Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: pidgin-privacy-please - Stop spam bots for Pidgin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479230
Summary: Review Request: pidgin-privacy-please - Stop spam bots for Pidgin Product: Fedora Version: 10 Platform: All URL: http://freshmeat.net/projects/pidgin-pp/ OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: guillaume.kulakowski@fedoraproject.org QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora
pidgin privacy please is a pidgin plugin to stop spammers from annoying you. You can block messages from certain users, block messages from people who are not on your contact list, and suppress repeated authorization requests. Optionally, senders of blocked messages can be notified with an auto-reply.
SPEC : http://www.llaumgui.com/public/rpm/SPECS/pidgin-privacy-please.spec
RPMS (i386) : http://www.llaumgui.com/public/rpm/RPMS/fc10/i386/pidgin-privacy-please-0.5.... http://www.llaumgui.com/public/rpm/RPMS/fc10/i386/pidgin-privacy-please-debu...
RPMS (x86_64) : http://www.llaumgui.com/public/rpm/RPMS/fc10/x86_64/pidgin-privacy-please-0.... http://www.llaumgui.com/public/rpm/RPMS/fc10/x86_64/pidgin-privacy-please-de...
SRPMS : http://www.llaumgui.com/public/rpm/SRPMS/fc10/pidgin-privacy-please-0.5.2-1....
Commment : rpmlint is 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=479230
Guillaume Kulakowski guillaume.kulakowski@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |177841
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=479230
Fabian Affolter fabian@bernewireless.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fabian@bernewireless.net
--- Comment #1 from Fabian Affolter fabian@bernewireless.net 2009-01-08 07:41:03 EDT --- Just some comment on your spec file
Preserving the time stamps in the %install section would be nice. make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot} INSTALL="install -p" if possible
Shouldn't the URL better be http://code.google.com/p/pidgin-privacy-please/ and Source0: http://pidgin-privacy-please.googlecode.com/files/pidgin-privacy-please-0.5.... than pointing to freshmeat?
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=479230
Guillaume Kulakowski guillaume.kulakowski@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL|http://freshmeat.net/projec |http://code.google.com/p/pi |ts/pidgin-pp/ |dgin-privacy-please/
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=479230
--- Comment #2 from Guillaume Kulakowski guillaume.kulakowski@fedoraproject.org 2009-01-08 13:33:19 EDT --- Correction apply.
SPEC : http://www.llaumgui.com/public/rpm/SPECS/pidgin-privacy-please.spec
RPMS (i386) : http://www.llaumgui.com/public/rpm/RPMS/fc10/i386/pidgin-privacy-please-0.5.... http://www.llaumgui.com/public/rpm/RPMS/fc10/i386/pidgin-privacy-please-debu...
RPMS (x86_64) : http://www.llaumgui.com/public/rpm/RPMS/fc10/x86_64/pidgin-privacy-please-0.... http://www.llaumgui.com/public/rpm/RPMS/fc10/x86_64/pidgin-privacy-please-de...
SRPMS : http://www.llaumgui.com/public/rpm/SRPMS/fc10/pidgin-privacy-please-0.5.2-2....
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=479230
Fabian Affolter fabian@bernewireless.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |fabian@bernewireless.net 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=479230
Fabian Affolter fabian@bernewireless.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Fabian Affolter fabian@bernewireless.net 2009-01-10 04:33:25 EDT --- Package Review ==============
Key: - = N/A x = Check ! = Problem ? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS === [x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. Tested on: F9/i386 [!] Rpmlint output: [1] Source RPM: [fab@laptop024 SRPMS]$ rpmlint pidgin-privacy-please-0.5.2-2.fc10.src.rpm pidgin-privacy-please.src: E: unknown-key GPG#5d512c97 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings. Binary RPM(s): [fab@laptop024 i386]$ rpmlint pidgin-privacy-please* 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [x] Package is not relocatable. [x] Buildroot is correct master : %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) spec file: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) [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. License type: GPLv2+ [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] Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Upstream source: 9db291fab302a189fef27c9922f9432a Build source: 9db291fab302a189fef27c9922f9432a [x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [-] The spec file handles locales properly. %find_lang used for locales. [x] %{optflags} or RPM_OPT_FLAGS are honoured. [-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [x] %install starts with rm -rf %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT. [x] Package must own all directories that it creates. [x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x] Permissions on files are set properly. %defattr(-,root,root,-) is in every %files section. [x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT. [x] Package consistently uses macros. [x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackage, if present. [-] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present. [-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la). [x] -debuginfo subpackage is present and looks complete. [-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI application.
=== SUGGESTED ITEMS === [x] Timestamps preserved with cp and install. [x] Uses parallel make (%{?_smp_mflags}) [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] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. Tested on: F9/i386 [x] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. Tested: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1043532 [x] Package functions as described. [-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct. [-] File based requires are sane. [x] Changelog in allowed format
[1] Packages must not be sign with your own key. Please fix this before import.
