[Bug 820090] New: Review Request: perl-Sys-MemInfo - returns the total amount of free and used physical memory
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: perl-Sys-MemInfo - returns the total amount of free and used physical memory https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820090 Summary: Review Request: perl-Sys-MemInfo - returns the total amount of free and used physical memory Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: jsyna...@redhat.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://jsynacek.fedorapeople.org/perl-sys-meminfo/perl-Sys-MemInfo.spec SRPM URL: http://jsynacek.fedorapeople.org/perl-sys-meminfo/perl-Sys-MemInfo-0.91-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: Sys::MemInfo return the total amount of free and used physical memory in bytes in totalmem and freemem variables. -- 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 817268] Review Request: python-faces - Python project management 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=817268
Robin Lee changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Comment #9 from Robin Lee 2012-05-09 01:57:05 EDT
---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
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 %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[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.
[!]: 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 Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[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 Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if 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 is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generate 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.
[!]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent. (python-matplotlib is not an elf library)
rpmlint python-faces-0.11.7-1.fc18.noarch.rpm
python-faces.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency python-matplotlib
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings.
rpmlint python-faces-0.11.7-1.fc18.src.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
rpmlint python-faces-timescale-0.11.7-1.fc18.noarch.rpm
python-faces-timescale.noarch: 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.
/home/cheese/Public/817268/faces-pm-0.11.7.tar.gz :
MD5SUM this package : eea3cd8dc7f201ac6d745fe9d34274cd
MD5SUM upstream package : eea3cd8dc7f201ac6d745fe9d34274cd
[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[?]: SHOULD 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]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
[x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
/usr/sbin.
[x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[!]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
[x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged.
[x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
upstream.
[x
[Bug 818454] Review Request: rubygem-linecache19 - Read file with caching
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=818454 --- Comment #8 from Bohuslav "Slavek" Kabrda 2012-05-09 01:30:00 EDT --- (In reply to comment #6) > (In reply to comment #5) > > (In reply to comment #3) > > > Thank you for comments! > > > > > > (In reply to comment #2) > > > > - License is GPLv2+, not just GPLv2 (try running licensecheck on > > > > COPYING or > > > > linecache19.rb). > > > So please check the above comment on License: line > > > > > > > Yep, I saw that. The license in the mentioned files is however clearly > > GPLv2+. > > So I would suggest querying the upstream what's actually right. > > Stricter license tag is no problem here. > I do not consider "stricter is no problem" to be a good solution. Sorry, but not having the license clear is a blocker for me. > > > > - In %check section, the pushd should be associated with popd. > > > Well, not necessary... > > > > > > > No, but cleaner :) (why not use "cd" in that case?) > > Will fix when importing to Fedora git, or next update if any blocker remains. > > Sure, good. > > > > - As for the docs, I would leave COPYING and possibly README in the main > > > > package and move the rest into the doc subpackage. > > > Well, this is already done... > > > > > > > Nope, VERSION, NEWS, ChangeLog and AUTHORS files are in the main package - > > these are the files I am talking about. > > Ah, now I can see what you see. Then IMO at least AUTHORS MUST be in main > (copyright holder or so is the important imformation as well as COPYING file). > IMO NEWS should also be in main package (well, it is "news"). ChangeLog can be > in -doc subpackage, well, however I think either will do. Ah, yes, AUTHORS should probably stay in the main package - however this on is really not a blocker. So the only blocker for me is the license. -- 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 803149] Review Request: pyrasite - Code injection and monitoring of running Python processes
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=803149 Luke Macken changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Luke Macken 2012-05-09 00:34:38 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: pyrasite Short Description: Inject arbitrary code into running Python processes Owners: lmacken Branches: f16 f17 el6 el5 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 819264] Review Request: Singular - Computer Algebra System for polynomial computations
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=819264 --- Comment #2 from pcpa 2012-05-09 00:11:15 EDT --- Yet another update due to a build failure in sagemath. Now a failure due to an unresolved symbol, preventing sagemath to run in the buildroot environment to generate documentation. Corrected in the new Singular-undefined.patch, documented in the spec. Spec URL: http://kenobi.mandriva.com/~pcpa/Singular.spec SRPM URL: http://kenobi.mandriva.com/~pcpa/Singular-3.1.3-3.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 820063] New: Review Request: rubygem-faraday - HTTP/REST API client 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: rubygem-faraday - HTTP/REST API client library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820063 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-faraday - HTTP/REST API client library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: xn...@redhat.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://xning.fedorapeople.org/rubygem-faraday-f17.spec SRPM URL: http://xning.fedorapeople.org/rubygem-faraday-0.8.0-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: Faraday is an HTTP client lib that provides a common interface over many adapters (such as Net::HTTP) and embraces the concept of Rack middleware when processing the request/response cycle. This my first rubygem package, I need a sponsor. Thanks. I also upload package for Fedora 16. Spec URL: http://xning.fedorapeople.org/rubygem-faraday-f16.spec SRPM URL: http://xning.fedorapeople.org/rubygem-faraday-0.8.0-1.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 797312] Review Request: permlib - Library for permutation computations
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=797312 Jerry James changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #8 from Jerry James 2012-05-08 23:06:51 EDT --- Thanks very much for the review, Ralph. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: permlib Short Description: Library for permutation computations Owners: jjames 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 806680] Review Request: bouncycastle-pg - Bouncy Castle OpenPGP 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=806680 Orcan Ogetbil changed: What|Removed |Added CC||oget.fed...@gmail.com --- Comment #15 from Orcan Ogetbil 2012-05-08 22:38:31 EDT --- Yes, we need to stick with 1.46. Please see bug 806262 for explanation. -- 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 672205] Review Request: pynag - Python Nagios plugin and configuration environment
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=672205 --- Comment #15 from Tomas Edwardsson 2012-05-08 21:39:32 EDT --- Thanks Jason python_sitearch removed. Contacted authors and set license to GPLv2 everywhere. There are no bundled libraries, just a commiter which was using the wrong license. I removed the python-2.3 require, it was on a note that anyone trying to build it on older distributions would fail since we haven't tested it with older python. I removed the docs from examples and added the examples/README file instead. Also version 0.4.1 was just released, so this is a new version with updated spec file and src.rpm: Spec URL: http://pynag.googlecode.com/git-history/0.4.1/pynag.spec SRPM URL: http://pynag.googlecode.com/files/pynag-0.4.1-6.src.rpm Also noting that there are 3 new scripts deployed, /usr/bin/pynag-* with relevant man pages. -- 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 817981] Review Request: ratpoints - Find rational points on hyperelliptic curves
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=817981
--- Comment #6 from pcpa 2012-05-08
20:55:22 EDT ---
Changed spec to use %{name} and %{version}.
Moved gpl-2.0.txt file to the -devel package to silence rpmlint.
Changed hyperelliptic to hyper-elliptic to silence rpmlint.
Added -p to install of manual page.
Now I only see rpmlint output of the installed package:
ratpoints.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libratpoints.so.0 linux-vdso.so.1
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
Updated spec and srpm at:
Spec URL: http://kenobi.mandriva.com/~pcpa/ratpoints.spec
SRPM URL: http://kenobi.mandriva.com/~pcpa/ratpoints-2.1.3-4.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 797312] Review Request: permlib - Library for permutation computations
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=797312
Ralph Bean changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #7 from Ralph Bean 2012-05-08 19:05:51 EDT ---
APPROVED
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
C/C++
[x]: MUST Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[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.
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 %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[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 Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[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 Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if 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.
Note: Licenses found: "*No copyright* UNKNOWN", "BSD (3 clause) " For
detailed output of licensecheck see file:
/home/threebean/reviews/797312/licensecheck.txt
[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 is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generate 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.
- These are false positives
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
/home/threebean/reviews/797312/permlib-0.2.6.tar.gz :
MD5SUM this package : 5d9018573233d53176edb4ed6d2d7f5f
MD5SUM upstream package : 5d9018573233d53176edb4ed6d2d7f5f
[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[-]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[-]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: SHOULD 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]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
[x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
/usr/sbin.
[x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[-]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
[x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged.
[x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
up
[Bug 816012] Review Request: python-virtualenvcontext - Switch virtualenvs with a python context manager
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=816012 Alec Leamas changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #14 from Alec Leamas 2012-05-08 18:49:54 EDT --- And now, finally, approving... -- 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 816012] Review Request: python-virtualenvcontext - Switch virtualenvs with a python context manager
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=816012 Alec Leamas changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review+ |fedora-review? --- Comment #13 from Alec Leamas 2012-05-08 18:49:13 EDT --- Resetting flag just to make everything look OK. -- 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 816012] Review Request: python-virtualenvcontext - Switch virtualenvs with a python context manager
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=816012 --- Comment #12 from Alec Leamas 2012-05-08 18:48:09 EDT --- You're welcome ...Sorry for missing the flag. You didn't, 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 819670] Review Request: mingw-llvm - MinGW LLVM libraries
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=819670 --- Comment #3 from Eric Smith 2012-05-08 18:46:30 EDT --- Kalev Lember let me know that for MinGW packages it is expected that the debuginfo not include sources, so the error from rpmlint is not an issue: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/mingw/2012-May/005299.html I've added a note about this to the MinGW/Rpmlint wiki page: http://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=MinGW/Rpmlint -- 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 816012] Review Request: python-virtualenvcontext - Switch virtualenvs with a python context manager
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=816012 Ralph Bean changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #11 from Ralph Bean 2012-05-08 18:33:50 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-virtualenvcontext Short Description: Switch virtualenvs with a python context manager Owners: ralph Branches: f17 el6 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 816012] Review Request: python-virtualenvcontext - Switch virtualenvs with a python context manager
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=816012 Ralph Bean changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ -- 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 816012] Review Request: python-virtualenvcontext - Switch virtualenvs with a python context manager
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=816012 --- Comment #10 from Ralph Bean 2012-05-08 18:32:26 EDT --- (In reply to comment #9) > [cut] > ***Approved Thanks for the review, Alec! -- 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 812132] Review Request: python-lvm - Python module to use LVM
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=812132 Andy Grover changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #13 from Andy Grover 2012-05-08 18:17:32 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-lvm Short Description: Python bindings for LVM Owners: grover 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 662269] Review Request: dpic - A compiler for the pic language
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=662269 --- Comment #8 from Ben Boeckel 2012-05-08 18:13:57 EDT --- (In reply to comment #7) > Indeed, I get those rpmlint complaints and they're all fine. (Though I wonder > why all of the stuff in the srpm has such odd permissions. I guess it could > be > your umask.) Yeah, I use 027 as my umask. > The "texlive2010" bit is a little odd since that project is on to texlive2012 > now. Hopefully one day soon that project will actually be finished. (Last I > checked it was waiting on just two license issues.) Anyway, that's …an incomplete sentence ;) . I didn't know texlive2012 was that close. I know jnovy fedorapeople repo hasn't been updated in a long time, but I haven't seen any reviews going by. > Since the package contains files of multiple licenses, you'll need at least a > comment in the spec indicating which file is under which license. Ah, yeah. > The examples package has a somewhat odd directory structure; the "examples" > directory is repeated: > /usr/share/dpic/examples/examples/README > I also wonder if the documentation for the examples should be packaged as > documentation, though that's starting to descend to absurdity. Hmm, I'll get rid of the duplicate examples thing. Must have skimmed that when looking at the path lists. -- 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 816012] Review Request: python-virtualenvcontext - Switch virtualenvs with a python context manager
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=816012 --- Comment #9 from Alec Leamas 2012-05-08 18:11:51 EDT --- (In reply to comment #8) > [cut] > > Yes, another goof on my part. It should be the correct GPL 2.0 now. My > apologies for wasting your time. Don't apologize, there is really no need ;) > I still believe this is the correct use. Use of the virtualenv program is > widespread amongst python developers and the use of the word 'virtualenv' to > denote an environment created by the virtualenv program is common. I can't > back > this up and will change it to some other language if you insist. This is not a blocking issue. I still prefer something else directed to those not looking for virtualenv - those who do have already seen it in the name. > > [!] https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/python-virtualenv/ states > > the license as "MIT-style permissive license" - that's not GPLv2+. > > Unless I'm mistaken, since python-virtualenvcontext *uses* python-virtualenv > and > not the other way around, and since python-virtualenvcontext has the stronger > license, python-virtualenvcontext is not relegated to bearing the same license > as its dependency python-virtualenv. MIT is GPL-compatible. Indeed, my bad, I got it wrong, missed it is another package... ***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 811750] Review Request: python-tw2-jqplugins-gritter - jQuery gritter (growl-like popups) for ToscaWidgets2
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=811750 Ralph Bean changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #8 from Ralph Bean 2012-05-08 17:15:55 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-tw2-jqplugins-gritter Short Description: jQuery gritter (growl-like popups) for ToscaWidgets2 Owners: ralph Branches: f17 el6 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 812059] Review Request: python-tw2-jqplugins-flot - jQuery flot (plotting) for ToscaWidgets2
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=812059 --- Comment #8 from Ralph Bean 2012-05-08 17:16:45 EDT --- Thanks for the reviews! -- 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 816012] Review Request: python-virtualenvcontext - Switch virtualenvs with a python context manager
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=816012 --- Comment #8 from Ralph Bean 2012-05-08 17:14:40 EDT --- Spec URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/python-virtualenvcontext.spec SRPM URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/python-virtualenvcontext-0.1.4-1.fc17.src.rpm (In reply to comment #7) > Issues > -- > [!] The LICENSE file is still AGPL, I presume you intended this to > be the GPL 2.0 COPYING? Yes, another goof on my part. It should be the correct GPL 2.0 now. My apologies for wasting your time. > [!] Since PKG-INFO is the only file with an overall license claim > (there's nothing in README.rst) include it in %doc I understand. It is included in %doc now. > [!] The Summary: You might consider avoid the term virtualenv in the > summary, it's already in the name; using the name in the summary > is somewhat frowned upon. "Isolated python environments wrapper"? I still believe this is the correct use. Use of the virtualenv program is widespread amongst python developers and the use of the word 'virtualenv' to denote an environment created by the virtualenv program is common. I can't back this up and will change it to some other language if you insist. > [!] https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/python-virtualenv/ states > the license as "MIT-style permissive license" - that's not GPLv2+. Unless I'm mistaken, since python-virtualenvcontext *uses* python-virtualenv and not the other way around, and since python-virtualenvcontext has the stronger license, python-virtualenvcontext is not relegated to bearing the same license as its dependency python-virtualenv. MIT is GPL-compatible. -- 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 812059] Review Request: python-tw2-jqplugins-flot - jQuery flot (plotting) for ToscaWidgets2
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=812059 Ralph Bean changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Ralph Bean 2012-05-08 17:16:34 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-tw2-jqplugins-flot Short Description: jQuery flot (plotting) for ToscaWidgets2 Owners: ralph Branches: f17 el6 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 819678] Review Request: cmake28 - A package of CMake 2.8.x for EL6
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=819678 --- Comment #7 from Richard Shaw 2012-05-08 17:11:28 EDT --- (In reply to comment #6) > FYI, ATrpms has a CMake 2.8 package which replaces the system version. Well ATrpms doesn't play by all the same rules anyway :) Since you dropped in, can you comment on my license analysis? -- 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 787193] Review Request: compat-vala - compatibility version of the Vala compiler
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=787193 --- Comment #5 from Ralph Bean 2012-05-08 16:43:48 EDT --- #1) Can you change the ticket name to vala-compat so it's consistent with the package? #2) I noticed that the "find -L /etc/alternatives/" lines in %posttrans are noisy when they are run in the absence of other installations of vala; if /etc/alternatives/vala does not exist, it prints out noisily to stderr when you install vala-compat. You should replace those find -L lines with "if [ -L /etc/alternatives/some_file ]; then" or another solution of your choice. Barring those two items, I can complete the full review. -- 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 787193] Review Request: compat-vala - compatibility version of the Vala compiler
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=787193 --- Comment #6 from Ralph Bean 2012-05-08 16:45:41 EDT --- Oh, and I almost missed it. There's an easy-to-fix rpmlint error in vala-compat-devel that needs fixing as well: vala-compat-devel.i686: E: description-line-too-long C This package contains development files for vala-compat. This is not necessary for -- 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 817981] Review Request: ratpoints - Find rational points on hyperelliptic curves
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=817981
Jerry James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Jerry James 2012-05-08 16:38:24 EDT
---
All MUST items are satisfied, so this package is APPROVED. If you decide to
address the 2 SHOULD items below, just do so before you import the package into
git.
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
C/C++
[x]: MUST Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[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 (unversioned) .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 %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[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 Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[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 Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if 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 is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generate 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 ratpoints-debuginfo-2.1.3-3.fc18.i686.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
rpmlint ratpoints-2.1.3-3.fc18.src.rpm
ratpoints.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) hyperelliptic -> hyper
elliptic, hyper-elliptic, hypercritical
ratpoints.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hyperelliptic -> hyper
elliptic, hyper-elliptic, hypercritical
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
rpmlint ratpoints-2.1.3-3.fc18.i686.rpm
ratpoints.i686: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) hyperelliptic -> hyper
elliptic, hyper-elliptic, hypercritical
ratpoints.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hyperelliptic -> hyper
elliptic, hyper-elliptic, hypercritical
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
rpmlint ratpoints-devel-2.1.3-3.fc18.i686.rpm
ratpoints-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.
/home/jamesjer/817981/ratpoints-2.1.3.tar.gz :
MD5SUM this package : 597fee3856ef2f80fffc0a440e9
[Bug 819678] Review Request: cmake28 - A package of CMake 2.8.x for EL6
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=819678 Kevin Kofler changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ke...@tigcc.ticalc.org --- Comment #6 from Kevin Kofler 2012-05-08 15:52:22 EDT --- FYI, ATrpms has a CMake 2.8 package which replaces the system version. -- 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 662269] Review Request: dpic - A compiler for the pic language
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=662269 --- Comment #7 from Jason Tibbitts 2012-05-08 15:26:21 EDT --- Indeed, I get those rpmlint complaints and they're all fine. (Though I wonder why all of the stuff in the srpm has such odd permissions. I guess it could be your umask.) The "texlive2010" bit is a little odd since that project is on to texlive2012 now. Hopefully one day soon that project will actually be finished. (Last I checked it was waiting on just two license issues.) Anyway, that's Since the package contains files of multiple licenses, you'll need at least a comment in the spec indicating which file is under which license. The examples package has a somewhat odd directory structure; the "examples" directory is repeated: /usr/share/dpic/examples/examples/README I also wonder if the documentation for the examples should be packaged as documentation, though that's starting to descend to absurdity. * source files match upstream. sha256sum: c79dc98fe3c46e2c79a260b54c5e429b2c587ed80edd2060bbd462914b8a dpic-2012.04.23.tar.gz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK. * dist tag is present. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text included in package (at least one license text is in the README file) * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * compiler flags are appropriate. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly. * debuginfo package looks complete. * rpmlint has acceptable complaints. * final provides and requires are sane: dpic-2012.04.23-1.fc18.x86_64.rpm dpic = 2012.04.23-1.fc18 dpic(x86-64) = 2012.04.23-1.fc18 = (none special) dpic-examples-2012.04.23-1.fc18.x86_64.rpm dpic-examples = 2012.04.23-1.fc18 dpic-examples(x86-64) = 2012.04.23-1.fc18 = dpic = 2012.04.23 * no bundled libraries. * no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no generically named files. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. -- 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 819678] Review Request: cmake28 - A package of CMake 2.8.x for EL6
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=819678
--- Comment #5 from Richard Shaw 2012-05-08 14:53:13 EDT
---
Ok, one more thing that I'd like reported here even if we can't fix it. I'm
wondering if the license statement is complete. Using licensecheck and some
tricks I get the following:
$ licensecheck -r . | awk 'match($0,":"){print substr($0,RSTART+2)}' | sort |
uniq -c | sort -g -r
768 UNKNOWN
636 *No copyright* UNKNOWN
105 BSD (2 clause)
90 GENERATED FILE
37 MIT/X11 (BSD like)
19 zlib/libpng
11 *No copyright* GENERATED FILE
9 BSD (3 clause)
4 GPL (with incorrect FSF address)
2 ISC
2 GPL (v3 or later)
2 GPL
2 BSD (4 clause)
2 BSD (2 clause) GENERATED FILE
1 *No copyright* ISC
I don't see anything that's incompatible as far as I can tell but I'm no
licensing guru but shouldn't the License field be something more like:
License: BSD and MIT and GPL and zlib
or something like that?
--
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 819237] Review Request: vdr-screenshot - Extended screenshot plugin for VDR
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=819237 --- Comment #4 from MartinKG 2012-05-08 13:55:51 EDT --- Ville, yes i need a sponsor ! SRPM URL: https://www.disk.dsl.o2online.de/FclyPlh/RPMS/VDR/vdr-screenshot/vdr-screenshot-0.0.13-2.fc17.src.rpm?a=hBK69pmnutU Spec URL: https://www.disk.dsl.o2online.de/FclyPlh/RPMS/VDR/vdr-screenshot/vdr-screenshot.spec?a=rZmVZk1x_CI rpmlint output: rpmlint vdr-screenshot-0.0.13-2.fc17.x86_64.rpm vdr-screenshot.x86_64: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint vdr-screenshot-0.0.13-2.fc17.src.rpm vdr-screenshot.src: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 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 819678] Review Request: cmake28 - A package of CMake 2.8.x for EL6
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=819678
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Underwood
2012-05-08 13:40:29 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Quick spec review:
>
> 1. I see some things that are no longer needed like BuildRoot:, rm -rf
> $RPM_BUILD_ROOT in %install, %clean, and %defattr in %files but I'm assuming
> that these are in the Fedora cmake package so I guess it's not worth deviating
> from their package.
>
Yes, I took the approach of deviating as little as possible. These things are
harmless, but enable build on older rhel, if you were masochistic enough to
try.
> 2. Should the Require for the -gui package be arch dependent? i.e.:
> Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
> to
> Requires: %{name}${?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
>
Probably so - have changed this.
>
> There's a lot of rpmlint output but I'm assuming it's largely the same as the
> regular cmake package in Fedora.
Yes - I'm loathed to deviate too much from the original package.
> The only two things I think should be fixed
> are:
> cmake28.src:24: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 24)
Fixed.
> cmake28.x86_64: E: non-executable-script
> /usr/share/cmake28/Modules/SquishRunTestCase.sh 0644L /bin/sh
This is intentional, the header of that file says:
#
# This script launches a GUI test using Squish. You should not call
# the script directly; instead, you should acces it via the
# SQUISH_ADD_TEST macro that is defined in FindSquish.cmake.
Spec URL: http://jgu.fedorapeople.org/cmake28.spec
SRPM URL: http://jgu.fedorapeople.org/cmake28-2.8.8-2.el6.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 819955] Review Request: lightdm-kde - LightDM KDE Greeter
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=819955 Rex Dieter changed: What|Removed |Added Alias||lightdm-kde -- 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 819955] Review Request: lightdm-kde - LightDM KDE Greeter
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=819955 Rex Dieter changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||819953(lightdm) Blocks||656997(kde-reviews) -- 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 819953] Review Request: lightdm - Lightweight Display Manager
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=819953 Rex Dieter changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||819955 -- 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 819954] Review Request: lightdm-gtk - LightDM GTK+ Greeter
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=819954 Rex Dieter changed: What|Removed |Added Alias||lightdm-gtk -- 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 819954] New: Review Request: lightdm-gtk - LightDM GTK+ Greeter
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: lightdm-gtk - LightDM GTK+ Greeter https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819954 Summary: Review Request: lightdm-gtk - LightDM GTK+ Greeter Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rdie...@math.unl.edu 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://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/lightdm/lightdm-gtk.spec SRPM URL: http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/lightdm/lightdm-gtk-1.1.5-4.fc17.src.rpm Description: A LightDM greeter that uses the GTK+ toolkit. -- 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 819953] New: Review Request: lightdm - Lightweight Display Manager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: lightdm - Lightweight Display Manager https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819953 Summary: Review Request: lightdm - Lightweight Display Manager Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rdie...@math.unl.edu 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://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/lightdm/lightdm.spec SRPM URL: http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/lightdm/lightdm-1.2.2-8.fc17.src.rpm Description: LightDM is an X display manager that: * Has a lightweight codebase * Is standards compliant (PAM, ConsoleKit, etc) * Has a well defined interface between the server and user interface * Fully themeable (easiest with the webkit interface) * Cross-desktop (greeters can be written in any toolkit) -- 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 819955] New: Review Request: lightdm-kde - LightDM KDE Greeter
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: lightdm-kde - LightDM KDE Greeter https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819955 Summary: Review Request: lightdm-kde - LightDM KDE Greeter Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rdie...@math.unl.edu 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://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/lightdm/lightdm-kde.spec SRPM URL: http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/lightdm/lightdm-kde-0.1.1-2.fc17.src.rpm Description: A LightDM greeter for KDE. -- 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 819953] Review Request: lightdm - Lightweight Display Manager
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=819953 Rex Dieter changed: What|Removed |Added Alias||lightdm -- 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 819953] Review Request: lightdm - Lightweight Display Manager
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=819953 Rex Dieter changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||819954 -- 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 819954] Review Request: lightdm-gtk - LightDM GTK+ Greeter
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=819954 Rex Dieter changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||819953(lightdm) -- 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 819951] New: Review Request: ostree - Linux-based operating system develop/build/deploy tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: ostree - Linux-based operating system develop/build/deploy tool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819951 Summary: Review Request: ostree - Linux-based operating system develop/build/deploy tool Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: walt...@redhat.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://fedorapeople.org/~walters/ostree/ostree.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~walters/ostree/ostree-2012.6-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: OSTree is a tool for developing, building, and deploying Linux-based operating systems. It is most similar to tools like dpkg and rpm in "Linux distributions". However, it is not a package system (though one could be built on top). -- 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 638459] Review Request: mosquitto - An Open Source MQTT v3 Broker
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=638459 --- Comment #6 from Eric Sandeen 2012-05-08 12:57:56 EDT --- I would like to see it, but I think Andrew is more motivated... Andrew? -Eric -- 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 819951] Review Request: ostree - Linux-based operating system develop/build/deploy 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=819951 Colin Walters changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||819338 --- Comment #1 from Colin Walters 2012-05-08 13:01:02 EDT --- Depends on linux-user-chroot in bug 819338 -- 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 819338] Review Request: linux-user-chroot - Helper program for calling chroot(2) as non-root
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=819338 Colin Walters changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||819951 -- 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 819528] Review Request: jacoco - Java Code Coverage for Eclipse
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=819528 Krzysztof Daniel changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2012-05-08 12:52:15 -- 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 638459] Review Request: mosquitto - An Open Source MQTT v3 Broker
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=638459 --- Comment #5 from Jason Tibbitts 2012-05-08 12:50:30 EDT --- Anyone still want this to go in? The needed fixes are pretty minor. -- 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 819919] New: Review Request: chicken-scheme - CHICKEN is a compiler for the Scheme programming language
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: chicken-scheme - CHICKEN is a compiler for the Scheme programming language https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819919 Summary: Review Request: chicken-scheme - CHICKEN is a compiler for the Scheme programming language Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: fed...@zaniyah.org 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://people.fedoraproject.org/~zaniyah/chicken-scheme/chicken-scheme.spec SRPM URL: http://people.fedoraproject.org/~zaniyah/chicken-scheme/chicken-scheme-4.7.0-2.fc16.src.rpm Description: CHICKEN is a compiler for the Scheme programming language. CHICKEN produces portable, efficient C, supports almost all of the R5RS Scheme language standard, and includes many enhancements and extensions. CHICKEN runs on Linux, MacOS X, Windows, and many Unix flavours. -- 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 790805] Review Request: lcg-util - Command line tools for wlcg data management
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=790805 Ricardo Rocha changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rocha.po...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|rocha.po...@gmail.com -- 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 790805] Review Request: lcg-util - Command line tools for wlcg data management
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=790805 Ricardo Rocha changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- 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 814965] Review Request: hibernate-jpamodelgen - Hibernate JPA 2 Metamodel Generator
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=814965 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System 2012-05-08 11:04:13 EDT --- hibernate-jpamodelgen-1.2.0-1.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/hibernate-jpamodelgen-1.2.0-1.fc17 -- 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 814965] Review Request: hibernate-jpamodelgen - Hibernate JPA 2 Metamodel Generator
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=814965 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- 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 666190] Reviews Request: libofetion - Library files of Openfetion
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=666190 Jason Tibbitts changed: What|Removed |Added CC|fedora-package-review@redha |package-review@lists.fedora |t.com |project.org Status Whiteboard||AwaitingSubmitter -- 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 662269] Review Request: dpic - A compiler for the pic language
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=662269 Jason Tibbitts changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC|fedora-package-review@redha |package-review@lists.fedora |t.com |project.org AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ti...@math.uh.edu Flag||fedora-review? -- 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 805487] Review Request: logback - A Java logging 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=805487 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- 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 805487] Review Request: logback - A Java logging 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=805487 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System 2012-05-08 10:41:09 EDT --- logback-1.0.1-1.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/logback-1.0.1-1.fc17 -- 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 819022] Review Request: shrinkwrap - A simple mechanism to assemble Java archives
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=819022 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System 2012-05-08 10:29:10 EDT --- shrinkwrap-1.0.0-1.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/shrinkwrap-1.0.0-1.fc17 -- 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 819022] Review Request: shrinkwrap - A simple mechanism to assemble Java archives
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=819022 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- 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 819893] Review Request: mingw-gsl - MinGW Windows port of the GNU Scientific 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=819893 --- Comment #1 from nucleo 2012-05-08 10:14:18 EDT --- Package builds in mock. See http://nucleo.fedorapeople.org/pkg-reviews/mingw-gsl/ -- 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 819893] New: Review Request: mingw-gsl - MinGW Windows port of the GNU Scientific 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: mingw-gsl - MinGW Windows port of the GNU Scientific Library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819893 Summary: Review Request: mingw-gsl - MinGW Windows port of the GNU Scientific Library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: alekc...@googlemail.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://nucleo.fedorapeople.org/pkg-reviews/mingw-gsl/mingw-gsl.spec SRPM URL: http://nucleo.fedorapeople.org/pkg-reviews/mingw-gsl/mingw-gsl-1.15-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: The GNU Scientific Library (GSL) is a collection of routines for numerical analysis, written in C. -- 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 819893] Review Request: mingw-gsl - MinGW Windows port of the GNU Scientific 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=819893 nucleo changed: What|Removed |Added CC||fedora-mingw@lists.fedorapr ||oject.org Alias||mingw-gsl -- 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 814965] Review Request: hibernate-jpamodelgen - Hibernate JPA 2 Metamodel Generator
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=814965 --- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla 2012-05-08 10:11:10 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- 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 814965] Review Request: hibernate-jpamodelgen - Hibernate JPA 2 Metamodel Generator
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=814965 --- Comment #3 from gil cattaneo 2012-05-08 10:03:35 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: hibernate-jpamodelgen Short Description: Hibernate JPA 2 Metamodel Generator Owners: gil Branches: f17 InitialCC: java-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 818264] Review Request: xlwt - Spreadsheet python 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=818264 Alec Leamas changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2012-05-08 10:05:04 --- Comment #15 from Alec Leamas 2012-05-08 10:05:04 EDT --- In the future, let's assume I'll never, ever submit such a request as comment #12 again :( - and thus stick to the template. Build OK for rawhide, F16, F17. I don't intend to build for F15. Closing. -- 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 819844] Review Request: luarocks - A deployment and management system for Lua modules
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=819844 Michel Alexandre Salim changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tho...@duboucher.eu --- Comment #2 from Michel Alexandre Salim 2012-05-08 10:05:14 EDT --- *** Bug 577514 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- 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 818264] Review Request: xlwt - Spreadsheet python 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=818264 Alec Leamas changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jspal...@gmail.com --- Comment #16 from Alec Leamas 2012-05-08 10:06:08 EDT --- *** Bug 613766 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- 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 817271] Review Request:openerp-server -
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=817271 Bug 817271 depends on bug 818264, which changed state. Bug 818264 Summary: Review Request: xlwt - Spreadsheet python library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=818264 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED -- 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 814965] Review Request: hibernate-jpamodelgen - Hibernate JPA 2 Metamodel Generator
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=814965 --- Comment #2 from gil cattaneo 2012-05-08 10:03:15 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: hibernate-jpamodelgen Short Description: Hibernate JPA 2 Metamodel Generator Owners: gil Branches: f16 f17 InitialCC: java-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 814965] Review Request: hibernate-jpamodelgen - Hibernate JPA 2 Metamodel Generator
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=814965 gil cattaneo changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? -- 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 815720] Review Request: jboss-jaxr-1.0-api - Java(TM) API for XML Registries 1.0 (JAXR)
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=815720 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System 2012-05-08 09:53:45 EDT --- jboss-jaxr-1.0-api-1.0.2-1.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/jboss-jaxr-1.0-api-1.0.2-1.fc17 -- 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 819020] Review Request: jboss-j2eemgmt-1.1-api - Java EE Management 1.1 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=819020 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System 2012-05-08 09:56:30 EDT --- jboss-j2eemgmt-1.1-api-1.0.1-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/jboss-j2eemgmt-1.1-api-1.0.1-2.fc17 -- 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 819020] Review Request: jboss-j2eemgmt-1.1-api - Java EE Management 1.1 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=819020 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- 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 815720] Review Request: jboss-jaxr-1.0-api - Java(TM) API for XML Registries 1.0 (JAXR)
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=815720 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- 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 819456] Review Request: jbossws-common - Common classes for JBoss Webservices
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=819456 --- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla 2012-05-08 09:43:52 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- 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 819678] Review Request: cmake28 - A package of CMake 2.8.x for EL6
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=819678
--- Comment #3 from Richard Shaw 2012-05-08 09:40:23 EDT
---
Quick spec review:
1. I see some things that are no longer needed like BuildRoot:, rm -rf
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT in %install, %clean, and %defattr in %files but I'm assuming
that these are in the Fedora cmake package so I guess it's not worth deviating
from their package.
2. Should the Require for the -gui package be arch dependent? i.e.:
Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
to
Requires: %{name}${?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
There's a lot of rpmlint output but I'm assuming it's largely the same as the
regular cmake package in Fedora. The only two things I think should be fixed
are:
cmake28.src:24: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 24)
cmake28.x86_64: E: non-executable-script
/usr/share/cmake28/Modules/SquishRunTestCase.sh 0644L /bin/sh
--
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 814965] Review Request: hibernate-jpamodelgen - Hibernate JPA 2 Metamodel Generator
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=814965
Patryk Obara changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Patryk Obara 2012-05-08 09:30:33 EDT ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x] Rpmlint output:
$ rpmlint SPECS/hibernate-jpamodel.spec
(none): E: no installed packages by name hibernate-jpamodel.spec
0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
$ rpmlint SRPMS/hibernate-jpamodelgen-1.2.0-1.fc16.src.rpm
hibernate-jpamodelgen.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US metamodel ->
meta model, meta-model, metamorphose
hibernate-jpamodelgen.src: W: invalid-url URL:
http://www.hibernate.org/subprojects/jpamodelgen.html HTTP Error 403: Forbidden
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warning
[x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines[1].
[x] Spec file name must match the base package name, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines[2].
[x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms.
[x] Buildroot definition is not present
[x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines[3,4].
[x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type:
[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] All independent sub-packages have license of their own
[x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
MD5SUM this package: ab24abf614ee36a55027d25669aec94b
MD5SUM upstream package: ab24abf614ee36a55027d25669aec94b
[x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines[5].
[x] Package must own all directories that it creates or must require other
packages for directories it uses.
[x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x] File sections do not contain %defattr(-,root,root,-) unless changed with
good reason
[x] Permissions on files are set properly.
[x] Package does NOT have a %clean section which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}
(or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). (not needed anymore)
[x] Package consistently uses macros (no %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
mixing)
[x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[x] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
[x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x] Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
subpackage
[x] Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlinks)
[x] Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
[x] Javadoc subpackages have Require: jpackage-utils
[x] Package uses %global not %define
[-] If package uses tarball from VCS include comment how to re-create that
tarball (svn export URL, git clone URL, ...)
[x] If source tarball includes bundled jar/class files these need to be
removed prior to building
[x] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
[x] Jar files are installed to %{_javadir}/%{name}.jar (see [6] for details)
[x] If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even when
building with ant
[x] pom files has correct add_maven_depmap
=== Maven ===
[x] Use %{_mavenpomdir} macro for placing pom files instead of
%{_datadir}/maven2/poms
[x] If package uses "-Dmaven.test.skip=true" explain why it was needed in a
comment
[-] If package uses custom depmap "-Dmaven.local.depmap.file=*" explain why
it's needed in a comment
[x] Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun
[x] Packages DOES NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on
jpackage-utils for %update_maven_depmap macro
=== Other suggestions ===
[x] If possible use upstream build method (maven/ant/javac)
[x] Avoid having BuildRequires on exact NVR unless necessary
[x] Package has BuildArch: noarch (if possible)
[x] Latest version is packaged.
[x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
Tested on:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4062793
=== Final Notes ===
1. In %build:
[WARNING] File encoding has not been set, using platform encoding
ANSI_X3.4-1968, i.e. build is platform dependent!
You can avoid these warnings by passing -Dproject.build.sourceEncoding=UTF-8 to
mvn-rpmbuild
2. Versioned
[Bug 819456] Review Request: jbossws-common - Common classes for JBoss Webservices
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=819456 Patryk Obara changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Patryk Obara 2012-05-08 09:23:37 EDT --- Fixed mail in FAS, hope everything will be all right now :) -- 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 806680] Review Request: bouncycastle-pg - Bouncy Castle OpenPGP 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=806680 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System 2012-05-08 09:21:58 EDT --- bouncycastle-pg-1.46-6.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/bouncycastle-pg-1.46-6.fc17 -- 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 806680] Review Request: bouncycastle-pg - Bouncy Castle OpenPGP 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=806680 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- 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 819678] Review Request: cmake28 - A package of CMake 2.8.x for EL6
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=819678 Richard Shaw changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||hobbes1...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|hobbes1...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Richard Shaw 2012-05-08 09:13:53 EDT --- I'll take this. -- 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 818264] Review Request: xlwt - Spreadsheet python 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=818264 Jon Ciesla changed: What|Removed |Added CC||limburg...@gmail.com --- Comment #14 from Jon Ciesla 2012-05-08 08:45:34 EDT --- No worries, I removed xlwt from git, retired it in pkgdb, and created python-xlwt. In the future, though, stick to the template for SCM requests, the one in #12 confused our tool a bit. :) -- 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 819528] Review Request: jacoco - Java Code Coverage for Eclipse
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=819528 --- Comment #10 from Jon Ciesla 2012-05-08 08:44:29 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- 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 819456] Review Request: jbossws-common - Common classes for JBoss Webservices
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=819456 --- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla 2012-05-08 08:47:24 EDT --- dreamertan, your FAS email and BZ email do not match, please correct and re-set the fedora-cvs flag. Thanks! -- 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 819020] Review Request: jboss-j2eemgmt-1.1-api - Java EE Management 1.1 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=819020 --- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla 2012-05-08 08:41:07 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- 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 818264] Review Request: xlwt - Spreadsheet python 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=818264 --- Comment #13 from Jon Ciesla 2012-05-08 08:40:41 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- 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 819022] Review Request: shrinkwrap - A simple mechanism to assemble Java archives
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=819022 --- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla 2012-05-08 08:41:48 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- 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 752169] Review Request: zukitwo - Themes for GTK+2, GTK+3, Metacity, GNOME Shell and Xfwm4
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=752169 --- Comment #39 from Jon Ciesla 2012-05-08 08:32:57 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- 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 810937] Review Request: perl-multidimensional - Disables multidimensional array emulation
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=810937 --- Comment #3 from Jon Ciesla 2012-05-08 08:35:09 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- 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 810939] Review Request: perl-bareword-filehandles - Disables bareword filehandles
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=810939 --- Comment #3 from Jon Ciesla 2012-05-08 08:35:29 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- 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 806680] Review Request: bouncycastle-pg - Bouncy Castle OpenPGP 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=806680 --- Comment #13 from Jon Ciesla 2012-05-08 08:33:18 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- 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 815720] Review Request: jboss-jaxr-1.0-api - Java(TM) API for XML Registries 1.0 (JAXR)
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=815720 --- Comment #3 from Jon Ciesla 2012-05-08 08:36:59 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- 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 817278] Review Request: jdiff - An HTML Report of API Differences
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=817278 Marek Goldmann changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||mgold...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mgold...@redhat.com Flag||fedora-review? -- 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 817278] Review Request: jdiff - An HTML Report of API Differences
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=817278 Marek Goldmann changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||817560 -- 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 752169] Review Request: zukitwo - Themes for GTK+2, GTK+3, Metacity, GNOME Shell and Xfwm4
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=752169 Mattia Meneguzzo changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? -- 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 752169] Review Request: zukitwo - Themes for GTK+2, GTK+3, Metacity, GNOME Shell and Xfwm4
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=752169 Mattia Meneguzzo changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? | -- 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 819844] Review Request: luarocks - A deployment and management system for Lua modules
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=819844 --- Comment #1 from Michel Alexandre Salim 2012-05-08 07:32:54 EDT --- note: there's a previous, apparently abandoned review at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=577514 -- will check there if the packager want to collaborate, and if not, close it as a duplicate -- 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 819844] New: Review Request: luarocks - A deployment and management system for Lua modules
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: luarocks - A deployment and management system for Lua modules https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819844 Summary: Review Request: luarocks - A deployment and management system for Lua modules Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: michel+...@sylvestre.me 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://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/funpl/luarocks.spec SRPM URL: http://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/funpl/luarocks-2.0.8-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: LuaRocks allows you to install Lua modules as self-contained packages called "rocks", which also contain version dependency information. This information is used both during installation, so that when one rock is requested all rocks it depends on are installed as well, and at run time, so that when a module is required, the correct version is loaded. LuaRocks supports both local and remote repositories, and multiple local rocks trees. -- 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
