[Bug 652034] Review Request: python-apipkg - Python namespace control and lazy-import mechanism
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=652034 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||python-apipkg-1.0-1.fc15 Resolution||ERRATA Last Closed||2012-02-25 03:25:46 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-02-25 03:25:46 EST --- python-apipkg-1.0-1.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 782000] Review Request: ghc-hashtables - Mutable hash tables in the ST monad
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=782000 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||ghc-hashtables-1.0.1.2-1.fc ||15 Resolution||ERRATA Last Closed||2012-02-25 03:25:11 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-02-25 03:25:11 EST --- ghc-hashtables-1.0.1.2-1.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 stable repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 787128] Review Request: libfep - Library to implement FEP (front end processor) on ANSI terminals
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=787128 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version||libfep-0.0.5-1.fc16 Resolution|RAWHIDE |ERRATA --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-02-25 03:29:31 EST --- libfep-0.0.5-1.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 772995] Review Request: globus-xioperf - XIO Performance Tool
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=772995 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||globus-xioperf-3.0-2.fc16 Resolution||ERRATA Last Closed||2012-02-25 03:27:23 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-02-25 03:27:23 EST --- globus-xioperf-3.0-2.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 788592] Review Request: rubygem-rbovirt - A Ruby client for oVirt REST API
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=788592 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||rubygem-rbovirt-0.0.6-1.fc1 ||6 Resolution||ERRATA Last Closed||2012-02-25 03:29:22 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-02-25 03:29:22 EST --- rubygem-rbovirt-0.0.6-1.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 772995] Review Request: globus-xioperf - XIO Performance Tool
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=772995 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|globus-xioperf-3.0-2.fc16 |globus-xioperf-3.0-2.fc15 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-02-25 03:34:53 EST --- globus-xioperf-3.0-2.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 stable repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 783683] Review Request: cptutils - Utilities to manipulate and translate color gradients
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=783683 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||cptutils-1.42-2.fc15 Resolution||ERRATA Last Closed||2012-02-25 03:34:06 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-02-25 03:34:06 EST --- cptutils-1.42-2.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 stable repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 787128] Review Request: libfep - Library to implement FEP (front end processor) on ANSI terminals
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=787128 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|libfep-0.0.5-1.fc16 |libfep-0.0.5-1.fc15 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-02-25 03:32:31 EST --- libfep-0.0.5-1.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 652034] Review Request: python-apipkg - Python namespace control and lazy-import mechanism
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=652034 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|python-apipkg-1.0-1.fc15|python-apipkg-1.0-1.fc16 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-02-25 03:32:59 EST --- python-apipkg-1.0-1.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 782000] Review Request: ghc-hashtables - Mutable hash tables in the ST monad
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=782000 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|ghc-hashtables-1.0.1.2-1.fc |ghc-hashtables-1.0.1.2-1.fc |15 |16 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-02-25 03:36:29 EST --- ghc-hashtables-1.0.1.2-1.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 795696] Review Request: sc - A script collection to go from minimal install to GUI
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=795696 --- Comment #6 from Terje Røsten terje...@phys.ntnu.no 2012-02-25 03:56:51 EST --- - It's normal to have any %global on top. - %description still have to long lines - license field is not correct, see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#SoftwareLicenses - there is *always* a srpm, and in fact the most important package for a reviewer :-) - the %changelog is still empty... Have you seen this document: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 785619] Review Request: lutok - Lightweight C++ API library for Lua
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=785619 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version||lutok-0.1-1.fc16 Resolution|NEXTRELEASE |ERRATA --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-02-25 03:37:15 EST --- lutok-0.1-1.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 797370] New: Review Request: python-ssh - A Python SSH2 library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: python-ssh - A Python SSH2 library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=797370 Summary: Review Request: python-ssh - A Python SSH2 library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: Unspecified OS/Version: Unspecified Status: NEW Severity: unspecified Priority: unspecified Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: si...@sewell.ch QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Regression: --- Mount Type: --- Documentation: --- Note: This is a new requirement for a package I already maintain (fabric). Spec Url: https://raw.github.com/silas/rpms/master/python-ssh/python-ssh.spec SRPM Url: https://github.com/downloads/silas/rpms/python-ssh-1.7.13-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: This is a library for making SSH2 connections (client or server). Emphasis is on using SSH2 as an alternative to SSL for making secure connections between python scripts. All major ciphers and hash methods are supported. SFTP client and server mode are both supported too. $ rpmlint python-ssh.