Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: erlang-sext - Sortable Erlang Term Serialization
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822491
Summary: Review Request: erlang-sext - Sortable Erlang Term Serialization Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: lemenkov@gmail.com QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Regression: --- Mount Type: --- Documentation: ---
Spec URL: peter.fedorapeople.org/erlang-sext.spec SRPM URL: http://peter.fedorapeople.org/erlang-sext-0.4.1-1.fc18.src.rpm Description: A sortable serialization library This library offers a serialization format (a la term_to_binary()) that preserves the Erlang term order.
Koji scratchbuild for F-18: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4083706
rpmlint: sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SPECS: rpmlint ../RPMS/ppc/erlang-sext-0.4.1-1.fc18.ppc.rpm ../SRPMS/erlang-sext-0.4.1-1.fc18.src.rpm erlang-sext.ppc: E: explicit-lib-dependency erlang-stdlib
^^^ false positive (triggered by "stdlib" word)
erlang-sext.ppc: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Sortable -> Portable, Sort able, Sort-able erlang-sext.ppc: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sortable -> portable, sort able, sort-able
^^^ false positives
erlang-sext.ppc: E: no-binary erlang-sext.ppc: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
^^^ this one is tricky. All erlang packages must be installed into %{_libdir}/erlang/lib so despite of the fact that some of them contains only arch-independent data they all must be build as arch-dependent. I plan to fix that but I wouldn't hold my breath.
erlang-sext.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Sortable -> Portable, Sort able, Sort-able erlang-sext.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sortable -> portable, sort able, sort-able
^^^ false positives
erlang-sext.src: W: invalid-url Source0: esl-sext-0.4.1-0-g362bdd1.tar.gz
^^^ blame github for that, not me.
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 6 warnings. sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SPECS:
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=822491
Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |821771
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=822491
Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |652629
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822491
--- Comment #1 from Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com --- Build 0.4.1-2 - the same sources with the patch which removes unneeded dependency from the final RPM package:
* http://peter.fedorapeople.org/erlang-sext.spec * http://peter.fedorapeople.org/erlang-sext-0.4.1-2.fc18.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822491
Lakshmi Narasimhan lakshminaras2002@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |lakshminaras2002@gmail.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |lakshminaras2002@gmail.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822491
Michel Alexandre Salim michel+fdr@sylvestre.me changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |michel+fdr@sylvestre.me Assignee|lakshminaras2002@gmail.com |michel+fdr@sylvestre.me Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #2 from Michel Alexandre Salim michel+fdr@sylvestre.me --- We haven't heard from Lakshmi, so Peter and I agree that I should just take over the review.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822491
Michel Alexandre Salim michel+fdr@sylvestre.me changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Michel Alexandre Salim michel+fdr@sylvestre.me --- Same as merge_index - apart from fixing buildroot vs RPM_BUILD_ROOT and removing defattr, everything looks fine; please fix them when importing.
APPROVED
Package Review ==============
Key: - = N/A x = Pass ! = Fail ? = Not evaluated
==== Generic ==== [x]: EXTRA Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: EXTRA Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. [x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [!]: MUST Buildroot is not present Note: Buildroot is not needed unless packager plans to package for EPEL5 [x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries. [x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format. [!]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: Clean is needed only if supporting EPEL [x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content. [!]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: defattr(....) present in %files section. This is OK if packaging for EPEL5. Otherwise not needed [x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [-]: MUST Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: MUST Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [!]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf is only needed if supporting EPEL5 [-]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [x]: 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 is included in %doc. [x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [!]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). Note: Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: MUST Package is named using only allowed ascii characters. [x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: MUST Package installs properly. [x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: MUST Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [-]: MUST Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8. [-]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [-]: 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. [x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present. [x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [?]: SHOULD Package functions as described. [x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged. [x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: SHOULD Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. [x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL. [-]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define.
Issues: [!]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Architecture_Support [!]: MUST Buildroot is not present Note: Buildroot is not needed unless packager plans to package for EPEL5 See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag [!]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: Clean is needed only if supporting EPEL See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#.25clean [!]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: defattr(....) present in %files section. This is OK if packaging for EPEL5. Otherwise not needed See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions [!]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf is only needed if supporting EPEL5 See: None [!]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). Note: Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#macros
Rpmlint ------- Checking: 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Requires -------- Provides -------- MD5-sum check -------------
Generated by fedora-review 0.2.0git External plugins:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822491
Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #4 from Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com --- Thanks!
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: erlang-sext Short Description: Sortable Erlang Term Serialization Owners: peter Branches: f16 f17 el6 InitialCC:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822491
--- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822491
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822491
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- erlang-sext-0.4.1-2.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/erlang-sext-0.4.1-2.fc16
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822491
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- erlang-sext-0.4.1-2.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/erlang-sext-0.4.1-2.el6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822491
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- erlang-sext-0.4.1-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/erlang-sext-0.4.1-2.fc17
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822491
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- erlang-sext-0.4.1-2.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 testing repository.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822491
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2012-06-30 04:28:11
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- erlang-sext-0.4.1-2.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822491
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- erlang-sext-0.4.1-2.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822491
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- erlang-sext-0.4.1-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla