https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829038
Bug ID: 829038 QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org Severity: medium Version: rawhide Priority: medium CC: notting@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Summary: Review Request: drupal6-freelinking - Freelinking module for Drupal6 Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: ansilva@redhat.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora
Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/~ansilva/drupal6-freelinking.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/~ansilva/drupal6-freelinking-3.2-2.fc16.src.rpm Description: The freelinking module implements a filter for the easier creation of HTML links to other pages. Fedora Account System Username: afsilva
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829038
Troy Dawson tdawson@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |tdawson@redhat.com
--- Comment #1 from Troy Dawson tdawson@redhat.com --- Informal Package Review ==============
Since this is for both Fedora and EPEL I would pass this.
If it were not, it would need to be cleaned up with the issues at the bottom of this review.
==============
Key: - = N/A x = Pass ! = Fail ? = Not evaluated
==== Generic ==== [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 [-]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [-]: 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 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. [X]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [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 output is silent. [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 a SysV-style init script if in need of one. [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). [X]: SHOULD Package functions as described. [X]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged. [!]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [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. [-]: 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 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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829038
Troy Dawson tdawson@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |tdawson@redhat.com
--- Comment #2 from Troy Dawson tdawson@redhat.com ---
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. [S]: 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. [-]: 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. [X]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries. [X]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format. [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 [-]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [-]: MUST Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: MUST Development files must be in a -devel package [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. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [X]: MUST Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [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. Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s) [X]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: MUST If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [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 Package is not relocatable. [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. [x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [!]: SHOULD Buildroot is not present Note: Buildroot is not needed unless packager plans to package for EPEL5 [!]: SHOULD Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: Clean is needed only if supporting EPEL5 [!]: 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. [!]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: SHOULD SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [!]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. Note: Source2 (LICENSE.txt) Source0 (freelinking-6.x-3.2.tar.gz) [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. [-]: 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 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 License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#ValidLicenseShor...
[!]: 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. [!]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: drupal6-freelinking-3.2-2.fc18.src.rpm drupal6-freelinking-3.2-2.fc18.noarch.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Requires -------- drupal6-freelinking-3.2-2.fc18.noarch.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
drupal6
Provides -------- drupal6-freelinking-3.2-2.fc18.noarch.rpm:
drupal6-freelinking = 3.2-2.fc18
MD5-sum check ------------- http://ftp.drupal.org/files/projects/freelinking-6.x-3.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 5bc5d9221c7234e14730277afdb76ebebf570e62362ab018b43e184e6406491c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 5bc5d9221c7234e14730277afdb76ebebf570e62362ab018b43e184e6406491c
Generated by fedora-review 0.2.2 (9f8c0e5) last change: 2012-08-09 Command line :/bin/fedora-review -b 829038 External plugins:
===============
You have provided a license as SOURCE2, but if I open up the upstream tarball, it already has it's own LICENSE.txt file. Please use the Upstreams License file, or give a reason for not using it.
Once that is fixed, or justified, I will approve this.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829038
--- Comment #3 from Anderson Silva ansilva@redhat.com --- the reason there is a different license is because the origianl LICENSE shipped from upstream contains the incorrect mailing address for the FSF which actually throws an error by rpmlint. I think the error is: E: incorrect-fsf-address
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829038
Troy Dawson tdawson@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Troy Dawson tdawson@redhat.com --- That was the only problem I found, so I approve this request.
It would be a good idea to inform upstream of this license problem, if you haven't already.
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829038
--- Comment #5 from Anderson Silva ansilva@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: drupal6-freelinking Short Description: The freelinking module implements a filter for the easier creation of HTML links to other pages. Owners: afsilva mwoodson siwinski Branches: f17 f18 f19 el6 InitialCC:
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829038
Anderson Silva ansilva@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-cvs?
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829038
--- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- "mwoodson" is not in the packager group.
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829038
--- Comment #7 from Anderson Silva ansilva@redhat.com --- Jon,
I've reached to Matt, I guess he needs to maintain a package first.
AS
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829038
Anderson Silva ansilva@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #8 from Anderson Silva ansilva@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: drupal6-freelinking Short Description: The freelinking module implements a filter for the easier creation of HTML links to other pages. Owners: afsilva siwinski Branches: f17 f18 f19 el6 InitialCC:
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829038
--- Comment #9 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829038
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |MODIFIED
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829038
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- drupal6-freelinking-3.2-2.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/drupal6-freelinking-3.2-2.el6
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829038
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- drupal6-freelinking-3.2-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/drupal6-freelinking-3.2-2.fc17
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829038
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- drupal6-freelinking-3.2-2.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/drupal6-freelinking-3.2-2.fc18
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829038
Shawn Iwinski shawn.iwinski@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |shawn.iwinski@gmail.com Flags|fedora-cvs+ | Flags| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #13 from Shawn Iwinski shawn.iwinski@gmail.com --- Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: drupal6-freelinking New Branches: el5 Owners: ansilva siwinski InitialCC:
Adding el5 branch to follow most other drupal6 packages.
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829038
--- Comment #14 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829038
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829038
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- drupal6-freelinking-3.2-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository.
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829038
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2013-04-01 18:26:37
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829038
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- drupal6-freelinking-3.2-2.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository.
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829038
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- drupal6-freelinking-3.2-2.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla