Bug 1111634 - Review Request: git-remote-bzr - bazaar wrapper for git
Summary: Review Request: git-remote-bzr - bazaar wrapper for git
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED NEXTRELEASE
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Florian "der-flo" Lehner
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2014-06-20 15:07 UTC by Ondrej Oprala
Modified: 2016-02-01 02:09 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2014-06-22 09:02:55 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
dev: fedora-review+
kevin: fedora-cvs+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Ondrej Oprala 2014-06-20 15:07:14 UTC
Spec URL: http://ooprala.fedorapeople.org/git-remote-bzr.spec
SRPM URL: http://ooprala.fedorapeople.org/git-remote-bzr-0.2-1.fc19.src.rpm
Description: Description: git-remote-bzr used to be a part of the git package - it is a simple wrapper to work with bazaar repositories entirely via the git toolchain. 
However, since git-2.0.0 (current version in Fedora Rawhide), it has split into a separate project and got unpackaged from git. I would like to package it separately for it not to disappear from future fedora releases.
Fedora Account System Username: ooprala

Comment 1 Florian "der-flo" Lehner 2014-06-20 17:27:14 UTC
Package Review
==============

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



===== 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:
     "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 1 files have unknown
     license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/flo/review/1111634-git-
     remote-bzr/licensecheck.txt
[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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 1 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]: 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
     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:
[!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
   ---> It's ok for this package.
[-]: 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.
   ---> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7062841
[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]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[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]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: git-remote-bzr-0.2-1.fc21.noarch.rpm
          git-remote-bzr-0.2-1.fc21.src.rpm
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint git-remote-bzr
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'



Requires
--------
git-remote-bzr (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/python2
    bzr
    git
    python



Provides
--------
git-remote-bzr:
    git-remote-bzr



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/felipec/git-remote-bzr/archive/v0.2.tar.gz#/git-remote-bzr-0.2.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : c71652b5c10b05fae40dcc998abb064549f7eee2a14017b8cca08ca756b3472f
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c71652b5c10b05fae40dcc998abb064549f7eee2a14017b8cca08ca756b3472f


Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1111634
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
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG

===== Solution =====
Just one more thing: Please add "(#1111634)" to the initial comment.

Package APPROVED

Comment 2 Ondrej Oprala 2014-06-20 17:38:43 UTC
New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: git-remote-bzr
Short Description: Bazaar wrapper for git
Upstream URL: https://github.com/felipec/git-remote-bzr
Owners: ooprala
Branches:
InitialCC: ovasik

Comment 3 Kevin Fenzi 2014-06-21 17:24:36 UTC
Git done (by process-git-requests).

Comment 4 Florian "der-flo" Lehner 2014-06-21 21:50:05 UTC
I missed to set the ASSIGNED-Flag - sorry for that!

Comment 5 Ondrej Oprala 2014-06-22 09:02:55 UTC
(In reply to Florian "der-flo" Lehner from comment #4)
> I missed to set the ASSIGNED-Flag - sorry for that!

No problem.

As the package is now successfully built, I'm closing this bugzilla.
Thank you.


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