[Bug 1017401] Review Request: ghc-primes - Efficient purely functional generation of prime numbers

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1017401



--- Comment #4 from Jens Petersen  ---
I think you forgot to update the SPEC url.

The license is not MIT I think.

I opened this upstream issue
https://github.com/sebfisch/primes/issues/2
since the License file seems to same Public Domain
even though the .cabal file and source file consistently
state BSD 3 Clause license.
Perhaps it would be better to exclude the license
file from the package until this is resolved upstream?

-- 
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 1017628] Review Request: solr3 - Apache Solr

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1017628

Marek Goldmann  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||fedora-cvs?



--- Comment #6 from Marek Goldmann  ---
Thanks, I'll fix mentioned issues at the import time.

New Package SCM Request
===
Package Name: solr3
Short Description: Apache Solr
Owners: goldmann
Branches: f20

-- 
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 1018859] Review Request: perl-Term-Clui - Term::Clui Perl module

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018859

Petr Pisar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #4 from Petr Pisar  ---
Spec file changes:
--- perl-Term-Clui.spec.old 2013-10-14 16:30:16.0 +0200
+++ perl-Term-Clui.spec 2013-10-16 18:53:57.0 +0200
@@ -1,22 +1,26 @@
 Name:   perl-Term-Clui
 Version:1.68
-Release:1%{?dist}
-Summary:Term::Clui Perl module
+Release:2%{?dist}
+Summary:Perl module offering a Command-Line User Interface
 License:GPL+ or Artistic
 Group:  Development/Libraries
 URL:http://search.cpan.org/dist/Term-Clui/
 Source0:   
http://www.cpan.org/authors/id/P/PJ/PJB/Term-Clui-%{version}.tar.gz
-BuildRoot:  %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
 BuildArch:  noarch
 BuildRequires:  perl(ExtUtils::MakeMaker)
 BuildRequires:  perl(Term::ReadKey)
 BuildRequires:  perl(Term::ReadLine::Gnu)
 BuildRequires:  perl(Term::Size)
 BuildRequires:  perl(Test::Simple)
+BuildRequires:  perl(Exporter)
+BuildRequires:  perl(strict)
+BuildRequires:  perl(warnings)
 Requires:   perl(Term::ReadKey)
 Requires:   perl(Term::ReadLine::Gnu)
 Requires:   perl(Term::Size)
-Requires:   perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_%(eval "`%{__perl} -V:version`"; echo
$version))
+Requires:   perl(strict)
+Requires:   perl(warnings)
+Requires:   perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_%(eval "`perl -V:version`"; echo
$version))

 %description
 Term::Clui offers a high-level user interface to give the user of command-
@@ -30,33 +34,31 @@

 %prep
 %setup -q -n Term-Clui-%{version}
+#Don't pull in the examples dependencies
+chmod -x examples/*

 %build
-%{__perl} Makefile.PL INSTALLDIRS=vendor
+perl Makefile.PL INSTALLDIRS=vendor
 make %{?_smp_mflags}

 %install
-rm -rf %{buildroot}
-
 make pure_install PERL_INSTALL_ROOT=%{buildroot}

 find %{buildroot} -type f -name .packlist -exec rm -f {} \;
-find %{buildroot} -depth -type d -exec rmdir {} 2>/dev/null \;

 %{_fixperms} %{buildroot}/*

 %check
 make test

-%clean
-rm -rf %{buildroot}
-
 %files
-%defattr(-,root,root,-)
-%doc Changes README
+%doc Changes README examples
 %{perl_vendorlib}/*
 %{_mandir}/man3/*

 %changelog
+* Wed Oct 16 2013 Kostas Georgiou  1.68-2
+- Review changes/fixes #1018859.
+
 * Wed Oct 02 2013 Kostas Georgiou  1.68-1
 - Specfile autogenerated by cpanspec 1.78.

> FIX: The summary is not descriptive. See README or Clui.pm for better text.
+Summary:Perl module offering a Command-Line User Interface
Ok.

> TODO: Remove the BuildRoot definition and cleaning in the %install section
> and remove the whole %clean section. They are not needed for Fedora.
-BuildRoot:  %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)

-rm -rf %{buildroot}

-%clean
-rm -rf %{buildroot}
Ok.

> TODO: You can replace `%{__perl}' macro with plain `perl' command.
Ok.

> > TODO: You can replace PERL_INSTALL_ROOT argument with standard DESTDIR
> > argument in the %install section.
> This doesn't seem to work:
>  make pure_install 
> DISTDIR=/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/perl-Term-Clui-1.68-2.fc21.x86_64
>  ERROR: Can't create '/usr/share/man/man3'
>  Do not have write permissions on '/usr/share/man/man3'
I guess you misspelled DESTDIR as DISTDIR.

> TODO: You can remove deleting empty directories in the %install section.
> ExtUtils::MakeMaker does not create empty directories anymore.
-find %{buildroot} -depth -type d -exec rmdir {} 2>/dev/null \;
Ok.

> FIX: Remove %defattr macro from %files section. This is not needed anymore
> (since rpm-4.4).
-%defattr(-,root,root,-)
Ok.

> TODO: You could package the `example' subdirectory as a documentation.
-%doc Changes README
+%doc Changes README examples
Ok.

> FIX: Build-require `perl(Exporter)' (Clui.pm:13).
+BuildRequires:  perl(Exporter)
Ok.

> TODO: Build-require `perl(strict)' (Clui.pm:20).
+BuildRequires:  perl(strict)
Ok.

>TODO: Build-require `perl(warnings)' (Clui.pm:20).
+BuildRequires:  perl(warnings)
Ok.

> TODO: Run-require `perl(strict)' (Clui.pm:20).
+Requires:   perl(strict)
Ok.

> TODO: Run-require `perl(warnings)' (Clui.pm:20).
+Requires:   perl(warnings)
Ok.

$ rpmlint perl-Term-Clui.spec ../SRPMS/perl-Term-Clui-1.68-2.fc21.src.rpm
../RPMS/noarch/perl-Term-Clui-1.68-2.fc21.noarch.rpm 
perl-Term-Clui.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US summarised ->
summarized, summarize
perl-Term-Clui.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pgp -> pg, pp, pep
perl-Term-Clui.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rcs -> rs, cs, arcs
perl-Term-Clui.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US summarised ->
summarized, summarize
perl-Term-Clui.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pgp -> pg, pp,
pep
perl-Term-Clui.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rcs -> rs, cs,
arcs

[Bug 1020096] Review Request: python-blosc - Python wrapper for the blosc high performance compressor

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020096



--- Comment #3 from Christopher Meng  ---
Another note is that filtering out python sitearch libs is not required from
Fedora 20, you don't need to do this anymore.

I suggest that you should remove this in master branch in SCM, but leave it in
f19-/EPEL.

-- 
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 996311] Review Request: perl-CAD-Format-STL - Read and Write STL (STereoLithography) format files

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=996311



--- Comment #6 from John C Peterson  ---
Spec URL: http://www.eskimo.com/~jcp/perl-CAD-Format-STL.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.eskimo.com/~jcp/perl-CAD-Format-STL-0.2.1-4.fc19.src.rpm

Hi Petr,

Thank you for taking time out to review my package.

This version should correct all of the issues you raised (all of the FIX and
TODO items as well).

I modified the BuildRequires for perl(Module::Build) to require >= 0.35. I did
not check to see if it builds under EPEL-5 as I was planning to support EPEL-6
only for now (and EPEL-7, after RHEL-7 is released).

Good eye on the "use bytes" which I missed!

Regards, John

-- 
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 1017814] Review Request: rwhoisd - ARIN's Referral WHOIS server

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1017814

Petr Šabata  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||psab...@redhat.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|psab...@redhat.com
  Flags||fedora-review?



--- Comment #1 from Petr Šabata  ---
Taking 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 1005320] Review Request: openstack-puppet-modules - Puppet modules used to install OpenStack

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1005320



--- Comment #14 from Ryan O'Hara  ---
It appears the git repo didn't get created. I'm unable to clone
openstack-puppet-modules and I see no repo on pkgs.fedoraproject.org. Perhaps
I'm missing something?

-- 
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 1015857] Review Request: golang-googlecode-sqlite - Trivial sqlite3 binding for Go

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1015857



--- Comment #28 from Fedora Update System  ---
golang-googlecode-sqlite-0-0.8.hg74691fb6f837.el6 has been submitted as an
update for Fedora EPEL 6.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/golang-googlecode-sqlite-0-0.8.hg74691fb6f837.el6

-- 
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 1015857] Review Request: golang-googlecode-sqlite - Trivial sqlite3 binding for Go

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1015857



--- Comment #27 from Fedora Update System  ---
golang-googlecode-sqlite-0-0.8.hg74691fb6f837.fc19 has been submitted as an
update for Fedora 19.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/golang-googlecode-sqlite-0-0.8.hg74691fb6f837.fc19

-- 
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 1015857] Review Request: golang-googlecode-sqlite - Trivial sqlite3 binding for Go

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1015857



--- Comment #26 from Fedora Update System  ---
golang-googlecode-sqlite-0-0.8.hg74691fb6f837.fc20 has been submitted as an
update for Fedora 20.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/golang-googlecode-sqlite-0-0.8.hg74691fb6f837.fc20

-- 
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 1019603] Review Request: openlmi-scripts - Client-side python modules and command line utilities

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019603

Bug 1019603 depends on bug 1019977, which changed state.

Bug 1019977 Summary: 'lmi' python namespace not properly registered
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019977

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |NOTABUG



-- 
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 1019603] Review Request: openlmi-scripts - Client-side python modules and command line utilities

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019603

Michal Minar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|needinfo?(mimi...@redhat.co |
   |m)  |



--- Comment #2 from Michal Minar  ---
Actually this is a bug in openlmi-tools. Their setup.py script has wrong entry
in install_requires list. It contains 'lmi' instead of 'openlmi'. Since
openlmi-scripts depend on them and all dependencies are checked recursively, it
issues this error ('lmi' is not a valid name of any python egg). It's already
fixed in upstream. We just have to wait for a release, Until then the
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/openlmi_tools-0.7-py2.7.egg-info/requires.txt
file needs to be modified to contain 'openlmi' instead of 'lmi'.

Regarding the %config(noreplace), I've just wanted to avoid rpmlint warning.
And I've checked with other packages providing completion files. Some of them
do declare these files as configs and others not. I agree with you, that
marking them as configs is weird. I'll remove those macros.

Thanks for review! I'm gonna fix those issues later today.

-- 
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 877096] Review Request: perl-Fsdb - A set of commands for manipulating flat-text databases from the shell

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=877096



--- Comment #19 from John Heidemann  ---
Thanks, Petr.

A current SRPM is:
https://www.isi.edu/~johnh/SOFTWARE/FSDB/perl-Fsdb-2.47-1.fc19.src.rpm

The spec is in the SRPM, or at
https://www.isi.edu/~johnh/SOFTWARE/FSDB/perl-Fsdb.spec

(Sigh, there's an rpmlint warning about mixing spaces and tabs in the spec that
I will fix in 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 1015868] Review Request: python-qutepart - Source code text editor component based on Qt

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1015868



--- Comment #2 from T.C. Hollingsworth  ---
(In reply to Yajo from comment #0)
> First of all, sorry for using OBS. Please take it as just a way to upload
> the files. Package builds fine on Fedora, tested with mock.

We could care less which hosting provider you use to host your files, but the
link to the spec file does need to be a plaintext version, not one that uses
HTML and syntax highlighting.  Automated tools like fedora-review
 won't be able to read it otherwise.

Unfortunately, OBS seems to require a login to link to raw content, so you
might need to use a different hosting provider unless you can resolve that
somehow (or if I'm just an idiot and can't figure out OBS ;-).  If you do not
have access to alternate hosting space, you can request access to
fedorapeople.org by filing a ticket in the packager sponsors' trac instance:
https://fedorahosted.org/packager-sponsors/

I'd also add that anyone with a Fedora account can run scratch builds on our
Koji buildsystem if they want to.  This explains how it's done:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers#Install_the_client_tools_.28Koji.29_and_set_up_your_certificate

Please note that you cannot link to scratch builds from reviews, since they're
garbage collected regularly.  (This isn't the case for OBS, so SRPM links there
ought to be fine.  The non-plaintext spec is still an issue though.)

Spec review:

> # Afectado por el bug https://github.com/hlamer/qutepart/issues/1 y no deja
> # construir. Volver a intentarlo en sucesivas versiones.

Please use English in spec comments.  (Just to be clear, this doesn't extend to
the Spanish summary/description, which is done correctly. :-)

> License:GPLv2

The README file indicates this is under the LGPLv2.  The original Kate sources
are under LGPLv2+, however.  Please clarify this with upstream and correct the
License field in your spec file.

> %description
> Qutepart uses Kate syntax highlighters (XML files), contains port from
> Javascript to Python of Kate indenters (12% of the code base in version 
> 1.0.0),
> and doesn't contain Katepart code.

Grammar nit:
"contains port" -> "contains a port"

Also, the statistics of what is ported really isn't relevant to end users.  You
can remove the stuff in parenthesis.

> Nothing is wrong with Katepart. Qutepart has been created for possibility to
> reuse highlighters and indenters in projects where KDE dependency is not
> acceptable.

More grammar nits:  "created for possibility to reuse highlighters and
indenters" is a little awkward.  I'd suggest changing it to something like
"created so other applications can reuse its highlighers and indenters".

"where KDE dependency" -> "where a KDE dependency"

> %build
> %{__python} setup.py build

This package contains binary Python extensions, so the distribution compiler
flags need to be used.  For more information, see:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Compiler_flags

For Python packages, that ends up being something like:

CFLAGS="%{buildroot}" %{__python} setup.py build

-- 
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 1018862] Review Request: perl-File-SearchPath - Search for a file in an environment variable path

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018862



--- Comment #3 from Petr Šabata  ---
TODO: Remove lines 9, 31, 41, 42, and 45 (Buildroot, %buildroot removal, %clean
section, and %defattr) from your SPEC.  Those have been obsolete for maybe 10
releases now.

TODO: Line 34 (removing of empty directories) is also unnecessary these days. 
You may drop it too.

TODO: Buildrequire perl, called in spec
FIX: Buildrequire perl(base), ./lib/File/SearchPath.pm:34
FIX: Buildrequire perl(Carp), ./lib/File/SearchPath.pm:30
TODO: Buildrequire perl(Config), ./lib/File/SearchPath.pm:38, ./t/search.t:5
FIX: Buildrequire perl(Exporter), ./lib/File/SearchPath.pm:34
TODO: Buildrequire perl(strict), ./Build.PL:3, ./lib/File/SearchPath.pm:32
TODO: Buildrequire perl(vars), ./lib/File/SearchPath.pm:35
TODO: Buildrequire perl(warnings), ./Build.PL:4, ./lib/File/SearchPath.pm:31

Please, always go through the source, see what modules are used during the
build phase, and BR them.

FIX: The license tag is wrong.  It should be GPLv2+.  See
./lib/File/SearchPath.pm.


Fix at least the points marked as FIX before submitting an updated package.

-- 
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 951250] Review Request: R-sandwich - Robust Covariance Matrix Estimators

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=951250

Orion Poplawski  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 CC||or...@cora.nwra.com
 Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE
Last Closed||2013-10-17 00:24:31



--- Comment #9 from Orion Poplawski  ---
This has been built

-- 
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 1018862] Review Request: perl-File-SearchPath - Search for a file in an environment variable path

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018862

Petr Šabata  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||psab...@redhat.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|psab...@redhat.com
  Flags||fedora-review?



--- Comment #2 from Petr Šabata  ---
Taking 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 1015868] Review Request: python-qutepart - Source code text editor component based on Qt

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1015868

T.C. Hollingsworth  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||tchollingswo...@gmail.com



--- Comment #1 from T.C. Hollingsworth  ---
(In reply to Yajo from comment #0)
> Notes:
> I get this error from rpmlint:
> python-qutepart.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides
> /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/qutepart/syntax/cParser.so
> cParser.so()(64bit)
> 
> I have searched, but cannot understand this. I'd need a bit of help here (at
> least).

RPM automatically adds virtual provides for shared object files, since most are
used for libraries.  Unfortunately, these provides are bogus for stuff outside
/usr/lib(64), and should be removed.  This has been fixed in Fedora 20+, but
manual filitering is still required for Fedora <= 19 and EPEL.

This explains everything in detail:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:AutoProvidesAndRequiresFiltering

To fix it in this case, just add this to the top of your spec file:
%global __provides_exclude_from ^%{python_sitearch}/.*\\.so$

-- 
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 1016863] Review Request: rubygem-parallel - Run any kind of code in parallel processes

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1016863

Ken Dreyer  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||ktdre...@ktdreyer.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ktdre...@ktdreyer.com
  Flags||fedora-review?



--- Comment #1 from Ken Dreyer  ---
I can take this review.

Since upstream is shipping a really minimal gem, the rspec tests aren't
available in the gem itself. Would you mind including them in the package, and
running them in %check?

I think a valid case could be made to petition upstream to ship these in the
gem, but let's see what they say about
https://github.com/grosser/parallel/issues/81 first :)

-- 
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 1015776] Review Request: winetricks - Winetricks is a package manager for win32 dlls and applications on posix.

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1015776

T.C. Hollingsworth  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||tchollingswo...@gmail.com
 Blocks||182235 (FE-Legal)



--- Comment #3 from T.C. Hollingsworth  ---
Fedora Legal would prefer that this not be packaged for Fedora:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/legal/2013-January/002055.html


Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=182235
[Bug 182235] Fedora Legal Tracker
-- 
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 1020108] New: Review Request: rubygem-riddle - An API for Sphinx, written in and for Ruby

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020108

Bug ID: 1020108
   Summary: Review Request: rubygem-riddle - An API for Sphinx,
written in and for Ruby
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: ktdre...@ktdreyer.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: nott...@redhat.com,
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: http://ktdreyer.fedorapeople.org/reviews/rubygem-riddle.spec
SRPM URL:
http://ktdreyer.fedorapeople.org/reviews/rubygem-riddle-1.5.8-1.fc21.src.rpm
Description: A Ruby API and configuration helper for the Sphinx search service.
Fedora Account System Username: ktdreyer

F21 scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6067483

-- 
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 815001] Review Request: opennebula - Cloud computing tool to manage a distributed virtual data center to build private, public and hybrid IaaS clouds

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=815001



--- Comment #14 from Shawn Starr  ---
Upstream is working on SELinux issue which is holding this process up right
now.

-- 
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 1020096] Review Request: python-blosc - Python wrapper for the blosc high performance compressor

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020096



--- Comment #2 from Christopher Meng  ---
Sorry, typo.

Its URL is:

http://blosc.pydata.org

OR

https://github.com/FrancescAlted/python-blosc

as described on its github page.

-- 
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 1020096] Review Request: python-blosc - Python wrapper for the blosc high performance compressor

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020096

Christopher Meng  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||cicku...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|cicku...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review?



--- Comment #1 from Christopher Meng  ---
0.I think 

%{?filter_setup:
%filter_provides_in %{python_sitearch}/.*\.so$
%filter_setup}

is the old style, please take a look at:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:AutoProvidesAndRequiresFiltering

1.http://blosc.org/ is its homepage.

2.I would suggest this style:

License:MIT
URL:https://github.com/FrancescAlted/python-blosc/wiki
Source0:   
https://github.com/FrancescAlted/%{name}/archive/Release-%{version}.tar.gz

instead of yours:

Source0:https://github.com/FrancescAlted/%{name}/archive/Release-1.1.tar.gz
License:MIT
URL:https://github.com/FrancescAlted/python-blosc/wiki

BTW can you ask upstream to release in %{name}-%{version} style tarball name?
Or you can use PYPI:

https://pypi.python.org/pypi/blosc

to get the tarball.

3.BuildRequires:python-devel blosc-devel
Requires:blosc%{?_isa}

Should be:

BuildRequires:python2-devel python-setuptools blosc-devel

No explicit Requires:blosc%{?_isa} unless RPM can't find it.

4.%build
python setup.py build 

-->

%{__python2} setup.py build


5.%install
rm -rf %{buildroot}

python setup.py install -O1 --skip-build  --root=%{buildroot}

-->

%{__python2} setup.py install --prefix=%{_prefix} -O1 --skip-build
--root=%{buildroot}

6.I don't agree with shipping  VERSION file as %doc, nonsense.

7.%{python_sitearch}

-->

%{python2_sitearch}



--

Above comments are generated before fedora-review, please modify and submit a
new version, then let's run 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 877096] Review Request: perl-Fsdb - A set of commands for manipulating flat-text databases from the shell

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=877096



--- Comment #18 from Petr Šabata  ---
Could you please provide current SPEC and SRPM links?
I see perl-Fsdb.spec is there, using version 2.47-1, however there is no SRPM.

-- 
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 877096] Review Request: perl-Fsdb - A set of commands for manipulating flat-text databases from the shell

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=877096

Petr Šabata  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|psab...@redhat.com
  Flags||fedora-review?



--- Comment #17 from Petr Šabata  ---
Ok, I'll take a look at 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 989416] Review Request: ghc-pipes - Compositional pipelines

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989416



--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System  ---
ghc-pipes-4.0.0-2.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ghc-pipes-4.0.0-2.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 989416] Review Request: ghc-pipes - Compositional pipelines

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989416



--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System  ---
ghc-pipes-4.0.0-2.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ghc-pipes-4.0.0-2.fc20

-- 
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 989416] Review Request: ghc-pipes - Compositional pipelines

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989416



--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  ---
ghc-pipes-4.0.0-2.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ghc-pipes-4.0.0-2.fc19

-- 
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 989416] Review Request: ghc-pipes - Compositional pipelines

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989416

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|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 1020096] New: Review Request: python-blosc - Python wrapper for the blosc high performance compressor

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020096

Bug ID: 1020096
   Summary: Review Request: python-blosc - Python wrapper for the
blosc high performance compressor
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: thibault.no...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: nott...@redhat.com,
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: http://tnorth.fedorapeople.org/rev/python-blosc-1.1-2.fc19.src.rpm
SRPM URL: http://tnorth.fedorapeople.org/rev/python-blosc.spec
Description: Python wrapper for the blosc high performance compressor
Fedora Account System Username: tnorth

-- 
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 1020088] New: Review Request: blosc - A high performance compressor optimized for binary data

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020088

Bug ID: 1020088
   Summary: Review Request: blosc - A high performance compressor
optimized for binary data
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: thibault.no...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: nott...@redhat.com,
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: http://tnorth.fedorapeople.org/rev/blosc.spec
SRPM URL: http://tnorth.fedorapeople.org/rev/blosc-1.2.3-2.fc19.src.rpm
Description: A high performance compressor optimized for binary data
Fedora Account System Username: tnorth

-- 
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 1018092] Review Request: barman - Backup and Recovery Manager for PostgreSQL

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018092



--- Comment #8 from Christopher Meng  ---
(In reply to Peter Robinson from comment #5)
> > 3. Remove BuildRoot:/rm -fr $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%clean/%defattr(-,root,root)
> 
> Those bits are needed if you wish to support EL6 using a single spec file

Who taught you this? 

These lines can be safely dropped since Fedora 10, I assume you were talking
about EL5.

But I don't think we really need to support EL5

-- 
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 973069] Review Request:lpf-spotify-client - build and install spotify-client rpm

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=973069



--- Comment #13 from Tom "spot" Callaway  ---
The catch is that they are saying that the script may only be used for personal
use, _not_ just the files it downloads.

It is different from gcc, because the script only does one thing, and the
Spotify folks are saying it is only okay to do that one thing if there is a
restriction on personal use.

I think it might be possible that what they meant to say is that unrestricted
use of the download/packaging script is fine as long as the end-user complies
with the spotify EULA, but that's not quite what they said, or at least, it
could be interpreted either way.

If you can have them clarify that they meant for the "personal use" restriction
to apply to the spotify client bits (and not for the script), I think I'd be
okay to clear this. Otherwise, I'm going to have to assume the opposite was
their intention, and block it.

-- 
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 1018588] Review Request: gssntlmssp - A GSSAPI mechanism for NTLMSSP

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018588

Simo Sorce  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||fedora-cvs?



--- Comment #11 from Simo Sorce  ---
New Package SCM Request
===
Package Name: gssntlmssp
Short Description: A GSSAPI Mechanism that implements NTLMSSP
Owners: simo
Branches: f19 f20
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 1018492] Review Request: vcsh - Version Control System for $HOME

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018492

Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD)  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||sanjay.an...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|sanjay.an...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review?



--- Comment #2 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD)  ---
Hi,

I'll review this one :)

Thanks,
Warm regards,
Ankur

-- 
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 1018588] Review Request: gssntlmssp - A GSSAPI mechanism for NTLMSSP

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018588

David Woodhouse  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #10 from David Woodhouse  ---
Looks good. 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 1018588] Review Request: gssntlmssp - A GSSAPI mechanism for NTLMSSP

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018588



--- Comment #9 from Simo Sorce  ---
Ok created new spec file:
http://simo.fedorapeople.org/fedora-review/gssntlmssp.spec
and rebuild srpm with this one and against the releases tar gz:
http://simo.fedorapeople.org/fedora-review/gssntlmssp-0.1.0-0.fc19.src.rpm

Hopefully I fixed all the issues you pointed out.

-- 
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 726989] Review Request: ipwatchd - IP conflict detection tool

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=726989



--- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System  ---
ipwatchd-1.2.1-3.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ipwatchd-1.2.1-3.el5

-- 
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 726989] Review Request: ipwatchd - IP conflict detection tool

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=726989



--- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System  ---
ipwatchd-1.2.1-3.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ipwatchd-1.2.1-3.el6

-- 
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 1019437] Review Request: eyesight - Hawaii desktop image viewer

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019437



--- Comment #13 from Kevin Kofler  ---
> # These short-named translations probably need renaming upstream, since they 
> # are not picked up by find_lang
> %{_datadir}/eyesight/translations/??.qm

IMHO, this should have been a review blocker. The only valid way to handle
translations not found by %find_lang is to list them all explicitly one by one
with the corresponding %lang(??) tag for each.

-- 
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 1018092] