Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: fpaste-server - Fedora Pastebin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=676175
Summary: Review Request: fpaste-server - Fedora Pastebin Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: herlo1@gmail.com QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: http://herlo.fedorapeople.org/rpms/fpaste-server.spec SRPM URL: http://herlo.fedorapeople.org/rpms/fpaste-server-0.1-1.src.rpm
Description: fpaste-server is simply put, a pastebin. Like many a pastebin application before it, fpaste-server strives to make it easy to share code and other information collaboratively.
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=676175
--- Comment #1 from Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu 2011-02-11 11:46:13 EST --- Unfortunately this fails to build:
Executing(%build): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.bx39S2 Traceback (most recent call last): File "setup.py", line 5, in <module> from setuptools import setup, find_packages ImportError: No module named setuptools RPM build errors: error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.bx39S2 (%build)
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=676175
--- Comment #2 from Clint Savage herlo1@gmail.com 2011-02-11 12:05:05 EST --- Oh wow! In all the excitement of getting the rpm to build on my machine, I failed to do a simple scratch build. I'm so embarrassed :/
Well, I've updated the links above with new content and it successfully builds with koji.
koji build --scratch dist-f14 SRPMS/fpaste-server-0.1-1.src.rpm Uploading srpm: SRPMS/fpaste-server-0.1-1.src.rpm [====================================] 100% 00:00:03 135.99 KiB 34.48 KiB/sec Created task: 2833280 Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2833280 Watching tasks (this may be safely interrupted)... 2833280 build (dist-f14, fpaste-server-0.1-1.src.rpm): open (x86-04.phx2.fedoraproject.org) 2833281 buildArch (fpaste-server-0.1-1.src.rpm, noarch): open (x86-01.phx2.fedoraproject.org) 2833281 buildArch (fpaste-server-0.1-1.src.rpm, noarch): open (x86-01.phx2.fedoraproject.org) -> closed 0 free 1 open 1 done 0 failed 2833280 build (dist-f14, fpaste-server-0.1-1.src.rpm): open (x86-04.phx2.fedoraproject.org) -> closed 0 free 0 open 2 done 0 failed
2833280 build (dist-f14, fpaste-server-0.1-1.src.rpm) completed successfully
Thanks for doing the review.
Clint
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=676175
Eric Christensen eric@christensenplace.us changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |eric@christensenplace.us
--- Comment #3 from Eric Christensen eric@christensenplace.us 2011-03-07 21:27:52 EST --- $ rpmlint SRPMS/fpaste-server-0.1-1.src.rpm fpaste-server.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pastebin -> paste bin, paste-bin, pasteboard fpaste-server.src:39: W: setup-not-quiet 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
$ rpmlint RPMS/noarch/fpaste-server-0.1-1.noarch.rpm fpaste-server.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pastebin -> paste bin, paste-bin, pasteboard fpaste-server.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/httpd/conf.d/fpaste_server.conf fpaste-server.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/fpaste_server/manage.py 0644L /usr/bin/env 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings.
$ rpmlint SPECS/fpaste-server.spec SPECS/fpaste-server.spec:39: W: setup-not-quiet 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
Need to make a few repairs...
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=676175
--- Comment #4 from Clint Savage herlo1@gmail.com 2011-03-07 23:36:49 EST --- I didn't fix the 'spelling-error' warning since pastebin is the word I intended.
However, I've fixed the other linty problems and updated the spec and src.rpm
Spec URL: http://herlo.fedorapeople.org/rpms/fpaste-server.spec SRPM URL: http://herlo.fedorapeople.org/rpms/fpaste-server-0.1-2.src.rpm
Thanks for having a look at this, looking forward to the next round.
Clint
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=676175
Eric Christensen eric@christensenplace.us changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |eric@christensenplace.us Flag| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #5 from Eric Christensen eric@christensenplace.us 2011-03-08 00:57:46 EST --- Cool. I'll take a look at this again.
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=676175
--- Comment #6 from Nick Bebout nb@fedoraproject.org 2011-03-17 20:19:12 EDT --- Ping sparks.
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=676175
--- Comment #7 from Eric Christensen eric@christensenplace.us 2011-03-20 11:42:54 EDT --- (In reply to comment #6)
Ping sparks.
Opps! Sorry about the delay. I'll get on this today!
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=676175
Eric Christensen eric@christensenplace.us changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #8 from Eric Christensen eric@christensenplace.us 2011-03-21 18:16:31 EDT --- OK * MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build produces. The output should be posted in the review.[1] OK * MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines . OK * MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [2] . OK * MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines . OK * MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines . OK * MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. [3] NA * 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 must be included in %doc.[4] OK * MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [5] OK * MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [6] OK * MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this. OK * MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. [7] OK * MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line. [8] OK * MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense. OK * MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.[9] OK * MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [10] OK * MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.[11] OK * MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker. [12] OK * MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory. [13] OK * MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific situations)[14] OK * MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line. [15] OK * MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [16] OK * MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [17] OK * MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). [18] OK * MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present. [18] NA * MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [19] NA * MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [20] NA * MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package. [19] NA * MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} [21] OK * MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built.[20] OK * MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation. [22] OK * MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns, then please present that at package review time. [23] OK * MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [24] FAIL * 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. [25] FAIL * SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [26] NA * SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [27] NA * SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [28] NA * SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. NA * SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. [29] NA * SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. [21] NA * SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg. A reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a devel tool not installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb. [30] NA * SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself. [31] FAIL * SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense.[32]
ACCEPT
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=676175
Eric Christensen eric@christensenplace.us changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
--- Comment #9 from Eric Christensen eric@christensenplace.us 2011-03-21 18:18:45 EDT --- Again, sorry for the delay in reviewing this.
All MUSTs were met. It would still be a good idea to include a copy of the license in the source and, of course, documentation is always a good thing. But everything looks good! Let me know if I can help you with anything else.
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=676175
Clint Savage herlo1@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?
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=676175
--- Comment #10 from Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu 2011-04-06 13:56:17 EDT --- I see no SCM request to process.
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=676175
Clint Savage herlo1@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #11 from Clint Savage herlo1@gmail.com 2011-04-06 15:54:46 EDT --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: fpaste-server Short Description: Fedora Pastebin Server Owners: herlo, jsteffan Branches: f14, f15, el6 InitialCC: nb
Sorry, got distracted on the first attempt at this.
Clint
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=676175
--- Comment #12 from Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu 2011-04-06 17:04:35 EDT --- 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=676175
Clint Savage herlo1@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #13 from Clint Savage herlo1@gmail.com 2011-04-11 22:14:55 EDT --- Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: fpaste-server New Branches: rawhide, el5
forgot to ask for el5 and rawhide branch, nothing else.
Thanks,
Clint
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=676175
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2011-04-12 00:11:55 EDT --- fpaste-server-0.1-3.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/fpaste-server-0.1-3.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=676175
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2011-04-12 00:15:31 EDT --- fpaste-server-0.1-3.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/fpaste-server-0.1-3.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=676175
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2011-04-12 00:16:35 EDT --- fpaste-server-0.1-3.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/fpaste-server-0.1-3.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=676175
Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs-
--- Comment #17 from Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu 2011-04-12 10:50:44 EDT --- The SCM request is invalid; it specifies no owners, and a rawhide (devel, actually) branch already exists, as you cannot have a package without a devel branch.
Please fix and re-raise the fedora-cvs flag.
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=676175
Clint Savage herlo1@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs- |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #18 from Clint Savage herlo1@gmail.com 2011-04-12 12:11:08 EDT --- Package Change Request ======================= Package Name: fpaste-server Short Description: Fedora Pastebin Server Owners: herlo, jsteffan New Branches: el5 InitialCC: nb
I honestly figured the same people would get the same permissions. I guess being explicit is a good thing.
Clint
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=676175
--- Comment #19 from Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu 2011-04-12 12:42:53 EDT --- http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_SCM_admin_requests#Package_Change_Requ...
"Please note that when the new branch is created, ownership or CC information will not be copied to the new branch, so be sure to specify in the request all of the owners and initialCC members the new branch should have."
All I can say is that due to the fact that these are processed by scripts, the documentation for the process is insistent that you use the templates exactly as provided. Change requests to not take "Short Description", for example. (pkgdb provides us no means to change that externally.) I'll edit the request for you and process it but in the future, please don't add fields.
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=676175
--- Comment #20 from Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu 2011-04-12 12:43:10 EDT --- 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=676175
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2011-04-12 13:02:54 EDT --- fpaste-server-0.1-3.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 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=676175
--- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2011-04-28 15:26:17 EDT --- fpaste-server-0.1-3.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=676175
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |fpaste-server-0.1-3.fc15 Resolution| |ERRATA Last Closed| |2011-04-28 15:26:23
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=676175
--- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2011-04-28 15:57:14 EDT --- fpaste-server-0.1-3.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=676175
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version|fpaste-server-0.1-3.fc15 |fpaste-server-0.1-3.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=676175
--- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2011-04-28 23:20:39 EDT --- fpaste-server-0.1-3.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=676175
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version|fpaste-server-0.1-3.el6 |fpaste-server-0.1-3.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=676175
--- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2011-05-02 13:05:18 EDT --- fpaste-server-0.1-3.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/fpaste-server-0.1-3.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=676175
--- Comment #26 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2011-05-20 13:56:28 EDT --- fpaste-server-0.1-3.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=676175
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version|fpaste-server-0.1-3.fc14 |fpaste-server-0.1-3.el5
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla