Red Hat Bugzilla – Full Text Bug Listing
|Summary:||Review Request: projxp - Agile project management server|
|Product:||[Fedora] Fedora||Reporter:||Darryl L. Pierce <dpierce>|
|Component:||Package Review||Assignee:||Rafael Aquini <aquini>|
|Status:||CLOSED WONTFIX||QA Contact:||Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>|
|Version:||rawhide||CC:||aquini, fedora-package-review, notting, tross|
|Fixed In Version:||Doc Type:||Bug Fix|
|Doc Text:||Story Points:||---|
|Last Closed:||2010-09-09 06:33:29 EDT||Type:||---|
|oVirt Team:||---||RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:|
|Bug Depends On:||472819, 497640|
Description Darryl L. Pierce 2008-12-15 08:29:01 EST
Spec URL: http://mcpierce.fedorapeople.org/rpms/projxp.spec SRPM URL: http://mcpierce.fedorapeople.org/rpms/projxp-0.0.1-1.fc10.src.rpm Description: ProjXP is an agile project management system. It enables a development team to maintain a backlog of features, plan and track sprints, and enable project and product owners to view status reports easily.
Comment 1 Darryl L. Pierce 2008-12-19 16:43:50 EST
Updated release is available: Spec URL: http://mcpierce.fedorapeople.org/rpms/projxp.spec SRPM URL: http://mcpierce.fedorapeople.org/rpms/projxp-0.1.0-1.fc10.src.rpm
Comment 2 Darryl L. Pierce 2008-12-27 09:43:17 EST
Updated release is available: Spec URL: http://mcpierce.fedorapeople.org/rpms/projxp.spec SRPM URL: http://mcpierce.fedorapeople.org/rpms/projxp-0.1.1-1.fc10.src.rpm
Comment 3 Darryl L. Pierce 2009-04-29 10:07:02 EDT
Updated release is available: Spec URL: http://mcpierce.fedorapeople.org/rpms/projxp.spec SRPM URL: http://mcpierce.fedorapeople.org/rpms/projxp-0.2.0-1.fc10.src.rpm
Comment 4 Darryl L. Pierce 2009-11-05 08:42:33 EST
Updated release is available: Spec URL: http://mcpierce.fedorapeople.org/rpms/projxp.spec SRPM URL: http://mcpierce.fedorapeople.org/rpms/projxp-0.3.0-1.fc11.src.rpm
Comment 5 Rafael Aquini 2010-08-19 21:13:29 EDT
PING Since it's been more than a year with no progress; I guess this bug should be closed soon if there is no response, shouldn't it?
Comment 6 Rafael Aquini 2010-08-19 21:14:35 EDT
**almost a year** My bad, sorry.
Comment 7 Darryl L. Pierce 2010-08-20 07:10:17 EDT
(In reply to comment #5) > PING > > Since it's been more than a year with no progress; I guess this bug should > be closed soon if there is no response, shouldn't it? No. It's a package review request. Why would you close it?
Comment 8 Rafael Aquini 2010-08-20 08:00:55 EDT
Darryl, This is a janitorial work on Fedora Package Review queues, -- http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/ -- in order to identify and close stalled reviews. I'm just following this policy: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews Please, consider trying a swap review request to get this work reviewed http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process#Contributor Regards
Comment 9 Mamoru TASAKA 2010-08-20 08:28:44 EDT
(In reply to comment #8) > I'm just following this policy: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews This says that if the submitter has not replied to the comment by the other person for more than one months + one week, the bug will be closed. For this bug no person other than the submitter (Darryl) has not posted any comments (unless you wrote some comments today), so the reporter is "not" not responding to the comments by "other person" and "stalled package reviews" policy cannot be applied here. Rafael, if you want you can review this ticket.
Comment 10 Rafael Aquini 2010-08-20 08:42:55 EDT
Ok, so I'm assigning this review to myself, and soon I'll be posting a formal review to this package. Regards
Comment 11 Rafael Aquini 2010-08-20 14:31:21 EDT
Darryl, Please, consider the following review: Good: * Package is named projxp which follows the upstream project name * Spec file naming follows package naming * License in sources and spec is GPLv3 which is open source * License text included in the tarball and listed on %file. * Spec is legible and American English * No locale files * No shared libraries * No bundled libraries * Not relocatable * Default permissions are set * Macros used consistently * Package is code * No large documentation * No header files * No static libraries * Not a GUI application * Does not own files or directories from other packages * All filenames are utf8 * Builds in mock (see needswork , though) NEEDSWORK:  rpmlint complaints: $ rpmlint SPECS/projxp.spec SRPMS/projxp-0.3.0-1.fc13.src.rpm RPMS/noarch/projxp-0.3.0-1.fc13.noarch.rpm SPECS/projxp.spec:87: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 8, tab: line 87) projxp.src:87: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 8, tab: line 87) projxp.noarch: W: non-standard-uid /var/log/projxp projxp projxp.noarch: W: non-standard-gid /var/log/projxp projxp projxp.noarch: W: non-standard-uid /var/log/projxp/mongrel.log projxp projxp.noarch: W: non-standard-gid /var/log/projxp/mongrel.log projxp projxp.noarch: W: non-standard-uid /var/log/projxp/rails.log projxp projxp.noarch: W: non-standard-gid /var/log/projxp/rails.log projxp projxp.noarch: W: non-standard-uid /var/run/projxp projxp projxp.noarch: W: non-standard-gid /var/run/projxp projxp 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 10 warnings.  Source within SRPM **does not** match upstream: * http://mcpierce.fedorapeople.org/projxp-0.3.0.tgz $ md5sum SOURCES/projxp-0.3.0/projxp-0.3.0.tgz ../Downloads/projxp-0.3.0.tgz bdceb1aeb1df37a06138f93b4e0958f9 SOURCES/projxp-0.3.0/projxp-0.3.0.tgz 1fddf9be4dcd35e1e2a6478935db43df ../Downloads/projxp-0.3.0.tgz  Package builds with duplicate file warnings: Processing files: projxp-0.3.0-1.fc13.noarch warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/projxp/doc/AUTHORS warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/projxp/doc/Backlog warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/projxp/doc/COPYING warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/projxp/doc/Contributing warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/projxp/doc/INSTALL warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/projxp/doc/LICENSE  Directory /var/projxp, which is HOMEDIR for projxp user, is not created neighter it is owned by the package. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:UsersAndGroups for further reference. Also, /var is supposed to contain variable data files and logs.  Your package should contain man pages for the scripts / configs / usage. Regards
Comment 12 Darryl L. Pierce 2010-09-09 06:33:29 EDT
I'm going to close this package request. The development team has gone back to the drawing board and the project's going to have a major overhaul.