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ssh/agent.py python-ssh.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ssh/channel.py python-ssh.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ssh/config.py python-ssh.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ssh/sftp.py python-ssh.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ssh/sftp_file.py python-ssh.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ssh/win_pageant.py python-ssh.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ssh/ssh_exception.py python-ssh.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ssh/client.py python-ssh.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ssh/buffered_pipe.py python-ssh.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ssh/compress.py python-ssh.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ssh/common.py python-ssh.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ssh/ber.py python-ssh.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/python-ssh-1.7.13/LICENSE python-ssh.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ssh/sftp_client.py python-ssh.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ssh/hostkeys.py python-ssh.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ssh/dsskey.py python-ssh.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ssh/pipe.py python-ssh.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ssh/file.py python-ssh.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ssh/transport.py python-ssh.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ssh/kex_group1.py python-ssh.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ssh/primes.py python-ssh.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ssh/util.py python-ssh.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ssh/message.py python-ssh.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ssh/sftp_server.py python-ssh.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ssh/sftp_handle.py python-ssh.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ssh/kex_gex.py python-ssh.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ssh/rsakey.py python-ssh.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ssh/logging22.py python-ssh.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ssh/__init__.py python-ssh.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ssh/auth_handler.py python-ssh.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ssh/sftp_si.py python-ssh.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ssh/server.py python-ssh.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ssh/sftp_attr.py python-ssh.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ssh/resource.py python-ssh.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ssh/packet.py python-ssh.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ssh/pkey.py 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 36 errors, 0 warnings. Reported upstream: https://github.com/bitprophet/ssh/pull/8 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are
[Bug 783683] Review Request: cptutils - Utilities to manipulate and translate color gradients
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=783683 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|cptutils-1.42-2.fc15|cptutils-1.42-2.fc16 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-02-25 03:41:46 EST --- cptutils-1.42-2.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 761319] Review Request: gtkd - It is a D binding and OO wrapper of GTK+
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=761319
--- Comment #31 from Sébastien Willmann sebastien.willm...@gmail.com
2012-02-25 07:08:40 EST ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
C/C++ (This section is still relevant for D)
[x]: MUST ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: MUST Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: MUST Package contains no static executables.
[x]: MUST Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: MUST Package is not relocatable.
[x]: MUST Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Generic
[x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported primary architecture.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Buildroot is not present
Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine
[x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5
[x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: MUST 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]: MUST 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]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: MUST License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: MUST Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generates any conflict.
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.
rpmlint gtkd-devhelp-1.5.1-22.20120219git2cfd194.fc18.noarch.rpm
gtkd-devhelp.noarch: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US
gtkd-devhelp.noarch: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found fr
gtkd-devhelp.noarch: W: no-documentation
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
rpmlint gtkd-1.5.1-22.20120219git2cfd194.fc18.i686.rpm
gtkd.i686: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US
gtkd.i686: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found fr
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
rpmlint gtkd-debuginfo-1.5.1-22.20120219git2cfd194.fc18.i686.rpm
gtkd-debuginfo.i686: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
rpmlint gtkd-1.5.1-22.20120219git2cfd194.fc18.src.rpm
gtkd.src: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US
gtkd.src: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found fr
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
rpmlint gtkd-geany-tags-1.5.1-22.20120219git2cfd194.fc18.noarch.rpm
gtkd-geany-tags.noarch: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US
gtkd-geany-tags.noarch: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found fr
gtkd-geany-tags.noarch: W: no-documentation
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
rpmlint gtkd-devel-1.5.1-22.20120219git2cfd194.fc18.i686.rpm
gtkd-devel.i686: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US
gtkd-devel.i686: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found fr
gtkd-devel.i686: W: no-documentation
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
No difference found with diff between the rpm sources and the git repo.
[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in
[Bug 795696] Review Request: sc - A script collection to go from minimal install to GUI
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=795696 --- Comment #7 from Simon A. Erat erat.si...@gmail.com 2012-02-25 07:45:46 EST --- User: mkrpm rpmbuild -ba --target noarch ~/rpmbuild/SPECS/seasc.spec --- results in NO *.src.rpm, i think its because its a BASH collection. --- So wheter you have a look at the unpackaged tarball, or at the rpm where its extracted, you see the exact same code. I have no idea why the BUILD ALL flag doesnt make a src.rpm, but its the way it is! See buildlog-0.2.0-4 for more details... --- LOG: http://sea.hostingsociety.com/devpak/buildlog-0.2.0-4 RPM: http://sea.hostingsociety.com/devpak/seasc-0.2.0-4.fc16.noarch.rpm SRC: http://sea.hostingsociety.com/devpak/seasc-0.2.0.tar.gz SPEC: http://sea.hostingsociety.com/devpak/seasc.spec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 795605] Review Request: perl-Tk-ToolBar - Toolbar widget for Perl/Tk
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=795605 Iain Arnell iarn...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Iain Arnell iarn...@gmail.com 2012-02-25 08:18:10 EST --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: perl-Tk-ToolBar Short Description: Toolbar widget for Perl/Tk Owners: iarnell Branches: f16 f17 InitialCC: perl-sig -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 795605] Review Request: perl-Tk-ToolBar - Toolbar widget for Perl/Tk
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=795605 --- Comment #3 from Iain Arnell iarn...@gmail.com 2012-02-25 08:16:41 EST --- (In reply to comment #2) NOTE: I'm not sure if that matters but your SRPM filename suggests version 0.10-1 instead of 0.10-2. If you're going to use this one for import, you might want to correct it. Then again, it probably doesn't matter at all. Oops. That was just a copy/paste error - 0.10-2 srpm was there too - link should be SRPM URL: http://iarnell.fedorapeople.org/review/perl-Tk-ToolBar-0.10-2.fc18.src.rpm Please, correct the dependencies. No blockers, though. Will do. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 795696] Review Request: sc - A script collection to go from minimal install to GUI
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=795696 Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||brendan.jones...@gmail.com --- Comment #8 from Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com 2012-02-25 08:45:38 EST --- Drop the target parameter, BuildArch will take care of that and it should build tour src.rpm. When you are using wildcards in your yum install you are also pulling in debuginfo packages? Not sure this is what you want -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 795696] Review Request: sc - A script collection to go from minimal install to GUI
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=795696 --- Comment #9 from Simon A. Erat erat.si...@gmail.com 2012-02-25 09:17:15 EST --- Ooops, just figured whie looking closer to the log (now i recall i had read that already, but forgotten about it)... the src.rpm is NOT in the RPMS dir, but in SRPMS... SRC: http://sea.hostingsociety.com/devpak/seasc-0.2.0-4.fc16.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 795696] Review Request: sc - A script collection to go from minimal install to GUI
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=795696 --- Comment #10 from Simon A. Erat erat.si...@gmail.com 2012-02-25 10:30:42 EST --- Thanks Brendon, it worked properly with (and without) the target argument. The error cause were the user, me in this case :( By the yum install, are you refering to ($scDir) ./system/lists ? No, thats not my intention, to install debug info (-devel packages?) as well, only the packages for the (common) user. The change from 'hardcoded' (variables in the scripts) packages to list files, was just on Feb 12 2012. So those files are not 'done' just yet. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 795696] Review Request: sc - A script collection to go from minimal install to GUI
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=795696 --- Comment #11 from Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com 2012-02-25 12:42:27 EST --- I haven't run it but I noticed a yum install alsa* in there somewhere. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 783825] Review Request: suil - A lightweight C library for loading and wrapping LV2 plugin UIs
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=783825 --- Comment #18 from Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com 2012-02-25 13:02:14 EST --- OK, I think we can ignore the last comment. I have rebuilt qtractor with suil and it seems to link as expected with the split packages. SRPM: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/lv2/suil-0.4.4-4.fc16.src.rpm SPEC: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/lv2/suil.spec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 797418] New: Review Request: qtractor - Audio/MIDI multi-track sequencer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: qtractor - Audio/MIDI multi-track sequencer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=797418 Summary: Review Request: qtractor - Audio/MIDI multi-track sequencer Product: Fedora Version: 16 Platform: Unspecified OS/Version: Unspecified Status: NEW Severity: unspecified Priority: unspecified Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: brendan.jones...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Regression: --- Mount Type: --- Documentation: --- SRPM: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/qtractor-0.5.3-2.fc16.src.rpm SPEC: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/qtractor.spec Description: Qtractor is an Audio/MIDI multi-track sequencer application written in C++ around the Qt4 toolkit using Qt Designer. The initial target platform will be Linux, where the Jack Audio Connection Kit (JACK) for audio, and the Advanced Linux Sound Architecture (ALSA) for MIDI, are the main infrastructures to evolve as a fairly-featured Linux Desktop Audio Workstation GUI, specially dedicated to the personal home-studio. This package currently exists in rpmfusion as it links against the forbidden libmad library. This package does not build against libmad. The qtractor package in rpmfusion will be renamed qtractor-freeworld. See rpmfusion bug In addition, this builds against the new LV2 specification (suil, lilv). See bug 783825 and 789386. fedora16:~/rpmbuild/SPECS $ rpmlint qtractor qtractor.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) multi - mulch, mufti qtractor.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi - mulch, mufti qtractor.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary qtractor 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. fedora16:~/rpmbuild/SPECS $ rpmlint /home/bsjones/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/qtractor-0.5.3-2.fc16.x86_64.rpmqtractor.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) multi - mulch, mufti qtractor.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi - mulch, mufti qtractor.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary qtractor 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. fedora16:~/rpmbuild/SPECS $ rpmlint /home/bsjones/rpmbuild/SRPMS/qtractor-0.5.3-2.fc16.src.rpm qtractor.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) multi - mulch, mufti qtractor.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi - mulch, mufti 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 797418] Review Request: qtractor - Audio/MIDI multi-track sequencer
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=797418
--- Comment #1 from Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com 2012-02-25
13:16:42 EST ---
See rpmfusion bug: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2193
Diff from rpmfsuiom
fedora16:~/rpmbuild/SPECS $ diff qtractor-rpmfusion.spec qtractor.spec
14c14
Release: 1%{?dist}
---
Release: 2%{?dist}
26d25
BuildRequires: libmad-devel
32c31,32
BuildRequires: slv2-devel
---
BuildRequires: suil-devel
BuildRequires: lilv-devel
52a53
--enable-mad=no --enable-lilv --enable-suil \
59a61
rm -rf %{buildroot}
87a90,92
* Wed Feb 22 2012 Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com - 0.5.3-2
- Copied from rpmfusion, add suil, lilv suppport, remove mad and slv2
90,92d94
* Sun Dec 25 2011 Orcan Ogetbil oget [DOT] fedora [AT] gmail [DOT] com -
0.5.2-1
- Update to 0.5.2
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 789386] Review Request: lilv - An LV2 Resource Description Framework Library
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=789386 Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||797418 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 783825] Review Request: suil - A lightweight C library for loading and wrapping LV2 plugin UIs
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=783825 Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||797418 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 797418] Review Request: qtractor - Audio/MIDI multi-track sequencer
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=797418 Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||783825, 789386 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 795696] Review Request: sc - A script collection to go from minimal install to GUI
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=795696 --- Comment #12 from Simon A. Erat erat.si...@gmail.com 2012-02-25 14:33:43 EST --- Right, found that place to be ./collection/set/snd. Its a relict of previous to Feb 12. Thanks for reminding me to delete it for further builds. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 673790] Rename Request: mingw32-w32api - mingw-headers - Win32/Win64 header files and stubs
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=673790
--- Comment #13 from Erik van Pienbroek erik-fed...@vanpienbroek.nl
2012-02-25 15:03:41 EST ---
New Spec URL:
http://svn.openftd.org/svn/fedora_cross/mingw-headers/mingw-headers.spec
New SRPM URL:
http://build1.openftd.org/fedora-cross/src/mingw-headers-2.0.999-0.4.trunk.20120120.fc18_cross.src.rpm
* Fri Feb 24 2012 Erik van Pienbroek epien...@fedoraproject.org -
2.0.999-0.4.trunk.20120224
- Update to 20120224 snapshot
- Made the win64 pieces optional for now (pending approval of the
mingw-gcc/mingw-binutils package reviews)
- Eliminated some conditionals related to snapshot builds
- Added DISCLAIMER, DISCLAIMER.PD and COPYING.LIB files
- Added ZPLv2.1 to the license tag
- Added a conditional which is needed to prevent a file conflict with
winpthreads
- Bumped BR: mingw{32,64}-filesystem to = 70
The BR: mingw32-filesystem bump to = 70 was done because this will be the
first version to support the new RPM macros like mingw_package_header,
mingw_configure and mingw_make.
