Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: trac-watchlist-plugin - plugin for watching trac wiki pages and tickets
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=492231
Summary: Review Request: trac-watchlist-plugin - plugin for watching trac wiki pages and tickets Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: jonstanley@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://jstanley.fedorapeople.org/trac-watchlist-plugin.spec SRPM URL: http://jstanley.fedorapeople.org/trac-watchlist-plugin-0.1-1.svn5357.fc11.no... Description: This plugin allows users to set watches on wiki pages and tickets in Trac. It currently only works with trac 0.11.
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=492231
Till Maas opensource@till.name changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |opensource@till.name
--- Comment #1 from Till Maas opensource@till.name 2009-03-31 07:35:14 EDT --- It seems to me that this is a pre-release snapshot, because there seems to be no upstream release of version 0.1 of this package. Then the RPM release tag has to follow this schema: 0.%{X}.%{alphatag}
Which is in this case: 0.1.svn%{svn_rev}%{?dist}
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Pre-Release_packag...
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=492231
--- Comment #2 from Jon Stanley jonstanley@gmail.com 2009-04-03 01:24:01 EDT --- Upstream is really bad about versioned releases for trac plugins. But I see your point, I was following the post-release snapshot guidelines, assuming that the first version ever published was the 0.1 "release".
A "release" per se is unlikely to ever occur for this package, so it will be forever a pre-release I guess.
New spec: http://jstanley.fedorapeople.org/trac-watchlist-plugin.spec New SRPM: http://jstanley.fedorapeople.org/trac-watchlist-plugin-0.1-0.2.svn5357.fc10....
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=492231
--- Comment #3 from Jon Stanley jonstanley@gmail.com 2009-04-03 01:27:28 EDT --- Oh, and the 0.1 version came from setup.py - I didn't just pull it from mid-air :)
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=492231
Till Maas opensource@till.name changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |opensource@till.name Flag| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Till Maas opensource@till.name 2009-04-21 13:51:59 EDT --- [OK] rpmlint output: trac-watchlist-plugin.noarch: W: no-documentation
[OK] Spec in %{name}.spec format
[OK] license allowed: BSD [OK] license matches shortname in License: tag [OK] license in tarball and included in %doc: not in upstream tarball/SCM
[OK] package is code or permissive content: {OK} patches sent to upstream and commented: no patches
[GOOD ENOUGH] Source0 is a working URL Tarball generation instructions work
{N/A} Sourceforge URL is Source0: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/%%7Bname%7D/%%7Bname%7D-%%7Bversion%7D.tar.... https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL#Sourceforge.net <OK> SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}
[OK] Source0 matches Upstream: indidual files in tarball match locally generated tarball
[OK] Package builds on all primary architectures: noarch http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1311889 [N/A] ExcludeArch bugs are filed and commented: [OK] BuildRequires are complete (mock builds) (OK) No file dependencies outside of /etc /bin /sbin /usr/bin /usr/sbin
[N/A] %find_lang used for locales
[N/A] Every (sub)package containing libraries runs ldconfig %post -p /sbin/ldconfig %postun -p /sbin/ldconfig [N/A] .h (header) files are in -devel subpackage [N/A] .a (static libraries) are in -static subpackage [N/A] contains .pc (pkgconfig) files and has Requires: pkgconfig (N/A) .pc files are in -devel subpackage [N/A] contains .so.X(.Y) files and .so is in -devel [N/A] -devel subpackage has Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} [N/A] .la files (libtool) are not included
[N/A] Has GUI and includes %{name}.desktop [N/A] Follows desktop entry spec [N/A] Valid .desktop Name [N/A] Valid .desktop GenericName [N/A] Valid .desktop Categories
[N/A] Valid .desktop StartupNotify [N/A] .desktop file installed with desktop-file-install in %install
[OK] Prefix: /usr not used (not relocatable)
[OK] Owns all created directories [OK] no duplicates in %files [OK] %defattr(-,root,root,-) is in every %files section [OK] Does not own files or dirs from other packages [OK] included filenames are in UTF-8
[OK] %clean is rm -rf %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [OK] %install starts with rm -rf %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[OK] Consistent macro usage [OK] large documentation is -doc subpackage [OK] %doc does not affect runtime
{OK} no pre-built binaries (.a, .so*, executable) {OK} well known BuildRoot %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
{OK} PreReq not used {N/A} RPM_OPT_FLAGS honoured {N/A} Useful debuginfo generated {OK} no duplication of system libraries {OK} no rpath {GOOD ENOUGH} Timestamps preserved with cp and install {N/A} Uses parallel make (%{?_smp_mflags}) {OK} Requires(pre,post) style notation not used {OK} only writes to tmp /var/tmp $TMPDIR %{_tmppath} %{_builddir} (and %{buildroot} on %install and %clean) {OK} no Conflicts {OK} nothing installed in /srv {OK} Changelog in allowed format {OK} does not use Scriptlets <OK> Architecture independent packages have: BuildArch: noarch <OK> Sane Provides: and Requires: {OK} Follows Naming Guidelines {OK} Has BuildRequires: python {NOT OK} Defines and uses %{python_sitelib}: %{!?python_sitelib: %global python_sitelib %(%{__python} -c "from distutils.sysconfig import get_python_lib; print get_python_lib()")} you should use %global instead of %define
[OK] Python eggs must be built from source. They cannot simply drop an egg from upstream into the proper directory. [OK] Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [OK] If egg-info files are generated by the modules build scripts they must be included in the package. [N/A] When building a compat package, it must install using easy_install -m so it won't conflict with the main package. [N/A] When building multiple versions (for a compat package) one of the packages must contain a default version that is usable via "import MODULE" with no prior setup. (OK) A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info.
{OK} Egg install: %install %{__python} setup.py install --skip-build --root $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
Please change the two occurences of %define to %global before importing the package into Fedora. Except for this minor issue the package looks good and is therefore 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=492231
Till Maas opensource@till.name changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |needinfo?(jonstanley@gmail. | |com)
--- Comment #5 from Till Maas opensource@till.name 2010-01-27 11:32:18 EST --- You need to create a CVS admin request to proceed, and don't forget to change the %define to %global.
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=492231
Jon Stanley jonstanley@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|needinfo?(jonstanley@gmail. |fedora-cvs? |com) |
--- Comment #6 from Jon Stanley jonstanley@gmail.com 2010-01-29 14:30:57 EST --- Oops, looks like I completely forgot about this - sorry about that!
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: trac-watchlist-plugin Short Description: A trac plugin for watching wiki Owners: jstanley Branches: F-11 F-12 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=492231
--- Comment #7 from Kevin Fenzi kevin@tummy.com 2010-01-31 13:03:55 EST --- CVS done (by process-cvs-requests.py).
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=492231
--- Comment #8 from Till Maas opensource@till.name 2010-06-29 16:35:46 EDT --- (In reply to comment #6)
Oops, looks like I completely forgot about this - sorry about that!
It seems this happened 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=492231
Kevin Fenzi kevin@scrye.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |kevin@scrye.com
--- Comment #9 from Kevin Fenzi kevin@scrye.com 2011-12-28 13:20:53 EST --- https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2011-5335/trac-watchlist...
I don't know if Fedora branches/updates are needed/wanted.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org