[Bug 821771] New: Review Request: erlang-edown - EDoc extension for generating Github-flavored Markdown
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-edown - EDoc extension for generating Github-flavored Markdown
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821771
Summary: Review Request: erlang-edown - EDoc extension for generating Github-flavored Markdown 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: http://peter.fedorapeople.org/erlang-edown.spec SRPM URL: http://peter.fedorapeople.org/erlang-edown-0.2.4-1.fc18.src.rpm Description: EDoc extension for generating Github-flavored Markdown.
Koji scratchbuild for F-18: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4078397
THis is one of the requirements for updated erlang-gproc, which is also a requirement for numerous other recently updated Erlang packages.
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=821771
--- Comment #1 from Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com 2012-05-15 09:59:03 EDT --- rpmlint report:
sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SPECS: rpmlint ../RPMS/ppc/erlang-edown-0.2.4-1.fc18.ppc.rpm ../SRPMS/erlang-edown-0.2.4-1.fc18.src.rpm erlang-edown.ppc: E: explicit-lib-dependency erlang-stdlib
^^^ this one is a false positive (stdlib as a trigger)
erlang-edown.ppc: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) EDoc -> E Doc, Doc, Educ erlang-edown.ppc: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US EDoc -> E Doc, Doc, Educ
^^^ likewise
erlang-edown.ppc: E: no-binary erlang-edown.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 than but I wouldn't hold my breath.
erlang-edown.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) EDoc -> E Doc, Doc, Educ erlang-edown.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US EDoc -> E Doc, Doc, Educ
^^^ false positives
erlang-edown.src: W: invalid-url Source0: esl-edown-v0.2.4-0-gdbdd41e.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=821771
Brendan Jones brendan.jones.it@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |brendan.jones.it@gmail.com QAContact|extras-qa@fedoraproject.org |brendan.jones.it@gmail.com
--- Comment #2 from Brendan Jones brendan.jones.it@gmail.com 2012-05-16 06:49:39 EDT --- I'll review this one.
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=821771
--- Comment #3 from Brendan Jones brendan.jones.it@gmail.com 2012-05-16 07:14:39 EDT --- Is the license here ERPL rather than ASL?
I'm assuming your building for EPEL as well (if not remove %clean rm -rf %{buildroot} %defattr etc)
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=821771
Brendan Jones brendan.jones.it@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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=821771
Brendan Jones brendan.jones.it@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |brendan.jones.it@gmail.com QAContact|brendan.jones.it@gmail.com |
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=821771
--- Comment #4 from Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com 2012-05-16 08:41:08 EDT --- (In reply to comment #3)
Is the license here ERPL rather than ASL?
ASL 2.0
https://raw.github.com/esl/edown/e32e40af648f0f90ee1e92613c0d7c772ac3bc64/sr...
I'm assuming your building for EPEL as well (if not remove %clean rm -rf %{buildroot} %defattr etc)
Yes, for EPEL as well. So all old stuff must be kept intact :(
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=821771
--- Comment #5 from Brendan Jones brendan.jones.it@gmail.com 2012-05-16 08:47:09 EDT --- (In reply to comment #4)
(In reply to comment #3)
Is the license here ERPL rather than ASL?
ASL 2.0
https://raw.github.com/esl/edown/e32e40af648f0f90ee1e92613c0d7c772ac3bc64/sr...
There's no License file stating this although the source is clearly ASL. You should request that upstream attach a license file in the source
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=821771
Brendan Jones brendan.jones.it@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #6 from Brendan Jones brendan.jones.it@gmail.com 2012-05-16 08:50:57 EDT --- Package 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. [x]: 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. [x]: 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. [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 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 [x]: 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). Note: Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [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. [!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.
rpmlint erlang-edown-0.2.4-1.fc18.i686.rpm
erlang-edown.i686: E: explicit-lib-dependency erlang-stdlib erlang-edown.i686: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) EDoc -> E Doc, Doc, Educ erlang-edown.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US EDoc -> E Doc, Doc, Educ erlang-edown.i686: E: no-binary erlang-edown.i686: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 3 warnings.
rpmlint erlang-edown-0.2.4-1.fc18.src.rpm
erlang-edown.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) EDoc -> E Doc, Doc, Educ erlang-edown.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US EDoc -> E Doc, Doc, Educ erlang-edown.src: W: invalid-url Source0: esl-edown-v0.2.4-0-gdbdd41e.tar.gz 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Package has no sources or they are generated by developer [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. [x]: 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 SourceX is a working URL. [-]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [-]: 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 [!]: 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 [!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.
rpmlint erlang-edown-0.2.4-1.fc18.i686.rpm
erlang-edown.i686: E: explicit-lib-dependency erlang-stdlib erlang-edown.i686: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) EDoc -> E Doc, Doc, Educ erlang-edown.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US EDoc -> E Doc, Doc, Educ erlang-edown.i686: E: no-binary erlang-edown.i686: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 3 warnings.
rpmlint erlang-edown-0.2.4-1.fc18.src.rpm
erlang-edown.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) EDoc -> E Doc, Doc, Educ erlang-edown.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US EDoc -> E Doc, Doc, Educ erlang-edown.src: W: invalid-url Source0: esl-edown-v0.2.4-0-gdbdd41e.tar.gz 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
This package is 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=821771
Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #7 from Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com 2012-05-16 08:57:03 EDT --- Thanks!
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: erlang-edown Short Description: EDoc extension for generating Github-flavored Markdown Owners: peter Branches: el6 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=821771
--- Comment #8 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com 2012-05-16 09:18:44 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=821771
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |MODIFIED
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=821771
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2012-05-16 10:51:26 EDT --- erlang-edown-0.2.4-1.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/erlang-edown-0.2.4-1.fc17
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=821771
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2012-05-16 10:51:35 EDT --- erlang-edown-0.2.4-1.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/erlang-edown-0.2.4-1.fc16
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=821771
Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |822491
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=821771
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2012-05-18 06:34:01 EDT --- erlang-edown-0.2.4-1.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 testing repository.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821771
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2012-05-26 03:08:44
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- erlang-edown-0.2.4-1.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821771
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- erlang-edown-0.2.4-1.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821771
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- erlang-edown-0.2.4-2.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/erlang-edown-0.2.4-2.el6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821771
Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #15 from Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com --- Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: erlang-edown New Branches: el5 Owners: peter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821771
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- erlang-edown-0.3.0-1.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/erlang-edown-0.3.0-1.fc16
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821771
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- erlang-edown-0.3.0-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/erlang-edown-0.3.0-1.el6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821771
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- erlang-edown-0.3.0-1.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/erlang-edown-0.3.0-1.fc17
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821771
--- Comment #19 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821771
--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- erlang-edown-0.3.0-1.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821771
--- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- erlang-edown-0.3.0-1.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821771
--- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- erlang-edown-0.3.0-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821771
--- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- erlang-edown-0.3.0-1.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/erlang-edown-0.3.0-1.el5
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821771
--- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- erlang-edown-0.3.0-1.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821771
Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #25 from Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com --- Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: erlang-edown New Branches: epel7 Owners: peter InitialCC: erlang-sig
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821771
Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821771
--- Comment #26 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821771
--- Comment #27 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- erlang-edown-0.4-1.el7 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 7. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/erlang-edown-0.4-1.el7
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821771
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version| |erlang-edown-0.4-1.el7
--- Comment #28 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- erlang-edown-0.4-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla