Bug 2343404 - Review Request: Dolibarr - ERP and CRM software for small and medium companies or foundations
Summary: Review Request: Dolibarr - ERP and CRM software for small and medium companie...
Keywords:
Status: NEW
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
unspecified
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
: 2343399 2343401 2343403 (view as bug list)
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2025-02-02 12:19 UTC by serge.delfaut
Modified: 2025-02-07 10:20 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed:
Type: ---
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description serge.delfaut 2025-02-02 12:19:57 UTC
Spec URL: http://support.sdformation.fr/dolibarr.spec
SRPM URL: http://support.sdformation.fr/dolibarr-20.0.3-0.4.fc41.src.rpm
Description: ERP and CRM software for small and medium companies or foundations
Fedora Account System Username:prof33
this is my first package and I need a sponsor.

Comment 1 Fedora Review Service 2025-02-02 12:20:03 UTC
Cannot find any valid SRPM URL for this ticket. Common causes are:

- You didn't specify `SRPM URL: ...` in the ticket description
  or any of your comments
- The URL schema isn't HTTP or HTTPS
- The SRPM package linked in your URL doesn't match the package name specified
  in the ticket summary


---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

Comment 2 Ben Beasley 2025-02-02 16:01:20 UTC
Fixed the summary in the bug title to match the one in the submitted spec file.

You must submit the source RPM, not the “built” binary RPM.

I’m not planning to take this review, but overall, at a glance, I see a lot of obsolete and/or specifically prohibited boilerplate in the spec file, and it’s going to be time-consuming for a reviewer to wade through all of that. I know that Fedora’s packaging guidelines, https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/, are a large document, but I think it would wise to spend some time studying the relevant sections and making an attempt to conform to current practices.

Comment 3 Ben Beasley 2025-02-02 16:01:40 UTC
*** Bug 2343403 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 4 Ben Beasley 2025-02-02 16:01:44 UTC
*** Bug 2343401 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 5 Ben Beasley 2025-02-02 16:01:50 UTC
*** Bug 2343399 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 6 Benson Muite 2025-02-03 04:38:48 UTC
PhP SIG may also be helpful:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/PHP

See also:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/PHP/


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