[Bug 1181725] New: Re-Review Request (epel5): fontpackages - Common directory and macro definitions used by font packages - package-review

List overview All Threads
Download

newer

[Bug 1181725] New: Re-Review Request (epel5): fontpackages - Common directory and macro definitions used by font packages

older

[Bug 502992] Review Request:...

[Bug 1181726] New: Re-Review...

Red Hat Bugzilla

13 Jan 2015 13 Jan '15

10:37 a.m.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1181725

Bug ID: 1181725 Summary: Re-Review Request (epel5): fontpackages - Common directory and macro definitions used by font packages Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: pnemade@redhat.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

Spec URL: https://pnemade.fedorapeople.org/fedora-work/SPECS/fontpackages.spec SRPM URL: https://pnemade.fedorapeople.org/fedora-work/SRPMS/fontpackages-1.44-1.el5.2... Description:This package contains the basic directory layout, spec templates, rpm macros and other materials used to create font packages.

Fedora Account System Username: pnemade

This package was retired as 2014-12-20: Retired because of broken deps: unresolved dependencies for fontpackages-tools-1.44-1.el5.1.noarch: rpmlint

but as rpmlint is un-retired and we can have this package back in epel5.

Though as per guidelines we don't need re-review of a epel package which exists in fedora but I got a suggestion from Dennis Gilmore to have this re-reviewed.

-- 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

Show replies by thread

Red Hat Bugzilla

13 Jan 13 Jan

2:33 p.m.

New subject: [Bug 1181725] Re-Review Request (epel5): fontpackages - Common directory and macro definitions used by font packages

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1181725

Robert Scheck redhat-bugzilla@linuxnetz.de changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1177946

Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177946 [Bug 1177946] Unable to Update to phpMyAdmin4

-- 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

Red Hat Bugzilla

11:01 p.m.

New subject: [Bug 1181725] Re-Review Request (epel5): fontpackages - Common directory and macro definitions used by font packages

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1181725

Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1181726

Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1181726 [Bug 1181726] Re-Review Request (epel5) : dejavu-fonts - DejaVu fonts

-- 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

Red Hat Bugzilla

12 Feb 12 Feb

1:45 p.m.

New subject: [Bug 1181725] Re-Review Request (epel5): fontpackages - Common directory and macro definitions used by font packages

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1181725

--- Comment #1 from Robert Scheck redhat-bugzilla@linuxnetz.de --- Do we really need the re-review (that nobody seems to want to take care of)? https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Orphaned_package_that_need_new_maintainers#Cl... says "To unretire a EPEL branch if the package is still in Fedora, no re-review is required.". I would prefer if we could just proceed to get the package back...

-- 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

Red Hat Bugzilla

13 Feb 13 Feb

12:30 a.m.

New subject: [Bug 1181725] Re-Review Request (epel5): fontpackages - Common directory and macro definitions used by font packages

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1181725

Akira TAGOH tagoh@redhat.com changed:

--- Comment #2 from Akira TAGOH tagoh@redhat.com --- I do take care of it.

-- 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

Red Hat Bugzilla

1:47 a.m.

New subject: [Bug 1181725] Re-Review Request (epel5): fontpackages - Common directory and macro definitions used by font packages

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1181725

--- Comment #3 from Akira TAGOH tagoh@redhat.com --- Some needs to be fixed/improved. otherwise looks good to me. see the below for details.

Package Review ==============

Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed

Issues: ======= * MUST items * rm-fr %{buildroot} at %install is present. * %defattr is present.

* SHOULD items * Buildroot is present. * %clean is present.

===== 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. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [!]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: %defattr present but not needed [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: 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. [-]: 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. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local [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. [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 %doc. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [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]: No %config files under /usr. [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.

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic: [!]: Buildroot is not present [!]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [-]: 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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [-]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [-]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic: [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.

Rpmlint ------- Checking: fontpackages-filesystem-1.44-1.fc21.2.noarch.rpm fontpackages-devel-1.44-1.fc21.2.noarch.rpm fontpackages-tools-1.44-1.fc21.2.noarch.rpm fontpackages-1.44-1.fc21.2.src.rpm fontpackages-filesystem.noarch: W: no-documentation fontpackages-tools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ttfcoverage fontpackages-tools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary repo-font-audit fontpackages-tools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fix-font-naming fontpackages-tools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary filter-unicover fontpackages-tools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary compare-repo-font-audit fontpackages-tools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary filter-langcover fontpackages-tools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary filter-fontlint fontpackages.src:18: W: macro-in-comment %{name} fontpackages.src:18: W: macro-in-comment %{name} fontpackages.src:18: W: macro-in-comment %{version} fontpackages.src: W: invalid-url Source0: fontpackages-1.44.tar.bz2 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 12 warnings.

Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:

Requires -------- fontpackages-tools (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh /usr/bin/perl curl fedora-packager fontconfig fontforge make mutt perl(Font::TTF::Font) perl(Getopt::Std) perl(Unicode::UCD) rpmlint yum-utils

fontpackages-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): config(fontpackages-devel) fontconfig fontpackages-filesystem rpmdevtools

fontpackages-filesystem (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

Provides -------- fontpackages-tools: fontpackages-tools

fontpackages-devel: config(fontpackages-devel) fontpackages-devel

fontpackages-filesystem: fontpackages-filesystem

Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1181725 Buildroot used: fedora-21-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG

-- 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

Red Hat Bugzilla

2 a.m.

New subject: [Bug 1181725] Re-Review Request (epel5): fontpackages - Common directory and macro definitions used by font packages

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1181725

Akira TAGOH tagoh@redhat.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+

--- Comment #4 from Akira TAGOH tagoh@redhat.com --- erm, no problem for epel5. so APPROVED.

-- 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

Red Hat Bugzilla

2:18 a.m.

New subject: [Bug 1181725] Re-Review Request (epel5): fontpackages - Common directory and macro definitions used by font packages

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1181725

--- Comment #5 from Parag pnemade@redhat.com --- Thank you Tagoh-san.

Let me push the existing build fontpackages-1.44-1.el5.1 to epel5-testing.

-- 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

Red Hat Bugzilla

2:29 a.m.

New subject: [Bug 1181725] Re-Review Request (epel5): fontpackages - Common directory and macro definitions used by font packages

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1181725

Parag pnemade@redhat.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-cvs?

--- Comment #6 from Parag pnemade@redhat.com --- Ah. I need SCM request.

New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: fontpackages Short Description: Common directory and macro definitions used by font packages Upstream URL: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/fontpackages Owners: pnemade Branches: el5 InitialCC:

-- 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

Red Hat Bugzilla

2:49 a.m.

New subject: [Bug 1181725] Re-Review Request (epel5): fontpackages - Common directory and macro definitions used by font packages

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1181725

Parag pnemade@redhat.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-cvs? |

--- Comment #7 from Parag pnemade@redhat.com --- Looks like I don't need this request as package is already unblocked in rel-eng ticket https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/6076#comment:2

-- 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

Red Hat Bugzilla

3:10 a.m.

New subject: [Bug 1181725] Re-Review Request (epel5): fontpackages - Common directory and macro definitions used by font packages

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1181725

Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |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

Red Hat Bugzilla

3:10 a.m.

New subject: [Bug 1181725] Re-Review Request (epel5): fontpackages - Common directory and macro definitions used by font packages

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1181725

--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- fontpackages-1.44-1.el5.2 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/fontpackages-1.44-1.el5.2

-- 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

Red Hat Bugzilla

8:41 p.m.

New subject: [Bug 1181725] Re-Review Request (epel5): fontpackages - Common directory and macro definitions used by font packages

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1181725

Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA

--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- fontpackages-1.44-1.el5.2 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 testing repository.

-- 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

Red Hat Bugzilla

28 Feb 28 Feb

11:58 a.m.

New subject: [Bug 1181725] Re-Review Request (epel5): fontpackages - Common directory and macro definitions used by font packages

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1181725

Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:

--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- fontpackages-1.44-1.el5.2 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository.

-- 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

Red Hat Bugzilla

15 Mar 15 Mar

8:15 a.m.

New subject: [Bug 1181725] Re-Review Request (epel5): fontpackages - Common directory and macro definitions used by font packages

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1181725

--- Comment #11 from Robert Scheck redhat-bugzilla@linuxnetz.de --- Uhm, just taking the package to have it retired again after 2 months is not that how it IMHO should work :-(

https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/epel-devel/2015-March/010968.html

-- 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

Red Hat Bugzilla

8:21 a.m.

New subject: [Bug 1181725] Re-Review Request (epel5): fontpackages - Common directory and macro definitions used by font packages

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1181725

Robert Scheck redhat@linuxnetz.de changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-cvs?

--- Comment #12 from Robert Scheck redhat@linuxnetz.de --- Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: fontpackages New Branches: el5 Owners: robert InitialCC: fonts-sig i18n-team

I think this package change request is required for unretiring, because I can not do anything on the package in pkgdb.

-- 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

Red Hat Bugzilla

2:30 p.m.

New subject: [Bug 1181725] Re-Review Request (epel5): fontpackages - Common directory and macro definitions used by font packages

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1181725

--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- fontpackages-1.44-1.el5.3 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/fontpackages-1.44-1.el5.3

-- 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

Red Hat Bugzilla

16 Mar 16 Mar

8:35 a.m.

New subject: [Bug 1181725] Re-Review Request (epel5): fontpackages - Common directory and macro definitions used by font packages

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1181725

--- Comment #14 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Already complete.

-- 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

Red Hat Bugzilla

8:35 a.m.

New subject: [Bug 1181725] Re-Review Request (epel5): fontpackages - Common directory and macro definitions used by font packages

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1181725

Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-cvs? |

-- 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

Red Hat Bugzilla

31 Mar 31 Mar

8:57 p.m.

New subject: [Bug 1181725] Re-Review Request (epel5): fontpackages - Common directory and macro definitions used by font packages

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1181725

Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version|fontpackages-1.44-1.el5.2 |fontpackages-1.44-1.el5.3

--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- fontpackages-1.44-1.el5.3 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository.

-- 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

3766

Age (days ago)

3844

Last active (days ago)

package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

19 comments

1 participants

tags (0)

participants (1)

Red Hat Bugzilla