Hide Forgot
Fedora Merge Review: mx http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/devel/mx/ Initial Owner: wtogami@redhat.com
hello Dan, how does it look here from your point of view?
formal review is here, see the notes below: OK source files match upstream: 70b4423a1f4d690976d57ded91ec3e9a71c6c0a3 egenix-mx-base-3.1.1.tar.gz OK* package meets naming and versioning guidelines. OK specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. OK dist tag is present. OK license field matches the actual license. OK license is open source-compatible. License text included in package. BAD latest version is being packaged. Ok BuildRequires are proper. OK compiler flags are appropriate. OK %clean is present. OK package builds in mock (Rawhide/x86_64). OK debuginfo package looks complete. BAD rpmlint is silent. BAD final provides and requires look sane. N/A %check is present and all tests pass. OK no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. OK owns the directories it creates. OK doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. OK no duplicates in %files. BAD file permissions are appropriate. OK no scriptlets present. OK code, not content. BAD documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. OK %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. OK headers in devel subpackage OK no pkgconfig files. OK no libtool .la droppings. OK not a GUI app. - this package is a collection of python modules and should follow the guideline for naming python modules (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Addon_Packages_.28python_modules.29), because this a merge review it will be sufficient to add a Provides that will match the guideline (python-mx = %{version}-%{release}) - version 3.1.2 was released - rpmlint complains a bit mx.x86_64: W: self-obsoletion mx2 <= 3.1.1-5.fc13 obsoletes mx2 = 3.1.1-5.fc13 => if the reason for these is an upgrade path from an earlier version present in F<=10, it could be dropped mx.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/python2.6/site-packages/mx/Stack/mxStack/mxStack.so 0775 mx.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/python2.6/site-packages/mx/BeeBase/mxBeeBase/mxBeeBase.so 0775 mx.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/python2.6/site-packages/mx/UID/mxUID/mxUID.so 0775 mx.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/python2.6/site-packages/mx/URL/mxURL/mxURL.so 0775 mx.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/python2.6/site-packages/mx/Tools/mxTools/mxTools.so 0775 mx.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/python2.6/site-packages/mx/Proxy/mxProxy/mxProxy.so 0775 mx.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/python2.6/site-packages/mx/TextTools/mxTextTools/mxTextTools.so 0775 mx.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/python2.6/site-packages/mx/Queue/mxQueue/mxQueue.so 0775 mx.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/python2.6/site-packages/mx/DateTime/mxDateTime/mxDateTime.so 0775 => chmod will fix them, AFAIK it's caused by the python dist/setup-tools mx-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation => no problem, but you can check if some of the existing docs could be moved here - the documentation contains a number of PDF files making 90% of the total package size and 65% of installed size and thus deserves a docs subpackage
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: mx New Branches: el6 Owners: bcl pfj
Have you asked pfj if they would like to maintain this in el6?
Yes. Emailed him on 8/17 with no response so far.
Git done (by process-git-requests).
Mass reassigning all merge reviews to their component. For more details, see this FESCO ticket: https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1269 If you don't know what merge reviews are about, please see: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Merge_Reviews How to handle this bug is left to the discretion of the package maintainer.
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 23 development cycle. Changing version to '23'. (As we did not run this process for some time, it could affect also pre-Fedora 23 development cycle bugs. We are very sorry. It will help us with cleanup during Fedora 23 End Of Life. Thank you.) More information and reason for this action is here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping/Fedora23
This message is a reminder that Fedora 23 is nearing its end of life. Approximately 4 (four) weeks from now Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 23. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as EOL if it remains open with a Fedora 'version' of '23'. Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' to a later Fedora version. Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were not able to fix it before Fedora 23 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora, you are encouraged change the 'version' to a later Fedora version prior this bug is closed as described in the policy above. Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes bugs or makes them obsolete.
Fedora 23 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2016-12-20. Fedora 23 is no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug. If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of Fedora please feel free to reopen this bug against that version. If you are unable to reopen this bug, please file a new report against the current release. If you experience problems, please add a comment to this bug. Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed.