[Bug 1343814] New: Review Request: vagrant-sshfs - A Vagrant synced folder plugin that mounts folders via SSHFS.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1343814
Bug ID: 1343814 Summary: Review Request: vagrant-sshfs - A Vagrant synced folder plugin that mounts folders via SSHFS. Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: dustymabe@redhat.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: https://dustymabe.fedorapeople.org/vagrant-sshfs-rpm/vagrant-sshfs.spec SRPM URL: https://dustymabe.fedorapeople.org/vagrant-sshfs-rpm/vagrant-sshfs-1.1.0-1.f... Description: A Vagrant synced folder plugin that mounts folders via SSHFS. This is the successor to Fabio Kreusch's implementation: https://github.com/fabiokr/vagrant-sshfs. Fedora Account System Username: dustymabe
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1343814
Randy Barlow bowlofeggs@electronsweatshop.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |bowlofeggs@electronsweatsho | |p.com Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1343814
Randy Barlow bowlofeggs@electronsweatshop.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |dustymabe@redhat.com Flags| |needinfo?(dustymabe@redhat. | |com)
--- Comment #1 from Randy Barlow bowlofeggs@electronsweatshop.com --- The Source0 should be a URL to the source, and for Ruby is often a link to where the gem can be downloaded from rubygems.org. Something like this I think will work:
Source0: https://rubygems.org/gems/%%7Bvagrant_plugin_name%7D-%%7Bversion%7D.gem
Also this SRPM does not build on Rawhide, as you also need rubygems-devel:
BuildRequires: rubygems-devel
Can you fix those two things and let me know when you have a new SRPM and spec ready?
It's also a good idea to try a koji build and past the link here. You can do that with something like this:
koji build --scratch rawhide /path/to/srpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1343814
Dusty Mabe dustymabe@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(dustymabe@redhat. | |com) |
--- Comment #2 from Dusty Mabe dustymabe@redhat.com ---
New spec/srpm:
https://dustymabe.fedorapeople.org/v2-vagrant-sshfs.spec https://dustymabe.fedorapeople.org/v2-vagrant-sshfs-1.1.0-1.fc24.src.rpm
Koji Build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=14534085
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1343814
--- Comment #3 from Dusty Mabe dustymabe@redhat.com --- Created attachment 1169147 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1169147&action=edit version 2 of vagrant-sshfs spec file
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1343814
Randy Barlow rbarlow@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |rbarlow@redhat.com Flags| |needinfo?(dustymabe@redhat. | |com)
--- Comment #4 from Randy Barlow rbarlow@redhat.com --- Hey Dusty!
There are a few more issues to work out. See the lines that have a [!] below. I've added a bowlofeggs: to lines where I have comments.
Also, when making new versions of the spec file and SRPM, many reviewers expect you to overwrite the same spec file URL, but to bump the SRPM release field. I personally don't mind if you re-use the srpm release and overwrite it as well, but the v2- prefix that you added made the review tool upset. When we get the final version of this spec done, you are going to import the final SRPM into the Fedora SCM, so you probably want to name it without the v2- prefix.
All that said, when you fix the notes I listed below and make a new version, feel free to just make the URLs be the same as you had in the initial comment, or increment the release field if you want.
I am about to go on vacation for three weeks starting on Tuesday. If you can have these things fixed by tomorrow I can review it tomorrow. Otherwise, feel free to find someone else to take over the review for me while I am away.
One more thing, you can run fedora-review on your SRPM yourself if you want to see how I'm making the report below. Just run fedora-review -rn /path/to/srpm. It's handy because it'll build and install the package with mock, run rpmlint for you, and run a few other checks automatically.
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: ======= - Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. Note: v2-vagrant-sshfs.spec should be vagrant-sshfs.spec See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Spec_file_name
===== MUST items =====
Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. bowlofeggs: Add the %license statement to the %files doc section near the bottom, and that'll take care of this. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/vagrant/gems/doc, /usr/share/vagrant/gems, /usr/share/vagrant bowlofeggs: I think this is just fedora-review messing up. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: 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 %license. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [!]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages. Note: Package contains font files bowlofeggs: You should try to remove these fonts upstream, but you can worry about that later. In the meantime, you should declare in your spec file that you are bundling these fonts. You can add the following lines near your Requires statements:
Provides: bundled(lato-fonts) # Using OFL license https://www.google.com/fonts/specimen/Source+Code+Pro Provides: bundled(sourcecodepro-fonts) [x]: 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]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in vagrant- sshfs-doc bowlofeggs: In the %package doc section, try the line above, adding %{?_isa}. [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. bowlofeggs: No tests are being run in the check section. I suggest either running tests there, or removing the section. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Bad spec filename: /home/rbarlow/reviews/1343814-v2-vagrant- sshfs/srpm-unpacked/vagrant-sshfs.spec See: (this test has no URL) bowlofeggs: This happened because of the v2 prefix you put in front of the filenames. [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). bowlofeggs: Looks like you just need to remove the period at the end of your summary.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: vagrant-sshfs-1.1.0-1.fc25.noarch.rpm vagrant-sshfs-doc-1.1.0-1.fc25.noarch.rpm vagrant-sshfs-1.1.0-1.fc25.src.rpm vagrant-sshfs.noarch: W: summary-ended-with-dot C A Vagrant synced folder plugin that mounts folders via SSHFS. vagrant-sshfs.noarch: W: no-documentation vagrant-sshfs.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot C A Vagrant synced folder plugin that mounts folders via SSHFS. 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- vagrant-sshfs.noarch: W: summary-ended-with-dot C A Vagrant synced folder plugin that mounts folders via SSHFS. vagrant-sshfs.noarch: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
Requires -------- vagrant-sshfs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh vagrant
vagrant-sshfs-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): vagrant-sshfs
Provides -------- vagrant-sshfs: vagrant(vagrant-sshfs) vagrant-sshfs
vagrant-sshfs-doc: vagrant-sshfs-doc
Source checksums ---------------- https://rubygems.org/gems/vagrant-sshfs-1.1.0.gem : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 548d7d4259f297bc975b042bb180af4da0cfb26e92f3258cb8b1c126ff49d90b CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 548d7d4259f297bc975b042bb180af4da0cfb26e92f3258cb8b1c126ff49d90b
Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1343814 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1343814
--- Comment #5 from Randy Barlow rbarlow@redhat.com --- I should have been more specific - the Provides: bundled() lines should be in your doc subpackage, not in the regular package. So in the %package doc section, add those lines.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1343814
Dusty Mabe dustymabe@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(dustymabe@redhat. | |com) |
--- Comment #6 from Dusty Mabe dustymabe@redhat.com --- Tried to make the requested updates. New versions of spec/srpm here:
https://dustymabe.fedorapeople.org/vagrant-sshfs-rpm/v5/vagrant-sshfs.spec https://dustymabe.fedorapeople.org/vagrant-sshfs-rpm/v5/vagrant-sshfs-1.1.0-...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1343814
Randy Barlow bowlofeggs@electronsweatshop.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #7 from Randy Barlow bowlofeggs@electronsweatshop.com --- The %license macro in the doc subpackage %files section doesn't list the license file after it. You should change it to this:
%license %{vagrant_plugin_instdir}/LICENSE
I'm going to go ahead and mark it passed, but it is important that you fix that before you add the package to Fedora. Nice work!
You are now ready for the next step:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers?rd=Pa...
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 17 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/rbarlow/reviews/1343814-vagrant- sshfs/licensecheck.txt [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. bowlofeggs: The %license macro in the %files doc section doesn't list a path to the license file like it should. You can make it the same as it is in the regular %files section. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/vagrant/gems/doc, /usr/share/vagrant/gems, /usr/share/vagrant [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: 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 %license. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [x]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages. Note: Package contains font files [x]: 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]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in vagrant- sshfs-doc [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: vagrant-sshfs-1.1.0-1.fc25.noarch.rpm vagrant-sshfs-doc-1.1.0-1.fc25.noarch.rpm vagrant-sshfs-1.1.0-1.fc25.src.rpm vagrant-sshfs.noarch: W: no-documentation vagrant-sshfs.src:24: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(lato-fonts) vagrant-sshfs.src:26: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(sourcecodepro-fonts) 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- vagrant-sshfs.noarch: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
Requires -------- vagrant-sshfs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh vagrant
vagrant-sshfs-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): vagrant-sshfs
Provides -------- vagrant-sshfs: bundled(lato-fonts) bundled(sourcecodepro-fonts) vagrant(vagrant-sshfs) vagrant-sshfs
vagrant-sshfs-doc: vagrant-sshfs-doc
Source checksums ---------------- https://rubygems.org/gems/vagrant-sshfs-1.1.0.gem : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 548d7d4259f297bc975b042bb180af4da0cfb26e92f3258cb8b1c126ff49d90b CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 548d7d4259f297bc975b042bb180af4da0cfb26e92f3258cb8b1c126ff49d90b
Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1343814 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1343814
--- Comment #8 from Dusty Mabe dustymabe@redhat.com --- Thanks bowlofeggs!