Beside that I see no further blocker, package 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=479230
Fabian Affolter fabian@bernewireless.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEW AssignedTo|fabian@bernewireless.net |nobody@fedoraproject.org Flag|fedora-review+ |
--- Comment #4 from Fabian Affolter fabian@bernewireless.net 2009-01-10 08:46:17 EDT --- Sorry, my review is only informal. Reset the flag and assignee. I'm not a sponsor.
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=479230
Christoph Wickert fedora@christoph-wickert.de changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |fedora@christoph-wickert.de AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |fabian@bernewireless.net Flag| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Christoph Wickert fedora@christoph-wickert.de 2009-01-10 09:33:23 EDT --- (In reply to comment #4)
Sorry, my review is only informal. Reset the flag and assignee. I'm not a sponsor.
Fabian, your review is perfectly valid. You only need to be a reviewer and not a sponsor. Resetting your previous changes and APPROVE the package again.
Guillaume, please add a blank line between every changelog entry and follow Fabians suggestions. Summing it all up the spec looks nice and clean. Good work!
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=479230
--- Comment #6 from Guillaume Kulakowski guillaume.kulakowski@fedoraproject.org 2009-01-10 09:53:40 EDT --- It's OK (I haven't increment release just for blank line) :
SPEC : http://www.llaumgui.com/public/rpm/SPECS/pidgin-privacy-please.spec
RPMS (x86_64) : http://www.llaumgui.com/public/rpm/RPMS/fc10/x86_64/pidgin-privacy-please-0.... http://www.llaumgui.com/public/rpm/RPMS/fc10/x86_64/pidgin-privacy-please-de...
SRPMS : http://www.llaumgui.com/public/rpm/SRPMS/fc10/pidgin-privacy-please-0.5.2-2....
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=479230
--- Comment #7 from Christoph Wickert fedora@christoph-wickert.de 2009-01-10 09:55:19 EDT --- (In reply to comment #3)
[1] Packages must not be sign with your own key. Please fix this before import.
No need to fix this, it's ok. The buildsys will build new srpms anyway, so you can ignore this rpmlint warning.
(In reply to comment #6)
It's OK (I haven't increment release just for blank line) :
No need for this ether, the package was already approved by Fabian.
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=479230
--- Comment #8 from Fabian Affolter fabian@bernewireless.net 2009-01-11 19:11:55 EDT --- Guillaume, as soon as you are sponsored, please go on with the cvs procedure.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/CVSAdminProcedure
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=479230
--- Comment #9 from Christoph Wickert fedora@christoph-wickert.de 2009-01-11 19:57:17 EDT --- Aurelien will sponsor Guillaume as soon as I approve bug # 459535.
BTW: Fabian, generally speaking you are right: Because Guillaume is a new contributor, the review needs to be done by a sponsor. Nevertheless your review is very good, I have re-checked most of the points and the other review is nearly finished, so I don't see a problem here.
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=479230
--- Comment #10 from Guillaume Kulakowski guillaume.kulakowski@fedoraproject.org 2009-01-22 13:37:38 EDT --- New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: pidgin-privacy-please Short Description: Security and Privacy plugin for Pidgin Owners: llaumgui Branches: F-9 F-10 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=479230
--- Comment #11 from Guillaume Kulakowski guillaume.kulakowski@fedoraproject.org 2009-01-22 13:40:12 EDT --- New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: pidgin-privacy-please Short Description: Security and Privacy plugin for Pidgin Owners: llaumgui Branches: F-9 F-10 EL-5 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=479230
Guillaume Kulakowski llaumgui@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |llaumgui@gmail.com 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=479230
Kevin Fenzi kevin@tummy.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |
--- Comment #12 from Kevin Fenzi kevin@tummy.com 2009-01-24 20:58:59 EDT --- I can't process this yet, until bug 481365 is cleared up. Can you reset the fedora-cvs when that bug is taken care of?
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=479230
--- Comment #13 from Guillaume Kulakowski llaumgui@gmail.com 2009-01-26 13:54:49 EDT --- My bubzilla account problem is solved. I have the permission on the good account
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=479230
--- Comment #14 from Guillaume Kulakowski llaumgui@gmail.com 2009-01-26 13:57:47 EDT --- New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: pidgin-privacy-please Short Description: Security and Privacy plugin for Pidgin Owners: llaumgui Branches: F-9 F-10 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=479230
Guillaume Kulakowski llaumgui@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=479230
Kevin Fenzi kevin@tummy.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
--- Comment #15 from Kevin Fenzi kevin@tummy.com 2009-01-26 17:46:51 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=479230
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |ON_QA
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2009-01-29 18:05:03 EDT --- pidgin-privacy-please-0.5.2-2.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update pidgin-privacy-please'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F10/FEDORA-2009-1118
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=479230
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2009-01-29 18:12:06 EDT --- pidgin-privacy-please-0.5.2-2.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing-newkey update pidgin-privacy-please'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F9/FEDORA-2009-1188
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=479230
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2009-02-07 17:20:10 EDT --- pidgin-privacy-please-0.5.2-2.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
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=479230
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE
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=479230
--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2009-02-07 17:23:01 EDT --- pidgin-privacy-please-0.5.2-2.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
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=479230
Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla