[Bug 851292] Review Request: mingw-poppler: MinGW PDF rendering library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851292 greg.helli...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||greg.helli...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from greg.helli...@gmail.com --- You're now a bugfix release behind upstream. They appear to have released 0.20.3 earlier last month. You might want to grab that and see if they've upstreamed any of your patches. Is there a reason you disabled zlib? It should be available in Fedora for building. Is support in Poppler sketchy under the mingw build when you enable zlib? You should use the %mingw_make_install macro directly instead of adding the 'install' argument to your build. You can remove the lines that begin with %defattr in the %files sections. rpmlint gives the following output: $ for r in $(find . -name '*.rpm'); do echo $r; rpmlint $r; done ./mingw-poppler-0.20.2-1.fc17.src.rpm mingw-poppler.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xpdf -> expend mingw-poppler.src: W: patch-not-applied Patch1: poppler-0.12.4-annot-appearance.patch 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. ./mingw-poppler-0.20.2-1.fc19.src.rpm mingw-poppler.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xpdf -> expend mingw-poppler.src: W: patch-not-applied Patch1: poppler-0.12.4-annot-appearance.patch 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. ./noarch/mingw32-poppler-static-0.20.2-1.fc19.noarch.rpm mingw32-poppler-static.noarch: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. ./noarch/mingw32-poppler-debuginfo-0.20.2-1.fc19.noarch.rpm mingw32-poppler-debuginfo.noarch: E: debuginfo-without-sources 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings. ./noarch/mingw32-poppler-0.20.2-1.fc19.noarch.rpm mingw32-poppler.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xpdf -> expend 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. ./noarch/mingw64-poppler-0.20.2-1.fc19.noarch.rpm mingw64-poppler.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xpdf -> expend 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. ./noarch/mingw64-poppler-debuginfo-0.20.2-1.fc19.noarch.rpm mingw64-poppler-debuginfo.noarch: E: debuginfo-without-sources 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings. ./noarch/mingw64-poppler-static-0.20.2-1.fc19.noarch.rpm mingw64-poppler-static.noarch: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. -- 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 851180] Review Request: mingw-lcms - MinGW Color Management System
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851180 --- Comment #2 from greg.helli...@gmail.com --- I'm further curious, if there is a version 2+ out, why are you packaging this version, which is running on 3 years old now? Why is mingw-lcms2 not sufficient? -- 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 851189] Review Request: mingw-lcms2 - MinGW Color Management System
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851189 greg.helli...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||greg.helli...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from greg.helli...@gmail.com --- Most of the feedback for this looks the same as it is for your mingw-lcms request. See my comments there for feedback. -- 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 851180] Review Request: mingw-lcms - MinGW Color Management System
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851180
greg.helli...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||greg.helli...@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from greg.helli...@gmail.com ---
I'm no RPM creating professional but here's my feedback:
The %clean section is apparently no longer necessary and should be removed from
your spec file.
The line "rm -rf ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}" at the beginning of your install is no
longer necessary and should be removed from your spec file.
You install line should use the macro "$mingw_make_install
DESTDIR=${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}" instead of using "%mingw_make install". I'm also not
sure if the INSTALL="install -p" parameter is necessary. Is it?
The lines under your %files sections which begin %defattr are no longer
necessary and should be purged from your file.
The BuildRoot: line at the top of your file should be removed. The RPM building
process uses sane roots already and the default values should really be used.
Below is the output of rpmlint on the results. It seems pretty clean to me.
greg@Gateway08:~/Source/fedora-mingw-staging/mingw-lcms $ rpmlint
mingw-lcms-1.19-1.fc19.src.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
greg@Gateway08:~/Source/fedora-mingw-staging/mingw-lcms $ rpmlint noarch/mingw
mingw32-lcms-1.19-1.fc19.noarch.rpm
mingw64-lcms-1.19-1.fc19.noarch.rpm
mingw32-lcms-debuginfo-1.19-1.fc19.noarch.rpm
mingw64-lcms-debuginfo-1.19-1.fc19.noarch.rpm
mingw32-lcms-static-1.19-1.fc19.noarch.rpm
mingw64-lcms-static-1.19-1.fc19.noarch.rpm
greg@Gateway08:~/Source/fedora-mingw-staging/mingw-lcms $ rpmlint
noarch/mingw32-lcms-1.19-1.fc19.noarch.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
greg@Gateway08:~/Source/fedora-mingw-staging/mingw-lcms $ rpmlint
noarch/mingw32-lcms-debuginfo-1.19-1.fc19.noarch.rpm
mingw32-lcms-debuginfo.noarch: E: debuginfo-without-sources
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings.
greg@Gateway08:~/Source/fedora-mingw-staging/mingw-lcms $ rpmlint
noarch/mingw32-lcms-static-1.19-1.fc19.noarch.rpm
mingw32-lcms-static.noarch: W: no-documentation
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
greg@Gateway08:~/Source/fedora-mingw-staging/mingw-lcms $ rpmlint
noarch/mingw64-lcms-1.19-1.fc19.noarch.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
greg@Gateway08:~/Source/fedora-mingw-staging/mingw-lcms $ rpmlint
noarch/mingw64-lcms-debuginfo-1.19-1.fc19.noarch.rpm
mingw64-lcms-debuginfo.noarch: E: debuginfo-without-sources
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings.
greg@Gateway08:~/Source/fedora-mingw-staging/mingw-lcms $ rpmlint
noarch/mingw64-lcms-static-1.19-1.fc19.noarch.rpm
mingw64-lcms-static.noarch: W: no-documentation
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
--
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 853553] Review Request: guayadeque - Audio player and organizer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853553 --- Comment #4 from MartinKG --- Spec URL: https://www.disk.dsl.o2online.de/FclyPlh/RPMS/guayadeque/guayadeque-0.3.6-3.svn1830/guayadeque.spec?a=i7Qf1UNneuA SRPM URL: https://www.disk.dsl.o2online.de/FclyPlh/RPMS/guayadeque/guayadeque-0.3.6-3.svn1830/guayadeque-0.3.6-3.svn1830.fc17.src.rpm?a=AJ4R9vjgZQ0 %changelog * Fri Sep 7 2012 Martin Gansser - 0.3.6-3.svn1830 - added patch for DSO linker problem - added missing build requirements -- 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 851695] Review Request: mingw-libbonobo - Bonobo Component System for the GNOME 2.x Desktop Platform
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851695 greg.helli...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |WONTFIX Last Closed||2012-09-08 01:08:21 --- Comment #3 from greg.helli...@gmail.com --- This and most of the other deprecated libraries are not actually necessary. It turns out I was building off an old dependency list and packaging more than was necessary. I've closed most of my requests for older, deprecated libraries including this one. The remaining package requests are the ones that are used in some way by the application. Sorry for the bug log spam. I'll leave the spec and rpm files around for a while in case they are useful to anyone building legacy applications. -- 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 851695] Review Request: mingw-libbonobo - Bonobo Component System for the GNOME 2.x Desktop Platform
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851695 Bug 851695 depends on bug 851678, which changed state. Bug 851678 Summary: Review Request: mingw-popt - C library for parsing command line parameters https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851678 What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |WONTFIX -- 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 851678] Review Request: mingw-popt - C library for parsing command line parameters
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851678 greg.helli...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |WONTFIX Last Closed||2012-09-08 01:05:18 --- Comment #1 from greg.helli...@gmail.com --- Older library, not needed for anything. I'll leave it available for if someone desires it later. -- 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 850945] Review Request: mingw-gnome-mime-data - MinGW build of Gnome's MIME Data package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=850945 greg.helli...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |WONTFIX Last Closed||2012-09-08 00:59:31 --- Comment #1 from greg.helli...@gmail.com --- Older, deprecated library that isn't necessary any longer. I'll leave it available for if anyone wants to sponsor it in later. -- 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 851692] Review Request: mingw-gnome-vfs2 - MinGW Windows port of the GNOME 2.x Desktop Virtual File System Libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851692 Bug 851692 depends on bug 850945, which changed state. Bug 850945 Summary: Review Request: mingw-gnome-mime-data - MinGW build of Gnome's MIME Data package https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=850945 What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |WONTFIX -- 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 851692] Review Request: mingw-gnome-vfs2 - MinGW Windows port of the GNOME 2.x Desktop Virtual File System Libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851692 greg.helli...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |WONTFIX Last Closed||2012-09-08 00:57:46 --- Comment #1 from greg.helli...@gmail.com --- Old, deprecated packages. Might be nice to have in, so I'll leave it around if someone wants to sponsor it in. But it's not necessary. -- 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 851683] Review Request: mingw-gconf2 - MinGW Windows port of the GNOME 2.x Desktop Configuration Database System
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851683 greg.helli...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |WONTFIX Last Closed||2012-09-08 00:55:36 --- Comment #1 from greg.helli...@gmail.com --- This is old and deprecated. It might be nice to have, and it will stay available if anyone wants to sponsor it in. But it's not necessary. -- 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 851695] Review Request: mingw-libbonobo - Bonobo Component System for the GNOME 2.x Desktop Platform
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851695 Bug 851695 depends on bug 851681, which changed state. Bug 851681 Summary: Review Request: mingw-orbit2 - MinGW Windows ORBit2 library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851681 What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |WONTFIX -- 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 851681] Review Request: mingw-orbit2 - MinGW Windows ORBit2 library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851681 greg.helli...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |WONTFIX Last Closed||2012-09-08 00:53:50 --- Comment #1 from greg.helli...@gmail.com --- The library is old. It's not necessary to fix this, but it still exists if anyone wants to sponsor it into Fedora. -- 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 808740] Review Request: csvdict - An easy-to-use dictionary program which uses CSV format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=808740 Mike Manilone changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |WONTFIX Last Closed||2012-09-08 00:18:03 -- 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 834802] Review Request: rhythmcat2 - GTK+ frontend of RhythmCat2 Music Player
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834802 Mike Manilone changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |WONTFIX Last Closed||2012-09-08 00:16:08 -- 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 847980] Review Request: maven-plugin-annotations - Maven Plugin Java 5 Annotations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847980 Michel Alexandre Salim changed: What|Removed |Added CC||michel+...@sylvestre.me --- Comment #5 from Michel Alexandre Salim --- (In reply to comment #3) > New Package SCM Request > === > Package Name: maven-plugin-annotations > Short Description: Maven Plugin Java 5 Annotations > Owners: mizdebsk > Branches: f18 Hi Mikolaj, Will you be pushing the F18 build on Bodhi? An update to clojure-maven-plugin depends on this package -- I've added it to the buildroot override so I can build it, but I would rather not publish the update myself. Thanks! -- 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 749608] Review Request: gnome-pie - A visual application launcher for Gnome
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=749608 Praveen Kumar changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? -- 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 855283] Review Request: pass - The standard unix password manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=855283 --- Comment #14 from Jason A. Donenfeld --- Bump the .spec to 1.1.4 and we should be all set. -- 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 855283] Review Request: pass - The standard unix password manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=855283 --- Comment #13 from Jason A. Donenfeld --- (In reply to comment #9) > So all is good, except the license file do not contain the full license, > just a note saying "the license should be distributed with the tarbll, if > not, contact fsf". Could the license be added in the file ? I'll go ahead and put the GPLv2 inside of COPYING for the next release. -- 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 855283] Review Request: pass - The standard unix password manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=855283 --- Comment #12 from Jason A. Donenfeld --- (In reply to comment #6) > Looking at the source code, there is a call to qdus, but qt is not in > Requires. However, qdbus should absolutely NOT be required. It's run with >/dev/null 2>&1, and in the future there are going to be other similar lines there -- gdbus org.gnome.somethingawful.clipthing ClearIt -- and the like. The idea is -- if the user has that environment, and has those services, then it will work, and otherwise this is a no-op. This is usually the cleanest thing to do in a simple shell script. > There is also a call to pwgen, and not in Requires either. Pwgen should absolutely be required. -- 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 855283] Review Request: pass - The standard unix password manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=855283 --- Comment #11 from Christophe Fergeau --- (In reply to comment #6) > Looking at the source code, there is a call to qdus, but qt is not in > Requires. Yes, I checked this with upstream, and he told me this is optional (the command is ran with >/dev/null 2&>1), imo we should not make it a Requires, it will be used if the user has Qt installed (ie if he likely can use this). -- 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 854609] Review Request: python-moksha-hub - Hub components for Moksha
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854609 Ralph Bean changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Ralph Bean --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-moksha-hub Short Description: Hub components for Moksha Owners: ralph lmacken Branches: f16 f17 f18 el6 InitialCC: -- 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 854608] Review Request: python-moksha-wsgi - WSGI components for Moksha
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854608 Ralph Bean changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Ralph Bean --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-moksha-wsgi Short Description: WSGI components for Moksha Owners: ralph lmacken Branches: f16 f17 f18 el6 InitialCC: -- 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 854764] Review Request:openshift-origin-port-proxy - Script to configure HAProxy to do port forwarding for OpenShift Origin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854764 --- Comment #2 from Adam Miller --- Spec URL: http://maxamillion.fedorapeople.org/openshift-origin-port-proxy.spec SRPM URL: http://maxamillion.fedorapeople.org/openshift-origin-port-proxy-0.2.2-2.fc17.src.rpm the procmail requirement was from upstream and is no longer needed, I went ahead and added all hard requirements just so that the package could actually be installed via kickstart in a nobase environment and resolve deps correctly, also stripped out old el5 build bits from the spec. The perms on the initscript were also from upstream, I'm flexible on that though as I don't understand it to have any hard requirement for those specific perms. -- 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 854608] Review Request: python-moksha-wsgi - WSGI components for Moksha
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854608 Patrick Uiterwijk changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review+ -- 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 854608] Review Request: python-moksha-wsgi - WSGI components for Moksha
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854608 --- Comment #4 from Patrick Uiterwijk --- OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines OK - Spec file matches base package name. OK - Spec has consistent macro usage. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. OK - License (ASL 2.0) OK - License field in spec matches OK - License file included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. OK - Sources match upstream md5sum. OK - BuildRequires correct OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. See below - Package has a correct %clean section. See below - Package has correct buildroot OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. OK - Package obey's FHS standard (except for 2 exceptions) See below - No rpmlint output. OK - final provides and requires are sane. SHOULD Items: OK - Should build in mock. OK - Should build on all supported archs OK - Should function as described. OK - Should have dist tag OK - Should package latest version OK - Should not use file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin Issues: 1. This spec is not allowed for el5 as it misses the buildroot and %clean sections. 2. rpmlint says: python-moksha-wsgi.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/moksha/wsgi/templates/moksha/livewidget/moksha/widgets/+package+/templates/__init__.py_tmpl python-moksha-wsgi.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/moksha/wsgi/tests/templates/empty.mak python-moksha-wsgi.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/moksha/wsgi/templates/moksha/livewidget/moksha/widgets/+package+/__init__.py_tmpl 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 0 warnings. These errors are normal with Python projects. I see no blockers, so this package is APPROVED. -- 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 854609] Review Request: python-moksha-hub - Hub components for Moksha
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854609 Patrick Uiterwijk changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Patrick Uiterwijk --- OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines OK - Spec file matches base package name. OK - Spec has consistent macro usage. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. OK - License (ASL 2.0) OK - License field in spec matches OK - License file included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. OK - Sources match upstream md5sum. OK - BuildRequires correct OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. See below - Package has a correct %clean section. See below - Package has correct buildroot OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. OK - Package obey's FHS standard (except for 2 exceptions) See below - No rpmlint output. OK - final provides and requires are sane. SHOULD Items: OK - Should build in mock. OK - Should build on all supported archs OK - Should function as described. OK - Should have dist tag OK - Should package latest version OK - Should not use file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin Issues: 1. This spec is not allowed for el5 as it misses the buildroot and %clean sections. 2. rpmlint says: python-moksha-hub.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary moksha-hub 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. I see no blockers anymore, so this package is APPROVED. -- 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 847571] Review Request: python-tbgrep - Extract Python Tracebacks from text
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847571 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- python-tbgrep-0.2.2-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. -- 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 855283] Review Request: pass - The standard unix password manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=855283 --- Comment #10 from Pierre-YvesChibon --- (In reply to comment #8) > This is an informal review [...] > Generic > [x]: EXTRA Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. > Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). > [x]: EXTRA Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. > [ ]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and > meets > other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging > Guidelines [...] > Generated by fedora-review 0.2.2 (9f8c0e5) last change: 2012-08-09 > Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 855283 > External plugins: @Luis, this is not a review, informal or not. This is a copy/paste of the fedora-review output. If reviewing was that simple, we would not need reviewers. Please do follow the review guidelines and use fedora-review as a tool to help you on this. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines -- 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 850489] Review Request: ghc-HSH - Haskell HSH library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=850489 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- ghc-HSH-2.0.4-2.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository. -- 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 854132] Review Request: ghc-show - Haskell show library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854132 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- ghc-show-0.4.1.2-2.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository. -- 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 837050] Review Request: nacl - Networking and Cryptography library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=837050 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- Package nacl-20110221-3.fc18: * should fix your issue, * was pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository, * should be available at your local mirror within two days. Update it with: # su -c 'yum update --enablerepo=updates-testing nacl-20110221-3.fc18' as soon as you are able to. Please go to the following url: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-13543/nacl-20110221-3.fc18 then log in and leave karma (feedback). -- 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 828720] Review Request: brainfuck - An interpreter of the brainf*ck language
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828720 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- brainfuck-0.1-3.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository. -- 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 831116] Review Request: ghc-MonadRandom - A random number generation Monad
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831116 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- ghc-MonadRandom-0.1.6-1.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository. -- 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 845107] Review Request: rubygem-openshift-origin-msg-broker-mcollective - OpenShift Origin plugin for mcollective service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845107 --- Comment #20 from Adam Miller --- SPEC URL: http://maxamillion.fedorapeople.org/rubygem-openshift-origin-msg-broker-mcollective.spec SRPM URL: http://maxamillion.fedorapeople.org/rubygem-openshift-origin-msg-broker-mcollective-0.1.1-9.fc17.src.rpm removed ghost perms on mcollective config file, it has been resolved in mcollective package https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853574 -- 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 749608] Review Request: gnome-pie - A visual application launcher for Gnome
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=749608
Mario Blättermann changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #18 from Mario Blättermann ---
$ rpmlint -i -v *
gnome-pie.i686: I: checking
gnome-pie.i686: I: checking-url http://gnome-pie.simonschneegans.de/ (timeout
10 seconds)
gnome-pie.x86_64: I: checking
gnome-pie.x86_64: I: checking-url http://gnome-pie.simonschneegans.de/ (timeout
10 seconds)
gnome-pie-debuginfo.i686: I: checking
gnome-pie-debuginfo.i686: I: checking-url http://gnome-pie.simonschneegans.de/
(timeout 10 seconds)
gnome-pie-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking
gnome-pie-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking-url
http://gnome-pie.simonschneegans.de/ (timeout 10 seconds)
gnome-pie.spec: W: invalid-url Source0:
gnome-pie-0.5.3.20120826git1b93e1.tar.xz
The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL.
4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
Nothing of interest anymore.
-
key:
[+] OK
[.] OK, not applicable
[X] needs work
-
[+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build
produces. The output should be posted in the review.
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
GPLv3+
[+] 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 must be included in %doc.
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[.] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use sha256sum for this task as it
is used by the sources file once imported into git. If no upstream URL can be
specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to
deal with this.
$ sha256sum *
11a63fc2bd9a08ba3eb4bf69b92c774fab4516303e4544be6b869f1580c1c10a
gnome-pie-0.5.3.20120826git1b93e1.tar.xz
11a63fc2bd9a08ba3eb4bf69b92c774fab4516303e4544be6b869f1580c1c10a
gnome-pie-0.5.3.20120826git1b93e1.tar.xz.orig
[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
[.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line.
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for
any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
[+] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
[.] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library
files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must
call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[+] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[.] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker.
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not
create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
create that directory.
[+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific
situations)
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, for example.
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[.] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The
definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not
restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity).
[+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not
[Bug 786249] Review Request: rubygem-puppet-lint - Tool to verify the style of puppet manifests
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=786249 --- Comment #11 from Russell Harrison --- puppet-lint 0.2.1 has been released. I've update my package with the new version. Spec URL: http://rharrison.fedorapeople.org/package_review/rubygem-puppet-lint-0.2.1-1.fc18.spec SRPM URL: http://rharrison.fedorapeople.org/package_review/rubygem-puppet-lint-0.2.1-1.fc18.src.rpm -- 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 855283] Review Request: pass - The standard unix password manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=855283
--- Comment #9 from Michael Scherer ---
So all is good, except the license file do not contain the full license, just a
note saying "the license should be distributed with the tarbll, if not, contact
fsf". Could the license be added in the file ?
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
Issues:
===
[!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[-]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
Note: %defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses
found. Please check the source files for licenses manually.
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Note: Cannot unpack rpms (using --prebuilt?)
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[!]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
Note: Source0 (password-store-1.1.3.tar.xz)
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-Engli
[Bug 855283] Review Request: pass - The standard unix password manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=855283
--- Comment #8 from Luis Bazan ---
This is an informal review
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
Generic
[x]: EXTRA Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: EXTRA Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[ ]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[ ]: 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
[ ]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[ ]: MUST Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[ ]: MUST Development files must be in a -devel package
[ ]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[ ]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: MUST Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[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
[ ]: 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.
[!]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses
found. Please check the source files for licenses manually.
[ ]: MUST Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: MUST Package is named using only allowed ascii characters.
[ ]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[ ]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[ ]: MUST If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[ ]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[ ]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[ ]: MUST Package is not relocatable.
[ ]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: MUST Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[ ]: 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 systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: SHOULD Buildroot is not present
Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine
[x]: SHOULD Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[ ]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
[ ]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged.
[ ]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
upstream.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
[ ]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[ ]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[ ]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pas
[Bug 855283] Review Request: pass - The standard unix password manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=855283 --- Comment #7 from Michael Scherer --- Mhh, forget, pwgen is there -- 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 855283] Review Request: pass - The standard unix password manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=855283 --- Comment #6 from Michael Scherer --- Looking at the source code, there is a call to qdus, but qt is not in Requires. There is also a call to pwgen, and not in Requires either. -- 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 844775] Review Request: python-django-dynamite, Dynamic models framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844775 --- Comment #2 from Luis Bazan --- SPEC: http://lbazan.fedorapeople.org/python-django-dynamite.spec SRPM: http://lbazan.fedorapeople.org/python-django-dynamite-0.4.1-4.fc17.src.rpm -- 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 854176] Review Request: python-django-admin-honeypot - A fake Django admin login screen to notify admins of attempted unauthorized access
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854176 --- Comment #17 from Eduardo Echeverria --- (In reply to comment #13) > 1.3.3 will be in rawhide within a day. Do you need it in F18 as well? Thanks Ian I did run the test in f18 with 1.3 , do you recommend? -- 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 855283] Review Request: pass - The standard unix password manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=855283 --- Comment #5 from Christophe Fergeau --- Spec URL: http://teuf.fedorapeople.org/reviews/pass/pass.spec SRPM URL: http://teuf.fedorapeople.org/reviews/pass/pass-1.1.3-1.fc17.src.rpm Updated the short description, and updated to a newer upstream version fixing various rpmlint issues (man page and bash completion file being 0755, shebang in bash completion file, wrong FSF address) -- 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 855283] Review Request: pass - The standard unix password manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=855283 --- Comment #4 from Jason Tibbitts --- The %description is indeed accurate. The Summary:, however, describes this as some sort of standard. Nice marketing for the upstream project, perhaps, but we should avoid misleading the Fedora user base. -- 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 855283] Review Request: pass - The standard unix password manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=855283 --- Comment #3 from Jason A. Donenfeld --- I think the idea is that it uses standard unix tools to achieve its aim. In any case, the description in the .spec appears to be: "stores, retrieves, generates, and synchronizes passwords securely using gpg, pwgen, and git", which is fairly accurate. -- 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 855283] Review Request: pass - The standard unix password manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=855283 --- Comment #2 from Jason Tibbitts --- I wasn't aware that there was a standard unix password manager. Which standard defines this? -- 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 855283] Review Request: pass - The standard unix password manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=855283 Jason A. Donenfeld changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ja...@zx2c4.com --- Comment #1 from Jason A. Donenfeld --- The spec looks good to me. +1 -- 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 830328] Review Request: gnome-initial-setup - configure your desktop
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830328 --- Comment #10 from Matthias Clasen --- (In reply to comment #8) > > It just needs to be decided if gnome-initial-setup has a runtime dependency > on gnome-session and polkit. A runtime dep on gdm would probably be more to the point, and should bring gnome-session and polkit along. -- 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 828720] Review Request: brainfuck - An interpreter of the brainf*ck language
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828720 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- brainfuck-0.1-3.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/brainfuck-0.1-3.fc18 -- 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 828720] Review Request: brainfuck - An interpreter of the brainf*ck language
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828720 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- brainfuck-0.1-3.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/brainfuck-0.1-3.fc16 -- 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 828720] Review Request: brainfuck - An interpreter of the brainf*ck language
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828720 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- brainfuck-0.1-3.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/brainfuck-0.1-3.fc17 -- 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 828720] Review Request: brainfuck - An interpreter of the brainf*ck language
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828720 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RELEASE_PENDING |MODIFIED -- 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 854256] Review Request: tipcutils - Utils package required to configure TIPC
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854256 --- Comment #2 from Erik Hugne --- Thanks for the prompt feedback. I have adressed your comments, and have one open question regarding the license. Is it required to have this as a separate file? All files in tipcutils have the license prepended to them. -- 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 828720] Review Request: brainfuck - An interpreter of the brainf*ck language
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828720 --- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- 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 828720] Review Request: brainfuck - An interpreter of the brainf*ck language
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828720 Shakthi Kannan changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RELEASE_PENDING Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Shakthi Kannan --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: brainfuck Short Description: Haskell brainfuck library Owners: shakthimaan Branches: f16 f17 f18 InitialCC: haskell-sig -- 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 828720] Review Request: brainfuck - An interpreter of the brainf*ck language
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828720 --- Comment #4 from Shakthi Kannan --- I'll provide a patch to fix the FSF address before import, and also send it upstream. Will also request upstream to provide a man page. Thanks for the review. -- 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 828720] Review Request: brainfuck - An interpreter of the brainf*ck language
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828720
Lakshmi Narasimhan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Lakshmi Narasimhan ---
[+]MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
the review.
rpmlint -i *.rpm ../brainfuck.spec
brainfuck.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary C brainfuck
The name of the package is repeated in its summary. This is often redundant
information and looks silly in various programs' output. Make the summary
brief and to the point without including redundant information in it.
brainfuck.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary C brainfuck
The name of the package is repeated in its summary. This is often redundant
information and looks silly in various programs' output. Make the summary
brief and to the point without including redundant information in it.
brainfuck.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/brainfuck-0.1/LICENSE
The Free Software Foundation address in this file seems to be outdated or
misspelled. Ask upstream to update the address, or if this is a license file,
possibly the entire file with a new copy available from the FSF.
brainfuck.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary bf
Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page.
ghc-brainfuck.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/share/doc/brainfuck-0.1/LICENSE
The Free Software Foundation address in this file seems to be outdated or
misspelled. Ask upstream to update the address, or if this is a license file,
possibly the entire file with a new copy available from the FSF.
ghc-brainfuck.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/share/doc/ghc-brainfuck-0.1/LICENSE
The Free Software Foundation address in this file seems to be outdated or
misspelled. Ask upstream to update the address, or if this is a license file,
possibly the entire file with a new copy available from the FSF.
4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 3 warnings.
[+]MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+]MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec
[+]MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
Naming-Yes
Version-release - Matches
License - OK, GPLv2
No prebuilt external bits - OK
Spec legibity - OK
Package template - OK
Arch support - OK
Libexecdir - OK
rpmlint - yes
changelogs - OK
Source url tag - OK, validated.
Build Requires list - OK
Summary and description - Not OK, please provide better summary and
description.
API documentation - OK, in devel package.
[+]MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines.
GPLv2
[+]MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[+]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 must be included in %doc.
LICENSE file is included.
[+]MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+]MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+]MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use sha256sum for this task as it
is used by the sources file once imported into git. If no upstream URL can be
specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to
deal with this.
sha256sum brainfuck-0.1.tar.gz brainfuck-0.1-2.fc16.src/brainfuck-0.1.tar.gz
e3a382b42cb4f431574a6401ab7d45a8e18aae21aee9a6a46c11e5489e305c53
brainfuck-0.1.tar.gz
e3a382b42cb4f431574a6401ab7d45a8e18aae21aee9a6a46c11e5489e305c53
brainfuck-0.1-2.fc16.src/brainfuck-0.1.tar.gz
[+]MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture.
Built on x86_64.
[+]MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch.
[+]MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.
[+]MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
Checked with rpmquery --list
[NA]MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review.
[+]MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates.
Checked with rpmquery --whatprovides
[+]MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file's %files listings.
[+]MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, for example.
Checked with ls -lR.
[+]MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[+]MUST: The package must contain code, or permissible content.
[+]MUST: Large documentation file
[Bug 844173] Review Request: emacs-evil - Extensible vi layer for Emacs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844173 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System --- emacs-evil-0.1-0.3.20120902gitc13b90e.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/emacs-evil-0.1-0.3.20120902gitc13b90e.fc16 -- 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 844173] Review Request: emacs-evil - Extensible vi layer for Emacs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844173 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System --- emacs-evil-0.1-0.3.20120902gitc13b90e.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/emacs-evil-0.1-0.3.20120902gitc13b90e.fc17 -- 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 844173] Review Request: emacs-evil - Extensible vi layer for Emacs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844173 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System --- emacs-evil-0.1-0.3.20120902gitc13b90e.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/emacs-evil-0.1-0.3.20120902gitc13b90e.fc18 -- 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 808350] Review Request: racket - Scheme Interpreter (Replacement for plt-scheme)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=808350 Robert Knight changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kni...@princeton.edu --- Comment #11 from Robert Knight --- You can install your own mock. If you do that, you'll be able to use --shell to get into the installation directories and attack this problem. The particular failures you encountered, I believe, were because the build needs cairo, pango and gtk+ (at least) to work if you're building the docs (which seems to be done by default.) However, it only goes a step or two more before it dies again. Perhaps Eli can tell us (if you do not already know) the trick to get raco to be verbose, while we are looking for other missing packages for the mock environment. Later, you will also need, at build time, desktop-file-utils to make the desktop-file-install at the end work. -- 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 854132] Review Request: ghc-show - Haskell show library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854132 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- ghc-show-0.4.1.2-2.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ghc-show-0.4.1.2-2.fc16 -- 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 854132] Review Request: ghc-show - Haskell show library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854132 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- ghc-show-0.4.1.2-2.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ghc-show-0.4.1.2-2.fc18 -- 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 854132] Review Request: ghc-show - Haskell show library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854132 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- ghc-show-0.4.1.2-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ghc-show-0.4.1.2-2.fc17 -- 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 854132] Review Request: ghc-show - Haskell show library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854132 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RELEASE_PENDING |MODIFIED -- 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 772989] Review Request: globus-gram-job-manager-sge - Globus Toolkit - Grid Engine Job Manager Support
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=772989 Adam Huffman changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? | Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #7 from Adam Huffman --- Thanks for the clarification. Same comment applies as to the other packages - consider making the use of macros consistent in a future release. APPROVED -- 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 772988] Review Request: globus-gram-job-manager-pbs - Globus Toolkit - PBS Job Manager Support
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=772988 Adam Huffman changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? | Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #7 from Adam Huffman --- Thanks for the clarification. Same comment applies as to the other package - consider making the use of macros consistent in a future release. APPROVED -- 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 855331] Review Request: polyglot-maven - Modules to enable Maven usage in others JVM languages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=855331 gil cattaneo changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||652183 (FE-JAVASIG) -- 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 831116] Review Request: ghc-MonadRandom - A random number generation Monad
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831116 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- ghc-MonadRandom-0.1.6-1.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ghc-MonadRandom-0.1.6-1.fc18 -- 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 831116] Review Request: ghc-MonadRandom - A random number generation Monad
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831116 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- ghc-MonadRandom-0.1.6-1.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ghc-MonadRandom-0.1.6-1.fc16 -- 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 831116] Review Request: ghc-MonadRandom - A random number generation Monad
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831116 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- ghc-MonadRandom-0.1.6-1.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ghc-MonadRandom-0.1.6-1.fc17 -- 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 831116] Review Request: ghc-MonadRandom - A random number generation Monad
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831116 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RELEASE_PENDING |MODIFIED -- 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 855331] Review Request: polyglot-maven - Modules to enable Maven usage in others JVM languages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=855331 gil cattaneo changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On|844299 | -- 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 844299] Review Request: gmetrics - Groovy library that provides reports and metrics for Groovy code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844299 gil cattaneo changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|855331 | -- 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 841833] Review Request: gmaven - Integration of Groovy into Maven
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=841833 gil cattaneo changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||855331 -- 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 855331] Review Request: polyglot-maven - Modules to enable Maven usage in others JVM languages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=855331 gil cattaneo changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||844299, 841833 -- 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 772986] Review Request: globus-gram-job-manager-fork - Globus Toolkit - Fork Job Manager Support
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=772986
Adam Huffman changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #7 from Adam Huffman ---
Good, I thought they were there for a reason and tend to check the .spec file
in detail after any major problems have been caught by rpmlint et al.
Looks good. The only other comment I would make is that I personally prefer
consistency in macro usage i.e. %{buildroot} instead of $RPM_BUILD_ROOT, if
most are using the newer style. Maybe worth considering for the next update.
APPROVED
--
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 844299] Review Request: gmetrics - Groovy library that provides reports and metrics for Groovy code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844299 gil cattaneo changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||855331 -- 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 855331] New: Review Request: polyglot-maven - Modules to enable Maven usage in others JVM languages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=855331 Bug ID: 855331 QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org Severity: medium Version: rawhide Priority: medium CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Summary: Review Request: polyglot-maven - Modules to enable Maven usage in others JVM languages Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: punto...@libero.it Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/polyglot-maven/1/polyglot-maven.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/polyglot-maven/1/polyglot-maven-0.8-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: Polyglot Maven harnesses the power of Maven through modern implementations of the JVM language like Groovy, Scala, Clojure and JRuby. Polyglot Maven is a dependency of Gradle package. Fedora Account System Username: gil -- 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 854132] Review Request: ghc-show - Haskell show library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854132 --- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- 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 831116] Review Request: ghc-MonadRandom - A random number generation Monad
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831116 --- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- 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 847406] Review Request: clean-extra-utils - A collection of extra libraries and utilities for the Clean programming language
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847406 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- clean-extra-utils-0.1-2.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository. -- 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 845057] Review Request: perl-Sub-Exporter-Progressive - Only use Sub::Exporter if you need it
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845057 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System --- perl-Sub-Exporter-Progressive-0.001006-1.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository. -- 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 848213] Review Request: cqrlog - An amateur radio contact logging program
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=848213 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- cqrlog-1.5.1-1.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 testing repository. -- 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 847406] Review Request: clean-extra-utils - A collection of extra libraries and utilities for the Clean programming language
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847406 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2012-09-07 07:35:08 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- clean-extra-utils-0.1-2.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository. -- 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 845134] Review Request: emacs-goto-chg - Emacs add-on to go to last change in current buffer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845134 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- emacs-goto-chg-1.4-1.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository. -- 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 853050] Review Request: hawtbuf - A rich byte buffer library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853050 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- hawtbuf-1.9-2.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 testing repository. -- 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 850548] Review Request: python-django-bootstrap-toolkit - Bootstrap support for Django projects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=850548 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2012-09-07 07:33:16 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- python-django-bootstrap-toolkit-2.5.6-1.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository. -- 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 850789] Review Request: babeld - Ad-hoc network routing daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=850789 --- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System --- babeld-1.3.4-2.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository. -- 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 845134] Review Request: emacs-goto-chg - Emacs add-on to go to last change in current buffer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845134 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- emacs-goto-chg-1.4-1.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository. -- 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 847484] Review Request: mediawiki-HTTP302Found - Forces an external HTTP 302 redirect instead of internal redirects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847484 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System --- mediawiki-HTTP302Found-2.0.1-1.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- 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 845673] Review Request: perl-Test-File-ShareDir - Create a Fake ShareDir for your modules for testing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845673 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- perl-Test-File-ShareDir-0.3.1-1.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository. -- 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 829015] Review Request: python-nose-cover3 - Coverage 3.x support for Nose
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829015 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|RAWHIDE |ERRATA --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- python-nose-cover3-0.1.0-4.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository. -- 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 845673] Review Request: perl-Test-File-ShareDir - Create a Fake ShareDir for your modules for testing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845673 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2012-09-07 07:24:59 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- perl-Test-File-ShareDir-0.3.1-1.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository. -- 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 845057] Review Request: perl-Sub-Exporter-Progressive - Only use Sub::Exporter if you need it
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845057 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System --- perl-Sub-Exporter-Progressive-0.001006-1.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository. -- 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 847484] Review Request: mediawiki-HTTP302Found - Forces an external HTTP 302 redirect instead of internal redirects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847484 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2012-09-07 07:24:13 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System --- mediawiki-HTTP302Found-2.0.1-1.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- 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 850789] Review Request: babeld - Ad-hoc network routing daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=850789 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2012-09-07 07:23:45 --- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System --- babeld-1.3.4-2.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository. -- 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 851848] Review Request: mingw-harfbuzz - MinGW Windows Harfbuzz library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851848 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2012-09-07 07:23:17 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- mingw-harfbuzz-0.9.3-1.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository. -- 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
