Note: This is a public test instance of Red Hat Bugzilla. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback at bugzilla.redhat.com.
Bug 449879
| Summary: | Review Request: Zile - Zile Is Lossy Emacs | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Rakesh Pandit <rpandit> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Debarshi Ray <debarshir> |
| Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | low | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | fedora-package-review, notting, spacewar |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Keywords: | Reopened |
| Target Release: | --- | Flags: | debarshir:
fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+ |
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | zile-2.4.11-3.el7 | Doc Type: | Bug Fix |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2008-08-23 15:33:08 UTC | Type: | --- |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
| Bug Depends On: | |||
| Bug Blocks: | 447125 | ||
|
Description
Rakesh Pandit
2008-06-04 03:28:33 UTC
This is my third package and I am still seeking a sponsor. A zile package already seems to be in the distribution. >A zile package already seems to be in the distribution. distribution version is 2.2.19 and this on is 2.2.59 It was packaged long time back and after pinging to maintainer there was no response. See: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-June/msg00023.html and https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=447125 So, going by Non-responsive Maintainer Policy I have packaged zile and posted bug Updated to 2.2.61 SRPM: http://rakesh.fedorapeople.org/srpm/zile-2.2.61-1.fc9.src.rpm SPEC: http://rakesh.fedorapeople.org/spec/zile.spec MUST Items:
OK - rpmlint is clean
OK - follows Naming Guidelines
OK - spec file is named as %{name}.spec
xx - package does not meet Packaging Guidelines
+ According to
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets#Texinfo you
you need to have:
'Requires(post): info'
'Requires(preun): info'
+ To preserve timestamps you could consider using:
make install INSTALL="%{__install} -p" DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT
+ According to
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Documentation the
INSTALL file should not be distributed.
xx - Fedora approved license and meets Licensing Guidelines
+ Wrong value of License field.
xx - License field meets actual license
+ It should be GPLv3+ instead of GPLv3, since the license notice in the
sources say:
"GNU Zile is free software; ...
under the terms of the GNU General Public License ...
... ; either version 3, or (at your option)
any later version."
OK - upstream license file included in %doc
OK - spec file uses American English
OK - spec file is legible
OK - sources match upstream sources
OK - package builds successfully
OK - ExcludeArch not needed
OK - build dependencies correctly listed
OK - no locales
OK - no shared libraries
OK - package is not relocatable
OK - file and directory ownership
OK - no duplicates in %file
OK - file permissions set properly
OK - %clean present
xx - macros used consistently
+ Apart from one place in the %files stanza you have used %{name} instead
of zile. Please remove the inconsistency.
OK - contains code and permissable content
OK - -doc is not needed
OK - contents of %doc does not affect the runtime
OK - no header files
OK - no static libraries
OK - no pkgconfig files
OK - no library files
OK - -devel is not needed
OK - no libtool archives
OK - %{name}.desktop file not needed
OK - does not own files or directories owned by other packages
OK - buildroot correctly prepped
OK - all file names valid UTF-8
SHOULD Items:
OK - upstream provides license text
xx - no translations for description and summary
OK - package builds in mock successfully
OK - package builds on all supported architectures
OK - package functions as expected
OK - scriptlets are sane
OK - subpackages are not needed
OK - no pkgconfig files
OK - no file dependencies
You know, I just committed to the existing zile package in the distribution (to fix up the license tag.) Why don't you just add yourself as a comaintainer and then work on the package we have? Fixed -- all above mentioned issues. SPEC: http://rakesh.fedorapeople.org/spec/zile.spec SRPM: http://rakesh.fedorapeople.org/srpm/zile-2.2.61-2.fc9.src.rpm +---------------------------------+ | This package is APPROVED by me. | +---------------------------------+ I have added myself as a co-maintainer. Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: zile New Branches: el6 Owners: rakesh brouhaha I contacted Rakesh by email about adding Zile to EPEL6, and offering to maintain it in EPEL if he didn't want to. He replied that I was welcome to request and maintain the el6 branch, and also maintain the Fedora branches. I've done a local build on Centos 6.3, which seems to work fine. Git done (by process-git-requests). zile-2.3.21-5.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/zile-2.3.21-5.el6 zile-2.3.21-5.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. ckermit-9.0.302-7.el7 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 7. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ckermit-9.0.302-7.el7 zile-2.4.11-3.el7 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 7. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/zile-2.4.11-3.el7 zile-2.4.11-3.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. |