Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: buildbot

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197565

------- Additional Comments From giallu@gmail.com 2006-07-05 05:07 EST ------- A quick review for your package, based on differences from what I used in mine.

1. Group is valid, but I preferred Development/Build Tools

2. Source0: can't find it right now, but I read somewhere the download location from sourceforge pacakges should be set to http://download.sourceforge.net/ and not on of the mirrors

3. the require on python-abi seems to be redundant on FC4 onwards. If you are _not_ going to build this also for FC3, you can safely remove the Req and the second line on the spec.

4. I used Requires: python-twisted >= 1.3.0 (from the buildbot web site); it's probably safe to omit that unless some repo has an older version.

5. Requires: python-cvstoys is not _really_ required. I know we lack a "Enhances" tag, so that's your choice. I am generally against pushing in packages if not strictly necessary.

6. I think it's better to run %{__pyhton} instead of hardcoding python

7. if you feel comfortable with maintaining the full list of files, leave it that way. Otherwise, the I found the solution drafted at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Python being quite smart

None of this points seems to be blockers, but I hope you can consider them carefully.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: buildbot

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197565

------- Additional Comments From giallu@gmail.com 2006-07-07 12:21 EST ------- (In reply to comment #3)

1. used I changed it to Development/Tools as Development/Build Tools is not a

valid group.

That's good, but AFAIK "Development/Build Tools" _is_ a valid group. At least it is listed in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/RPMGroups

5. I am choosing to leave this one it. buildbot is 100x more functional with it.

OK

7. its only a small files list, so in this case I will leave it. If it were

bigger, then I would certainly use the method suggested on the wiki.

Good

I can't see any other blockers. rpmlint is silent on the srpm while on the actual rpm gives 3 warnings I would ignore: W: buildbot wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/buildbot-0.7.3/contrib/windows/buildbot2.bat W: buildbot doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/buildbot-0.7.3/contrib/run_maxq.py /usr/bin/env W: buildbot doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/buildbot-0.7.3/contrib/svn_buildbot.py /usr/bin/env

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: buildbot

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197565

------- Additional Comments From ville.skytta@iki.fi 2006-07-08 05:46 EST ------- (In reply to comment #4)

That's good, but AFAIK "Development/Build Tools" _is_ a valid group. At least it is listed in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/RPMGroups

I think that page is somewhat misleading and its intention is not to say that all values for the group tag found in FC4 (the latter list, where Development/Build Tools is) are ok. /usr/share/doc/rpm-*/GROUPS is the list of group tag values generally considered valid.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: buildbot

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197565

------- Additional Comments From michael@knox.net.nz 2006-07-08 15:04 EST ------- Hey Gianluca, you weren't doing the review?

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: buildbot

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197565

------- Additional Comments From michael@knox.net.nz 2006-07-26 16:11 EST ------- Hi Jason.

I left the Windows batch script there, largely because I work with buildbot in a mixed eviroment. It was useful to me when I initially got buildbot working on Windows. I figured it might be useful to others. Is no big deal, I can nuke it.

Will fix the permissions on the contribs.

Thanks

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: buildbot

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197565

------- Additional Comments From giallu@gmail.com 2006-07-26 17:42 EST ------- oops... s/Rex/Jason :)

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: buildbot

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197565

tibbs@math.uh.edu changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|bugzilla-sink@leemhuis.info |tibbs@math.uh.edu OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| |

------- Additional Comments From tibbs@math.uh.edu 2006-08-12 22:13 EST ------- Well, the python guidelines have been changed to get rid of the "ghost the .pyo files" bit. So your files section should shrink a bit. (In any case, you didn't ghost the .pyo files in the contrib directory.)

This builds fine in mock; rpmlint has the following to say about the SRPM:

W: buildbot mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs You use spaces everywhere except for Patch0: and BuildArch:. Not a really big deal.

There are many subdirectories under python_sitelyb/buildbot that you don't own. Getting rid of the %ghost bits should fix this as well.

There's something that looks like a test suite in buildbot/test. Is this something that could be run at package build time? Should it really be included with the installed package?

Review: * source files match upstream: 7be16fe13f173e46df711ed51648e750 buildbot-0.7.3.tar.gz * package meets naming and packaging guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * dist tag is present. * build root is correct. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. License text not included upstream. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). X rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: buildbot = 0.7.3-3.fc6 = /usr/bin/env /usr/bin/python python(abi) = 2.4 python-cvstoys python-twisted >= 1.3.0 ? %check is not present but there might be a test suite. * package is not relocatable. X owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no scriptlets present. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. * no libtool .la droppings.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: buildbot

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197565

michael@knox.net.nz changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEEDINFO |ASSIGNED Flag|needinfo?(michael@knox.net.n| |z) |

------- Additional Comments From michael@knox.net.nz 2006-08-20 20:05 EST ------- Hey, just a quick ping to let you know that I am alive, just still in the trows of unpacking/new job/etc etc. I hope to tidy this review up before/by the end of the week. Thanks for your patience.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: buildbot

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197565

------- Additional Comments From michael@knox.net.nz 2006-09-08 01:04 EST ------- Updated:

Spec URL: http://www.knox.net.nz/~michael/buildbot.spec SRPM URL: http://www.knox.net.nz/~michael/buildbot-0.7.4-1.src.rpm

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: buildbot

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197565

------- Additional Comments From michael@knox.net.nz 2006-09-08 17:44 EST ------- Sorry. Missed that.

The test stuff is for running tests on a source tree (if availible), like "make test". Its part of buildbot's process. Its not a test for buildbot itself.

Will wrap up a new srpm shortly.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: buildbot

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197565

tibbs@math.uh.edu changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis| |

------- Additional Comments From tibbs@math.uh.edu 2006-09-08 21:14 EST ------- OK, everything looks fine now. THe directories all look to be properly owned, rpmlint is silent and what I thought might be a test suite isn't.

APPROVED

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: buildbot

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197565

giallu@gmail.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?

------- Additional Comments From giallu@gmail.com 2007-02-20 18:46 EST ------- I am going to unorphan this package; please replace old owner.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: buildbot

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=197565

bugzilla@redhat.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Severity|normal |medium Priority|normal |medium Product|Fedora Extras |Fedora Version|devel |rawhide

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=197565

Kevin Fenzi kevin@tummy.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+

--- Comment #25 from Kevin Fenzi kevin@tummy.com 2010-05-12 13:11:47 EDT --- cvs done.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=197565

--- Comment #27 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com 2012-03-16 08:15:09 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests).