Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=915074
Bug ID: 915074 Summary: Review Request: fedocal - A web based calendar application Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: unspecified Priority: unspecified Reporter: pingou@pingoured.fr
Spec URL: http://pingou.fedorapeople.org/RPMs//fedocal.spec SRPM URL: http://pingou.fedorapeople.org/RPMs//fedocal-0.1.0-1.fc18.src.rpm
Description: fedocal is a web- based calendar application for Fedora. It aims at replacing the tables in the wiki which are hard to edit and maintain. Calendar can be exported to an iCal format allowing read-only integration with most calendar application.
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=915074
--- Comment #1 from Pierre-YvesChibon pingou@pingoured.fr --- This package built on koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5050268
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=915074
Kevin Fenzi kevin@scrye.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |kevin@scrye.com
--- Comment #2 from Kevin Fenzi kevin@scrye.com --- I can try and review this sometime in the next few days... but if someone beats me to it, thats fine.
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=915074
Ralph Bean rbean@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |rbean@redhat.com
--- Comment #3 from Ralph Bean rbean@redhat.com --- For some reason the following just hangs:
$ wget https://fedorahosted.org/releases/f/e/fedocal/fedocal-0.1.0.tar.gz
Any idea why Pierre?
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=915074
--- Comment #4 from Pierre-YvesChibon pingou@pingoured.fr --- 9h later it works for me :)
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=915074
Ralph Bean rbean@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |rbean@redhat.com Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #5 from Ralph Bean rbean@redhat.com ---
Package Review ==============
Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: ======= - Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires
- Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. Are you bundling flask_fas?
- Not required, but can you make the directory ownership in %{python_sitelib} a little more explicit (instead of '*')
- Not required, but can you run the tests in a %check section?
===== 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. [!]: 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 [-]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "BSD (3 clause)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 3 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/threebean/915074-fedocal/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package consistently uses macro is (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. [x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 102400 bytes in 12 files. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [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 %doc. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: No %config files under /usr. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local [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).
Python: [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [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]: 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]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [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: fedocal-0.1.0-1.fc18.noarch.rpm fedocal.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US iCal -> i Cal, Cal, Cali 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint fedocal fedocal.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US iCal -> i Cal, Cal, Cali 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:'
Requires -------- fedocal (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): config(fedocal) mod_wsgi python(abi) python-alembic python-dateutil python-fedora python-flask python-flask-wtf python-kitchen python-setuptools python-sqlalchemy python-vobject python-wtforms pytz
Provides -------- fedocal: config(fedocal) fedocal
MD5-sum check ------------- https://fedorahosted.org/releases/f/e/fedocal/fedocal-0.1.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 4ef2048b798e5576e6e7fb569b9eb05ed73421e5d6e5de64465c4949ed78c40e CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 4ef2048b798e5576e6e7fb569b9eb05ed73421e5d6e5de64465c4949ed78c40e
Generated by fedora-review 0.4.0 (660ce56) last change: 2013-01-29 Buildroot used: fedora-18-x86_64 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 915074
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=915074
--- Comment #6 from Pierre-YvesChibon pingou@pingoured.fr --- (In reply to comment #5)
Package Review
Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
- Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires
Will fix this.
- Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. Are you bundling flask_fas?
Droping this now.
- Not required, but can you make the directory ownership in %{python_sitelib} a little more explicit (instead of '*')
Fixed
- Not required, but can you run the tests in a %check section?
For the moment I'd rather not but I might reconsider this in the future.
New files: Spec URL: http://pingou.fedorapeople.org/RPMs/fedocal.spec SRPM URL: http://pingou.fedorapeople.org/RPMs/fedocal-0.1.0-2.fc18.src.rpm
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=915074
Ralph Bean rbean@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? | Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #7 from Ralph Bean rbean@redhat.com --- Approved!
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=915074
Pierre-YvesChibon pingou@pingoured.fr changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #8 from Pierre-YvesChibon pingou@pingoured.fr --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: fedocal Short Description: A web based calendar application Owners: pingou Branches: f18 el6 InitialCC:
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=915074
--- Comment #9 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=915074
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=915074
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- fedocal-0.1.0-3.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/fedocal-0.1.0-3.fc18
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=915074
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=915074
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- Package fedocal-0.1.0-3.fc18: * should fix your issue, * was pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository, * should be available at your local mirror within two days. Update it with: # su -c 'yum update --enablerepo=updates-testing fedocal-0.1.0-3.fc18' as soon as you are able to. Please go to the following url: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-3732/fedocal-0.1.0-3.fc1... then log in and leave karma (feedback).
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=915074
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- fedocal-0.1.1-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/fedocal-0.1.1-1.el6
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=915074
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- fedocal-0.1.1-1.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/fedocal-0.1.1-1.fc18
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=915074
--- Comment #14 from Ralph Bean rbean@redhat.com --- Can this ticket be closed?
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=915074
Pierre-YvesChibon pingou@pingoured.fr changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed| |2013-04-26 18:00:11
--- Comment #15 from Pierre-YvesChibon pingou@pingoured.fr --- Indeed, something bugged in the inheritance of the updates on bodhi, closing.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla