Login
[x]
Log in using an account from:
Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
Or login using a Red Hat Bugzilla account
Forgot Password
Login:
Hide Forgot
Create an Account
Red Hat Bugzilla – Attachment 847984 Details for
Bug 909662
Review Request: php-horde-Horde-View - Horde View API
[?]
New
Simple Search
Advanced Search
My Links
Browse
Requests
Reports
Current State
Search
Tabular reports
Graphical reports
Duplicates
Other Reports
User Changes
Plotly Reports
Bug Status
Bug Severity
Non-Defaults
|
Product Dashboard
Help
Page Help!
Bug Writing Guidelines
What's new
Browser Support Policy
5.0.4.rh83 Release notes
FAQ
Guides index
User guide
Web Services
Contact
Legal
This site requires JavaScript to be enabled to function correctly, please enable it.
fedora-review.txt
review.txt (text/plain), 6.98 KB, created by
Shawn Iwinski
on 2014-01-10 02:56:09 UTC
(
hide
)
Description:
fedora-review.txt
Filename:
MIME Type:
Creator:
Shawn Iwinski
Created:
2014-01-10 02:56:09 UTC
Size:
6.98 KB
patch
obsolete
>Package Review >============== > >Legend: >[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated >[ ] = Manual review needed > > >Issues: >======= >- EPEL5 requires explicit %clean with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) >- EPEL5: Package does run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the > beginning of %install. > > >===== 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". 52 files have unknown license. >[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. >[x]: Changelog in prescribed format. >[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. >[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 >[-]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size > (~1MB) or number of files. > Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 4 files. >[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: No rpmlint messages. >[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 requires other packages for directories it uses. >[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. >[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]: 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]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't > work. >[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. >[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 > >===== 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. >[-]: 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. >[x]: %check is present and all tests pass. >[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. >[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file >[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]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL). >[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. >[x]: SourceX is a working URL. >[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. > >===== EXTRA items ===== > >Generic: >[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. > Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached > diff). > > Allowable diff > >[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. > Note: No rpmlint messages. > >PHP: >[x]: Run phpci static analyze on all php files. > > >Rpmlint >------- >Checking: php-horde-Horde-View-2.0.3-1.fc21.noarch.rpm > php-horde-Horde-View-2.0.3-1.fc21.src.rpm >2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. > > > > >Rpmlint (installed packages) >---------------------------- ># rpmlint php-horde-Horde-View >1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. ># echo 'rpmlint-done:' > > > >Diff spec file in url and in SRPM >--------------------------------- >--- /home/siwinski/projects/fedora/reviews/909662-php-horde-Horde-View/srpm/php-horde-Horde-View.spec 2014-01-06 15:41:41.084000000 -0500 >+++ /home/siwinski/projects/fedora/reviews/909662-php-horde-Horde-View/srpm-unpacked/php-horde-Horde-View.spec 2013-08-23 05:13:43.000000000 -0400 >@@ -39,5 +39,5 @@ > Requires: php-pear(%{pear_channel}/Horde_Util) >= 2.0.0 > Requires: php-pear(%{pear_channel}/Horde_Util) < 3.0.0 >-# Optional >+# Optionnal > Requires: php-pear(%{pear_channel}/Horde_Controller) >= 2.0.0 > Requires: php-pear(%{pear_channel}/Horde_Controller) < 3.0.0 > > >Requires >-------- >php-horde-Horde-View (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): > /bin/sh > /usr/bin/pear > php-channel(pear.horde.org) > php-common > php-date > php-json > php-pcre > php-pear(PEAR) > php-pear(pear.horde.org/Horde_Controller) > php-pear(pear.horde.org/Horde_Exception) > php-pear(pear.horde.org/Horde_Routes) > php-pear(pear.horde.org/Horde_Support) > php-pear(pear.horde.org/Horde_Util) > php-reflection > php-spl > > > >Provides >-------- >php-horde-Horde-View: > php-horde-Horde-View > php-pear(pear.horde.org/Horde_View) > > > >Source checksums >---------------- >http://pear.horde.org/get/Horde_View-2.0.3.tgz : > CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 686623257a3603bba86562971f09b986a6f81002ae883e703500aca0804b0ad0 > CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 686623257a3603bba86562971f09b986a6f81002ae883e703500aca0804b0ad0 > > >Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 >Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --mock-config fedora-rawhide-x86_64 --define EPEL5 -b 909662 >Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 >Active plugins: Generic, PHP, Shell-api >Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, Ruby >Disabled flags: EXARCH, BATCH, DISTTAG
You cannot view the attachment while viewing its details because your browser does not support IFRAMEs.
View the attachment on a separate page
.
View Attachment As Raw
Actions:
View
Attachments on
bug 909662
:
847983
| 847984