Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: cmpi-bindings - CMPI-compliant provider interface for various languages via SWIG
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=798654
Summary: Review Request: cmpi-bindings - CMPI-compliant provider interface for various languages via SWIG Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: vcrhonek@redhat.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: http://vcrhonek.fedorapeople.org/cmpi-bindings/cmpi-bindings.spec SRPM URL: http://vcrhonek.fedorapeople.org/cmpi-bindings/cmpi-bindings-0.4.17-1.fc16.s... Description: CMPI-compliant provider interface for various languages via SWIG
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=798654
Jan Safranek jsafrane@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |jsafrane@redhat.com AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |jsafrane@redhat.com Flag| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Jan Safranek jsafrane@redhat.com 2012-03-02 10:24:46 EST --- Rpmlint output: cmpi-bindings.src: W: invalid-url Source0: cmpi-bindings-0.4.17.tar.bz2 This looks fine, upstream does not have a website.
cmpi-bindings-pywbem.x86_64: W: no-documentation At least upstream README and LICENSE should be there. I'd appreciate also some README.Fedora which would specify, where python providers are expected.
The package should create and own /usr/lib/pythonX.Y/site-packages/pycim directory.
Otherwise, all MUST review items are OK.
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=798654
--- Comment #2 from Vitezslav Crhonek vcrhonek@redhat.com 2012-03-08 08:28:45 EST --- Fixed version: http://vcrhonek.fedorapeople.org/cmpi-bindings/cmpi-bindings.spec http://vcrhonek.fedorapeople.org/cmpi-bindings/cmpi-bindings-0.4.17-2.fc16.s...
(In reply to comment #1)
Rpmlint output: cmpi-bindings.src: W: invalid-url Source0: cmpi-bindings-0.4.17.tar.bz2 This looks fine, upstream does not have a website.
cmpi-bindings-pywbem.x86_64: W: no-documentation At least upstream README and LICENSE should be there. I'd appreciate also some README.Fedora which would specify, where python providers are expected.
Documentation added, README.Fedora created (please let me know whether the content is ok).
The package should create and own /usr/lib/pythonX.Y/site-packages/pycim directory.
Fixed.
Otherwise, all MUST review items are OK.
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=798654
Jan Safranek jsafrane@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Jan Safranek jsafrane@redhat.com 2012-03-09 04:05:15 EST --- Now it's perfect, thanks!
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=798654
Vitezslav Crhonek vcrhonek@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #4 from Vitezslav Crhonek vcrhonek@redhat.com 2012-03-12 08:39:03 EDT --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: cmpi-bindings Short Description: CMPI-compliant provider interface for various languages via SWIG Owners: vcrhonek Branches: f16 f17 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=798654
--- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com 2012-03-12 08:59:46 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=798654
Vitezslav Crhonek vcrhonek@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed| |2012-03-13 06:59:44
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org