Final version of the spec/srpm are here:
https://dustymabe.fedorapeople.org/vagrant-sshfs-rpm/v6/vagrant-sshfs.spec https://dustymabe.fedorapeople.org/vagrant-sshfs-rpm/v6/vagrant-sshfs-1.1.0-...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1343814
--- Comment #9 from Randy Barlow bowlofeggs@electronsweatshop.com --- Hey Dusty! The next step is for you to get sponsored. You should find a sponsor and work with them to get the packager bit set on your account. I think Adam Miller might be willing to help…
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1343814
Igor Gnatenko ignatenko@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1343814
Igor Gnatenko ignatenko@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEW Assignee|randy@electronsweatshop.com |nobody@fedoraproject.org Flags|fedora-review+ |
--- Comment #10 from Igor Gnatenko ignatenko@redhat.com --- (In reply to Randy Barlow from comment #9)
Hey Dusty! The next step is for you to get sponsored. You should find a sponsor and work with them to get the packager bit set on your account. I think Adam Miller might be willing to help…
That's why I drop fedora-review+.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1343814
Parag AN(पराग) panemade@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |panemade@gmail.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |panemade@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #11 from Parag AN(पराग) panemade@gmail.com --- I will sponsor Dusty. Dusty, Can you do some (say 2 more as I can see one already done for python-isort) full package reviews like the fedora-review output of some packages waiting for their package reviews? You can get this list to review packages here -> https://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/NEW.html
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1343814
--- Comment #12 from Parag AN(पराग) panemade@gmail.com --- Any updates here?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1343814
--- Comment #13 from Parag AN(पराग) panemade@gmail.com --- (In reply to Igor Gnatenko from comment #10)
(In reply to Randy Barlow from comment #9)
Hey Dusty! The next step is for you to get sponsored. You should find a sponsor and work with them to get the packager bit set on your account. I think Adam Miller might be willing to help…
That's why I drop fedora-review+.
The package that have FE-NEEDSPONSOR should only be reviewed/approved by Sponsor person as per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process#Special_blocker_ticket...
As Randy has already done a review (thanks for that), I am just waiting for Dusty to do package reviews and add links here and I will sponsor this package.
Please note our package review queue keeps growing continuously where some packages do not get at all any review, hence its good to review some of them in this sponsorship process.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1343814
--- Comment #14 from Dusty Mabe dustymabe@redhat.com ---
I have reviewed the following packages:
python-blowfish - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1361632 python-isort - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1361687
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1343814
Adam Miller admiller@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |admiller@redhat.com Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #15 from Adam Miller admiller@redhat.com --- Sonsored, Approved.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1343814
Vít Ondruch vondruch@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |vondruch@redhat.com
--- Comment #16 from Vít Ondruch vondruch@redhat.com --- (In reply to Dusty Mabe from comment #8)
Thanks bowlofeggs!
Final version of the spec/srpm are here:
https://dustymabe.fedorapeople.org/vagrant-sshfs-rpm/v6/vagrant-sshfs.spec
I don't think the license field is correct when you have statement such as "# Using OFL license" in you .spec file ...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1343814
--- Comment #17 from Dusty Mabe dustymabe@redhat.com --- hi vit,
I also have this comment in there:
``` # Don't know why this is required - should try to figure this out and # remove bundled fonts in the future. Provides: bundled(lato-fonts) # Using OFL license https://www.google.com/fonts/specimen/Source+Code+Pro Provides: bundled(sourcecodepro-fonts) ```
Can you help me figure out how to remove them? I really don't know anything about fonts or bundled fonts and I don't know why that would have been in my package.
Dusty
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1343814
--- Comment #18 from Vít Ondruch vondruch@redhat.com --- (In reply to Dusty Mabe from comment #17) Ha, now I really checked what is going on and that it is not exactly your package fault to carry the fonts. That is the generated documentation and this is reported as bug 1224715.
In this case, I would recommend to drop the "bundled" notices and carry on, since this issue applies to all rubygem- and vagrant- packages :/
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1343814
Parag AN(पराग) panemade@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | Assignee|panemade@gmail.com |admiller@redhat.com
--- Comment #19 from Parag AN(पराग) panemade@gmail.com --- Removing myself from the review assignee as I have not reviewed this package and assigning Adam as he has approved this package.
Also, Removing FE-NEEDSPONSOR from this review as Adam has already sponsored Dusty.
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1343814
--- Comment #20 from Dusty Mabe dustymabe@redhat.com --- (In reply to Vít Ondruch from comment #18)
(In reply to Dusty Mabe from comment #17) Ha, now I really checked what is going on and that it is not exactly your package fault to carry the fonts. That is the generated documentation and this is reported as bug 1224715.
In this case, I would recommend to drop the "bundled" notices and carry on, since this issue applies to all rubygem- and vagrant- packages :/
Thanks Vit, I will do that
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1343814
--- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- vagrant-sshfs-1.1.0-1.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-8ce7ba0ca1
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1343814
--- Comment #21 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/vagrant-sshfs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1343814
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1343814
--- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- vagrant-sshfs-1.2.0-2.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-e26e1867ba
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1343814
--- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- vagrant-sshfs-1.2.0-2.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-5f59853c6a
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1343814
--- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- vagrant-sshfs-1.2.0-2.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-e0de56ba98
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1343814
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #26 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- vagrant-sshfs-1.2.0-2.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-e0de56ba98
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1343814
--- Comment #27 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- vagrant-sshfs-1.2.0-2.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1343814
--- Comment #28 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- vagrant-sshfs-1.2.0-2.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1343814
--- Comment #29 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- vagrant-sshfs-1.2.0-2.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1343814
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2016-09-09 12:55:04
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla