Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: bluemodem - A bluetooth modem configuration utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=510376
Summary: Review Request: bluemodem - A bluetooth modem configuration utility Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: fabian@bernewireless.net QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/bluemodem.spec SRPM URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/bluemodem-0.7-1.fc11.src.rpm
Project URL: http://bluemodem.sourceforge.net/
Description: The bluemodem package contains a program to both run and configure, bluetooth modem connections. The bluemodem program allows you to maintain multiple modem configurations. Bluemodem also connects and dials out using ppp (dun).
Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1462372
rpmlint output: [fab@laptop09 SRPMS]$ rpmlint bluemodem-0.7-1.fc11.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[fab@laptop09 i586]$ rpmlint bluemodem* 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
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=510376
Christoph Wickert fedora@christoph-wickert.de changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |fedora@christoph-wickert.de AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |fedora@christoph-wickert.de 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=510376
--- Comment #1 from Christoph Wickert fedora@christoph-wickert.de 2009-07-18 08:49:51 EDT --- REVIEW FOR d9415e7233fa9f31309ca6e81a671ee8 bluemodem-0.7-1.fc11.src.rpm
- MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review. OK - MUST: The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. OK - MUST: The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. OK - MUST: The package meets the Packaging Guidelines. OK - MUST: The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines: GPLv2+ OK - MUST: The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. OK - MUST: The license file from the source package is included in %doc. OK - MUST: The spec file is in American English. OK - MUST: The spec file for the package is legible. OK - MUST: The sources used to build the package match the upstream source by MD5 6fe242a0dce8d5166d0d9ceba8be82d3 OK - MUST: The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on x86_64 N/A - 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. OK - MUST: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. N/A - MUST: The spec file handles locales properly with the %find_lang macro. N/A - 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. N/A - 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. OK - MUST: The package owns all directories that it creates (none). OK - MUST: The package does not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. OK - MUST: Permissions on files are set properly. Every %files section includes a %defattr(...) line. OK - MUST: The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}. OK - MUST: The package consistently uses macros, as described in the macros section of Packaging Guidelines. OK - MUST: The package contains code, or permissable content. N/A - MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage. OK - MUST: Files included as %doc do not affect the runtime of the application. N/A - MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. N/A - MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. N/A - MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'. N/A - 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. N/A - MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} OK - MUST: The package does not contain any .la libtool archives. N/A - 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. OK - MUST: The packages does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. OK - MUST: At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot}. OK - MUST: All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.
SHOULD Items: N/A - 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. N/A - SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. OK - SHOULD: The the package builds in mock. OK - SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. OK - SHOULD: The package functions as described. N/A - SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. N/A - SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. N/A - 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. N/A - 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.
Other items: OK - Timestamps are preserved OK - Latest stable version packaged OK - ${RPM_OPT_FLAGS} are honored
Issues: There are a couple of missing (Build)Requires.
When building locally: Determining rfcomm command /usr/bin/rfcomm Determining pppd command /usr/sbin/pppd Determining chat command /usr/sbin/chat Determining bluetoothd command /usr/sbin/bluetoothd Determining hcitool command /usr/bin/hcitool Determining modprobe command /sbin/modprobe Determining mknod command /bin/mknod Determining ps command /bin/ps
When building in mock/koji: Determining rfcomm command which: no rfcomm in (/sbin:/usr/sbin:/usr/sbin:/usr/bin:/sbin:/bin:/usr/X11R6/bin:/root/bin:/usr/local/sbin:/usr/local/bin:/usr/local/sbin) Determining pppd command which: no pppd in (/sbin:/usr/sbin:/usr/sbin:/usr/bin:/sbin:/bin:/usr/X11R6/bin:/root/bin:/usr/local/sbin:/usr/local/bin:/usr/local/sbin) Determining chat command which: no chat in (/sbin:/usr/sbin:/usr/sbin:/usr/bin:/sbin:/bin:/usr/X11R6/bin:/root/bin:/usr/local/sbin:/usr/local/bin:/usr/local/sbin) Determining bluetoothd command which: no bluetoothd in (/sbin:/usr/sbin:/usr/sbin:/usr/bin:/sbin:/bin:/usr/X11R6/bin:/root/bin:/usr/local/sbin:/usr/local/bin:/usr/local/sbin) Determining hcitool command which: no hcitool in (/sbin:/usr/sbin:/usr/sbin:/usr/bin:/sbin:/bin:/usr/X11R6/bin:/root/bin:/usr/local/sbin:/usr/local/bin:/usr/local/sbin) Determining modprobe command which: no modprobe in (/sbin:/usr/sbin:/usr/sbin:/usr/bin:/sbin:/bin:/usr/X11R6/bin:/root/bin:/usr/local/sbin:/usr/local/bin:/usr/local/sbin) Determining mknod command /bin/mknod Determining ps command which: no ps in (/sbin:/usr/sbin:/usr/sbin:/usr/bin:/sbin:/bin:/usr/X11R6/bin:/root/bin:/usr/local/sbin:/usr/local/bin:/usr/local/sbin)
Add the commands or their packages and I will approve the package.
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=510376
Juha Tuomala tuju@iki.fi changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |tuju@iki.fi Alias| |bluemodem
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=510376
--- Comment #2 from Christoph Wickert cwickert@fedoraproject.org 2009-10-03 08:38:40 EDT --- Ping
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=510376
Christoph Wickert cwickert@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |needinfo?(fabian@bernewirel | |ess.net)
--- Comment #3 from Christoph Wickert cwickert@fedoraproject.org 2009-11-22 22:47:52 EDT --- Please let me know if you are still interested in maintaining this package.
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=510376
Fabian Affolter fabian@bernewireless.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|needinfo?(fabian@bernewirel | |ess.net) |
--- Comment #4 from Fabian Affolter fabian@bernewireless.net 2009-12-20 15:52:31 EDT --- Thanks for your patience. Here are the new files:
Spec URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/bluemodem.spec SRPM URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/bluemodem-0.7-2.fc12.src.rpm
Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1882151
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=510376
Christoph Wickert cwickert@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Christoph Wickert cwickert@fedoraproject.org 2009-12-21 16:34:22 EDT --- Looks sane, 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=510376
--- Comment #6 from Fabian Affolter fabian@bernewireless.net 2009-12-21 16:41:56 EDT --- Thanks for the 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=510376
Fabian Affolter fabian@bernewireless.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #7 from Fabian Affolter fabian@bernewireless.net 2009-12-21 16:43:14 EDT --- New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: bluemodem Short Description: A bluetooth modem configuration utility Owners: fab Branches: F-11 F-12 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=510376
Dennis Gilmore dennis@ausil.us changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
--- Comment #8 from Dennis Gilmore dennis@ausil.us 2009-12-23 14:41:16 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=510376
--- Comment #9 from Christoph Wickert cwickert@fedoraproject.org 2010-02-07 20:12:32 EST --- Fabian, I see you did the builds, but forgot the updates.
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=510376
Fabian Affolter fabian@bernewireless.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |550709
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=510376
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2010-03-15 15:06:02 EDT --- bluemodem-0.7-3.fc12 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 12. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/bluemodem-0.7-3.fc12
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=510376
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2010-03-15 15:06:18 EDT --- bluemodem-0.7-3.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/bluemodem-0.7-3.fc13
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=510376
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2010-03-15 15:06:37 EDT --- bluemodem-0.7-3.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/bluemodem-0.7-3.fc11
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=510376
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2010-03-15 19:19:56 EDT --- bluemodem-0.7-5.fc12 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 12. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/bluemodem-0.7-5.fc12
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=510376
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2010-03-15 19:20:06 EDT --- bluemodem-0.7-5.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/bluemodem-0.7-5.fc13
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=510376
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2010-03-15 19:20:16 EDT --- bluemodem-0.7-5.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/bluemodem-0.7-5.fc11
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=510376
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |ON_QA
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2010-03-16 19:18:30 EDT --- bluemodem-0.7-5.fc13 has been pushed to the Fedora 13 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 bluemodem'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/bluemodem-0.7-5.fc13
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=510376
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2010-03-16 19:20:59 EDT --- bluemodem-0.7-5.fc12 has been pushed to the Fedora 12 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 bluemodem'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/bluemodem-0.7-5.fc12
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=510376
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2010-03-16 19:22:31 EDT --- bluemodem-0.7-5.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 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 bluemodem'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/bluemodem-0.7-5.fc11
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=510376
--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2010-03-29 22:14:43 EDT --- bluemodem-0.7-5.fc12 has been pushed to the Fedora 12 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=510376
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |bluemodem-0.7-5.fc12 Resolution| |ERRATA
Bug 510376 depends on bug 550709, which changed state.
Bug 550709 Summary: bluemodem not built with $RPM_OPT_FLAGS https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=550709
What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution| |ERRATA
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=510376
--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2010-03-29 22:25:14 EDT --- bluemodem-0.7-5.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 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=510376
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version|bluemodem-0.7-5.fc12 |bluemodem-0.7-5.fc11
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=510376
--- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2010-04-08 23:47:57 EDT --- bluemodem-0.7-5.fc13 has been pushed to the Fedora 13 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=510376
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version|bluemodem-0.7-5.fc11 |bluemodem-0.7-5.fc13
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla