Bug 853686 - Review Request: erlang-bear - A set of statistics functions for erlang
Summary: Review Request: erlang-bear - A set of statistics functions for erlang
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Michael S.
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks: 849603 853687
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2012-09-02 06:42 UTC by Peter Lemenkov
Modified: 2012-09-21 20:57 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2012-09-17 17:41:22 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
misc: fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Peter Lemenkov 2012-09-02 06:42:36 UTC
Spec URL: http://peter.fedorapeople.org/erlang-bear.spec
SRPM URL: http://peter.fedorapeople.org/erlang-bear-0.1.1-1.fc19.src.rpm
Description: A set of statistics functions for Erlang. Currently bear is focused on use inside the Folsom Erlang metrics library but all of these functions are generic and useful in other situations.
Fedora Account System Username: peter

Comment 1 Michael S. 2012-09-02 16:54:43 UTC
No issues besides the timestamp one with install, but that's not blocking, so package is approved.


Package Review
==============

Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated


Issues:
=======
[!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.


===== 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]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
     supported primary architecture.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
     are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
     Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
     Note: %defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[-]: Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
     Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[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]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: No description for test named CheckResultdir
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
     in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
     %{name}.spec.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
     Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

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

Generic:
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
     Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
     Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[-]: 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]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
     --requires).
[-]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
     Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments
[!]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
     Note: Source0 (boundary-bear-0.1.1-0-gb1882d7.tar.gz)
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[-]: 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.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[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.
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
     arched.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: erlang-bear-0.1.1-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm
          erlang-bear-0.1.1-1.fc17.src.rpm
erlang-bear.x86_64: E: no-binary
erlang-bear.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
erlang-bear.src: W: invalid-url Source0: boundary-bear-0.1.1-0-gb1882d7.tar.gz
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint erlang-bear
erlang-bear.x86_64: E: no-binary
erlang-bear.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'



Requires
--------
erlang-bear-0.1.1-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    
    erlang-erts(x86-64) >= R13B
    erlang-stdlib(x86-64)  



Provides
--------
erlang-bear-0.1.1-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm:
    
    erlang-bear = 0.1.1-1.fc17
    erlang-bear(x86-64) = 0.1.1-1.fc17



MD5-sum check
-------------


Generated by fedora-review 0.2.0 (a5c4ced) last change: 2012-07-22
Command line :./try-fedora-review -b 853686

Comment 2 Peter Lemenkov 2012-09-03 06:41:59 UTC
(In reply to comment #1)
> No issues besides the timestamp one with install, but that's not blocking,
> so package is approved.

Thanks, Michael!

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: erlang-bear
Short Description: A set of statistics functions for Erlang
Owners: peter
Branches: f17 f18 el6
InitialCC:

Comment 3 Gwyn Ciesla 2012-09-03 17:24:07 UTC
Git done (by process-git-requests).

Comment 4 Fedora Update System 2012-09-03 18:58:57 UTC
erlang-bear-0.1.1-1.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/erlang-bear-0.1.1-1.fc18

Comment 5 Fedora Update System 2012-09-03 18:59:08 UTC
erlang-bear-0.1.1-1.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/erlang-bear-0.1.1-1.fc17

Comment 6 Fedora Update System 2012-09-03 18:59:17 UTC
erlang-bear-0.1.1-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/erlang-bear-0.1.1-1.el6

Comment 7 Fedora Update System 2012-09-04 01:53:42 UTC
erlang-bear-0.1.1-1.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository.

Comment 8 Fedora Update System 2012-09-17 17:41:22 UTC
erlang-bear-0.1.1-1.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository.

Comment 9 Fedora Update System 2012-09-17 22:42:46 UTC
erlang-bear-0.1.1-1.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository.

Comment 10 Fedora Update System 2012-09-21 20:57:19 UTC
erlang-bear-0.1.1-1.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.