Bug 1102297 - Review Request: drupal7-module_filter - Module filter gives the ability to quickly find the module
Summary: Review Request: drupal7-module_filter - Module filter gives the ability to qu...
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Jared Smith
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Depends On:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2014-05-28 17:23 UTC by Peter Borsa
Modified: 2015-02-15 20:41 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version: drupal7-module_filter-2.0-0.1.alpha2.el6
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2015-02-15 13:56:29 UTC
Type: ---
jsmith.fedora: fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Peter Borsa 2014-05-28 17:23:22 UTC
Spec URL: http://asrob.fedorapeople.org/SOURCES/drupal7-module_filter.spec
SRPM URL: http://asrob.fedorapeople.org/SOURCES/drupal7-module_filter-2.0-0.1.alpha2.fc21.src.rpm
Description: The modules list page can become quite big when dealing with a fairly large site or even just a dev site meant for testing new and various modules being considered. What this module aims to accomplish is the ability to quickly find the module you are looking for without having to rely on the browsers search feature which more times than not shows you the module name in the 'Required by' or 'Depends on' sections of the various modules or even some other location on the page like a menu item.
Fedora Account System Username: asrob

Comment 1 Jared Smith 2014-05-28 19:04:00 UTC
Package is approved.

Package Review

[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed

===== MUST items =====

[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[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]: 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: 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 %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]: 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]: 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
[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
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

===== SHOULD items =====

[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.
[-]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
[-]: %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]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
[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 =====

[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.

Checking: drupal7-module_filter-2.0-0.1.alpha2.fc21.noarch.rpm
drupal7-module_filter.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dev -> deb, derv, div
drupal7-module_filter.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/drupal7-module_filter/LICENSE.txt
drupal7-module_filter.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dev -> deb, derv, div
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.

Rpmlint (installed packages)
# rpmlint drupal7-module_filter
drupal7-module_filter.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dev -> deb, derv, div
drupal7-module_filter.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/drupal7-module_filter/LICENSE.txt
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'

drupal7-module_filter (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):


Source checksums
http://ftp.drupal.org/files/projects/module_filter-7.x-2.0-alpha2.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 9899e47db992cf4db0644d22bc1734917661691efbbdadaa6d5f6f9e46484acc
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 9899e47db992cf4db0644d22bc1734917661691efbbdadaa6d5f6f9e46484acc

Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1102297
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby

Comment 2 Peter Borsa 2014-05-28 19:14:59 UTC
New Package SCM Request
Package Name: drupal7-module_filter
Short Description: Module filter gives the ability to quickly find the module
Upstream URL: https://drupal.org/project/module_filter
Owners: asrob jsmith siwinski
Branches: f20 el6 epel7

Comment 3 Gwyn Ciesla 2014-05-28 19:33:17 UTC
Git done (by process-git-requests).

Comment 4 Fedora Update System 2014-12-31 06:25:35 UTC
drupal7-module_filter-2.0-0.1.alpha2.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21.

Comment 5 Fedora Update System 2014-12-31 06:43:10 UTC
drupal7-module_filter-2.0-0.1.alpha2.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20.

Comment 6 Fedora Update System 2014-12-31 06:56:19 UTC
drupal7-module_filter-2.0-0.1.alpha2.el7 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 7.

Comment 7 Fedora Update System 2014-12-31 18:37:48 UTC
drupal7-module_filter-2.0-0.1.alpha2.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6.

Comment 8 Fedora Update System 2014-12-31 23:08:54 UTC
drupal7-module_filter-2.0-0.1.alpha2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository.

Comment 9 Fedora Update System 2015-02-15 13:56:29 UTC
drupal7-module_filter-2.0-0.1.alpha2.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository.

Comment 10 Fedora Update System 2015-02-15 13:56:49 UTC
drupal7-module_filter-2.0-0.1.alpha2.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.

Comment 11 Fedora Update System 2015-02-15 20:40:13 UTC
drupal7-module_filter-2.0-0.1.alpha2.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository.

Comment 12 Fedora Update System 2015-02-15 20:41:42 UTC
drupal7-module_filter-2.0-0.1.alpha2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.