The optional win64 conditional was introduced to make the introduction of
mingw-w64 possible (for just the win32 target) while the new mingw-gcc and
mingw-binutils packages are still pending review. Once these packages are
approved this conditional can be removed.
I've decided to use the trunk release instead of v2.0.1 as the trunk version
contains some interesting features like POSIX printf functions and LFS support.
It has also been tested already in the testing repository for some time and all
detected issues are already resolved upstream. All Fedora packages can now
build fine against mingw-w64 trunk (well, except for mingw32-qpid-cpp, but that
one FTBFS because of the new boost library). Nevertheless, the release
management of the mingw-w64 project is an area which could be improved. For
example there is no roadmap containing the list of expected features and
expected release dates and there's no clear overview of the differences between
all versions which makes it hard to make a balanced decision about which
version should be used. From what I've heard upstream is thinking about
releasing current trunk as v2.1 so I think we're good if we stay with trunk for
now until upstream branches.
Yesterday I asked upstream about the automated snapshots. I was told that the
viewvc instance at SourceForge has this nice feature which makes it possible to
generate tarballs from SVN, for example
http://mingw-w64.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/mingw-w64/trunk/?view=tar which
automatically generates a tarball from the latest trunk. However, the downside
is that the mingw-w64 SVN currently contains a link to an external SVN
repository (ReactOS) for the DDK part. The SF viewvc instance doesn't support
generating tarballs which include files from an external SVN repository. When
an attempt is done to build mingw-headers using this tarball you'd end up with
these kind of messages: configure: WARNING: svn checkout incomplete, ddk
headers missing. Upstream is working on eliminating this external SVN
repository link so this issue should be resolved soon hopefully. For the time
being I think it's okay to use the source snapshot tarballs which can be found
on the SF downloads page
Your suggestion about the improved %prep has been applied in this release
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 673790] Rename Request: mingw32-w32api - mingw-headers - Win32/Win64 header files and stubs
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=673790
Kalev Lember kalevlem...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Comment #14 from Kalev Lember kalevlem...@gmail.com 2012-02-25 15:45:46
EST ---
Fedora review of mingw-headers-2.0.999-0.4.trunk.20120224.fc18_cross.src.rpm
2012-02-25
+ OK
! needs attention
rpmlint output:
$ rpmlint mingw-headers-2.0.999-0.4.trunk.20120224.fc16.src.rpm \
mingw32-headers-2.0.999-0.4.trunk.20120224.fc16.noarch.rpm \
mingw64-headers-2.0.999-0.4.trunk.20120224.fc16.noarch.rpm
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
+ The package is named according to Fedora MinGW packaging guidelines
+ The spec file name matches the base package name.
+ The package meets the Packaging Guidelines
+ The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines.
+ The license field in the spec file matches the actual license
+ The package contains the license files (COPYING DISCLAIMER DISCLAIMER.PD
COPYING.LIB)
+ Spec file is written in American English
+ Spec file is legible
+ Upstream sources match sources in the srpm. md5sum:
1223b8f402e1e6296c5b70d63b37d4b0 mingw-w64-src_20120224.tar.bz2
1223b8f402e1e6296c5b70d63b37d4b0 Download/mingw-w64-src_20120224.tar.bz2
+ The package builds on primary architectures
n/a ExcludeArch bugs filed
+ BuildRequires look sane
n/a The spec file must handle locales properly
n/a ldconfig in %post and %postun
+ Package does not bundle copies of system libraries
n/a Package isn't relocatable
+ Package owns all directories it creates
+ No duplicate files in %files
+ Permissions are properly set
+ Consistent use of macros
+ The package must contain code or permissible content
n/a Large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage
+ Files marked %doc should not affect package
n/a Header files should be in -devel
Not applicable to MinGW packages.
n/a Static libraries must be in -static
n/a Development files must be in a -devel package
Not applicable to MinGW packages.
n/a -devel must require the fully versioned base
+ Packages must not contain libtool .la files
n/a Packages containing GUI apps must include %{name}.desktop file
+ Directory ownership sane
+ Filenames are valid UTF-8
+ Proper Obsoletes / Provides for replacing mingw32-w32api
A minor nit about the source package summary Win32/Win64 header files and
stubs -- this package doesn't actually contain the stubs for linking with the
MS provided dll files; the stubs are all in mingw-crt.
Also, the required mingw32-filesystem version is different in Requires and
BuildRequires (65 vs 70), might want to use the same number to avoid confusion.
Otherwise looks good.
APPROVED
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 797447] New: Review Request: easybashgui - Bash function library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: easybashgui - Bash function library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=797447 Summary: Review Request: easybashgui - Bash function library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: casper.le.fan...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Regression: --- Mount Type: --- Documentation: --- Spec URL: http://fantom.fedorapeople.org/easybashgui.spec SRPM URL: http://fantom.fedorapeople.org/easybashgui-4.0.2-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: EasyBashGUI is a bash function library that aims to give simple GUI functions using gtkdialog, kdialog, zenity, Xdialog, dialog, or whiptail depending on KDE or GNOME running or not, Gtkdialog or Xdialog installed or not and X server running or not ( (c)dialog or whiptail is the minimum ). So, if bash programmer writes: message 'Thanks for using this program' , he has not to worry in wich environment his program runs: it is enough there is at least (c)dialog or whiptail installed, and program will work as expected. Obviously, if user has KDE, GNOME, or gtkdialog/Xdialog also installed ( and he's in a X session ), program will have an other look, but logical flow is *exactly* the same. In EasyBashGUI suite there are a library ( easybashgui_X.X.X ), a script to quick test it ( easybashgui_test.sh ), and a stand-alone script to create dialog boxes externally ( easydialog.sh ). Hello, this is a new package for el6 and fedora = 16 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 673790] Review Request: mingw-headers - MinGW Windows cross-compiler header files
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=673790 Erik van Pienbroek erik-fed...@vanpienbroek.nl changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Rename Request: |Review Request: |mingw32-w32api - |mingw-headers - MinGW |mingw-headers - Win32/Win64 |Windows cross-compiler |header files and stubs |header files Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #15 from Erik van Pienbroek erik-fed...@vanpienbroek.nl 2012-02-25 16:50:37 EST --- Thank for very much for the review! Your last-minute remarks have already been applied in my local copy New Package SCM Request === Package Name: mingw-headers Short Description: MinGW Windows cross-compiler header files Owners: epienbro kalev rjones ktietz Branches: InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 673790] Review Request: mingw-headers - MinGW Windows cross-compiler header files
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=673790 --- Comment #16 from Erik van Pienbroek erik-fed...@vanpienbroek.nl 2012-02-25 16:55:39 EST --- Let's do F-17 too :) New Package SCM Request === Package Name: mingw-headers Short Description: MinGW Windows cross-compiler header files Owners: epienbro kalev rjones ktietz Branches: f17 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 673792] Rename Request: mingw32-runtime - mingw-crt - MinGW Windows cross-compiler runtime
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=673792 --- Comment #6 from Erik van Pienbroek erik-fed...@vanpienbroek.nl 2012-02-25 16:58:54 EST --- Based on the review remarks in the mingw-header package here's an updated version of the mingw-crt package Updated Spec URL: http://svn.openftd.org/svn/fedora_cross/mingw-crt/mingw-crt.spec Updated SRPM URL: http://build1.openftd.org/fedora-cross/src/mingw-crt-2.0.999-0.4.trunk.20120224.fc18_cross.src.rpm * Sat Feb 25 2012 Erik van Pienbroek epien...@fedoraproject.org - 2.0.999-0.4.trunk.20120224 - Update to mingw-w64 trunk 20120224 snapshot - Made the win64 pieces optional for now (pending approval of the mingw-gcc/mingw-binutils package reviews) - Dropped the use of the mingw_pkg_name macro - Eliminated some conditionals related to snapshot builds - Use smaller SourceForge source URLs - Improved summary of the various packages - Simplified the configure, make and make install calls - Dropped upstreamed patch - Added DISCLAIMER and DISCLAIMER.PD files - Added ZPLv2.1 to the license tag - Bumped obsoletes/provides version for mingw32-runtime -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 673792] Rename Request: mingw32-runtime - mingw-crt - MinGW Windows cross-compiler runtime
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=673792
Kalev Lember kalevlem...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||kalevlem...@gmail.com
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|kalevlem...@gmail.com
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Comment #7 from Kalev Lember kalevlem...@gmail.com 2012-02-25 17:32:44
EST ---
Fedora review of mingw-crt-2.0.999-0.4.trunk.20120224.fc18_cross.src.rpm
2012-02-25
+ OK
! needs attention
rpmlint output:
$ rpmlint mingw-crt-2.0.999-0.4.trunk.20120224.fc16.src.rpm \
mingw32-crt-2.0.999-0.4.trunk.20120224.fc16.noarch.rpm \
mingw64-crt-2.0.999-0.4.trunk.20120224.fc16.noarch.rpm
mingw-crt.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) runtime - run time, run-time,
rudiment
mingw-crt.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US runtime - run time,
run-time, rudiment
mingw32-crt.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) runtime - run time,
run-time, rudiment
mingw32-crt.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US runtime - run
time, run-time, rudiment
mingw64-crt.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) runtime - run time,
run-time, rudiment
mingw64-crt.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US runtime - run
time, run-time, rudiment
mingw64-crt.noarch: E: arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object
/usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libwsock32.a
[snip, 1601 similar errors cut out for brevity]
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1602 errors, 6 warnings.
+ The rpmlint errors / warnings are harmless and can be ignored
+ The package is named according to Fedora MinGW packaging guidelines
+ The spec file name matches the base package name.
+ The package meets the Packaging Guidelines
+ The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines.
+ The license field in the spec file matches the actual license
+ The package contains the license files (COPYING DISCLAIMER DISCLAIMER.PD)
+ Spec file is written in American English
+ Spec file is legible
+ Upstream sources match sources in the srpm. md5sum:
1223b8f402e1e6296c5b70d63b37d4b0 mingw-w64-src_20120224.tar.bz2
1223b8f402e1e6296c5b70d63b37d4b0 Download/mingw-w64-src_20120224.tar.bz2
+ The package builds on primary architectures
n/a ExcludeArch bugs filed
+ BuildRequires look sane
n/a The spec file must handle locales properly
n/a ldconfig in %post and %postun
+ Package does not bundle copies of system libraries
n/a Package isn't relocatable
+ Package owns all directories it creates
+ No duplicate files in %files
+ Permissions are properly set
+ Consistent use of macros
+ The package must contain code or permissible content
n/a Large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage
+ Files marked %doc should not affect package
n/a Header files should be in -devel
Not applicable to MinGW packages.
n/a Static libraries must be in -static
n/a Development files must be in a -devel package
Not applicable to MinGW packages.
n/a -devel must require the fully versioned base
+ Packages must not contain libtool .la files
n/a Packages containing GUI apps must include %{name}.desktop file
+ Directory ownership sane
+ Filenames are valid UTF-8
+ Proper Obsoletes / Provides for replacing mingw32-runtime
Looks good.
APPROVED
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 673792] Review Request: mingw-crt - MinGW Windows cross-compiler runtime
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=673792 Erik van Pienbroek erik-fed...@vanpienbroek.nl changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Rename Request: |Review Request: mingw-crt - |mingw32-runtime - |MinGW Windows |mingw-crt - MinGW Windows |cross-compiler runtime |cross-compiler runtime | Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #8 from Erik van Pienbroek erik-fed...@vanpienbroek.nl 2012-02-25 17:35:57 EST --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: mingw-crt Short Description: MinGW Windows cross-compiler runtime Owners: epienbro kalev rjones ktietz Branches: f17 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 795696] Review Request: sc - A script collection to go from minimal install to GUI
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=795696 --- Comment #13 from Simon A. Erat erat.si...@gmail.com 2012-02-25 18:43:57 EST --- Ok, first steps with koji were funny, here's the result: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3819177 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 790985] Review Request: python-mwlib-docbook - DocBook writer for mwlib
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=790985 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||python-mwlib-xhtml-0.1.0-3. ||fc16 Resolution||ERRATA Last Closed||2012-02-25 19:23:34 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-02-25 19:23:34 EST --- python-mwlib-xhtml-0.1.0-3.fc16, python-mwlib-docbook-0.1.0-3.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 790984] Review Request: python-mwlib-xhtml - XHTML writer for mwlib
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=790984 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||python-mwlib-xhtml-0.1.0-3. ||fc16 Resolution||ERRATA Last Closed||2012-02-25 19:23:28 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-02-25 19:23:28 EST --- python-mwlib-xhtml-0.1.0-3.fc16, python-mwlib-docbook-0.1.0-3.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 795696] Review Request: sc - A script collection to go from minimal install to GUI
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=795696 --- Comment #14 from Simon A. Erat erat.si...@gmail.com 2012-02-25 21:56:13 EST --- I'm a little bit confused with the current rawhide situation, so i've built a base to be sure... - for f in f16 f17 f18; do koji build --scratch $f /tmp/seasc-0.2.0-5.fc16.src.rpm ; done - F16: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3819286 F17: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3819301 F18: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3819303 - Changelog: http://sea.hostingsociety.com/devpak/changelog Specfile: http://sea.hostingsociety.com/devpak/seasc.spec Source:http://sea.hostingsociety.com/devpak/seasc-0.2.0-5.fc16.src.rpm - Anyone willing become my sponser? I'm willing to co-maintain :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 789386] Review Request: lilv - An LV2 Resource Description Framework Library
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=789386
Orcan Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||oget.fed...@gmail.com
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|oget.fed...@gmail.com
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Orcan Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com 2012-02-25 22:51:21
EST ---
I started reviewing this one. Here are my initial findings:
! The specfile in th link above does not match the specfile that comes inside
the SRPM. I started the review with the latter.
* Missing BR: lv2core-devel sord-devel (You BR sord instead, which is
insufficient). I suggest using mock which will tell you the BRs you need to
add.
* The directory /etc/bash_completion.d/ remains unowned. We can either own this
directory, or add Requires: bash_completion. But looking at the multiple owners
of the directory /etc/bash_completion.d/ I can say that we should also own this
directory.
* You can pass --bindings to ./waf configure to build the Python bindings.
Note that you will then also need BR: swig python-devel (Just BR: python is not
sufficient)
* Fedora specific compilation flags are not honored. You will need to export
CFLAGS instead, as the source is written in C.
! Since you build the unit test via --test, you should probably run the test in
%check.
* %{_mandir}/man1/* should go into the main package, as these are manpages for
stuff that goes to /usr/bin.
* License tag should be MIT.
! Buildroot tag is no longer required. Does no harm though.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 797418] Review Request: qtractor - Audio/MIDI multi-track sequencer
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=797418
David Timms dti...@iinet.net.au changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dti...@iinet.net.au
--- Comment #2 from David Timms dti...@iinet.net.au 2012-02-26 00:22:29 EST
---
Hi,
- a diff -u would be easier to read.
- Did you intend to delete Orcan's most recent changelog entry, or add an extra
entry ?
- The spec could carry comments about why: eg remove mad and slv2 since they
support mp3 which can't be included in Fedora.
- In the audacity-freeworld spec is currently included:
http://cvs.rpmfusion.org/viewvc/rpms/audacity-freeworld/F-17/audacity-freeworld.spec?revision=1.22root=freeview=markup
%define realname audacity
Conflicts: %{realname}
It uses realname in place of name in the remainder of the spec.
Since both audacity and audacity-freeworld are using the same layout on disk,
with the same file names, this makes sense as it ensures the user can't install
both; they need to decide which one, and remove the other first. It also means
that updates keep you with the one you chose.
Is that how we propose the -freeworld version to work for qtractor ?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
