbuild-order - Order RPM packages by dependencies
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1618490
Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|POST |MODIFIED
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
11:25 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 1618490] Review Request:
rpmbuild-order - Order RPM packages by dependencies
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1618490
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> ---
rpmbuild-order-0.2.1-1.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-fc4183cbcd
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
3:15 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 1618490] Review Request:
rpmbuild-order - Order RPM packages by dependencies
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1618490
Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> ---
rpmbuild-order-0.2.1-1.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-9210e493f6
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
5:26 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 1618490] Review Request:
rpmbuild-order - Order RPM packages by dependencies
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1618490
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> ---
rpmbuild-order-0.2.1-1.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-fc4183cbcd
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
5:52 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 1618490] Review Request:
rpmbuild-order - Order RPM packages by dependencies
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1618490
Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed| |2018-08-29 23:52:01
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> ---
rpmbuild-order-0.2.1-1.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 stable repository.
If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
6:53 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 1618490] Review Request:
rpmbuild-order - Order RPM packages by dependencies
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1618490
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> ---
rpmbuild-order-0.2.1-1.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 stable repository.
If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
2088
days inactive
2102
days old
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
12 comments
1 participants
participants (1)
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com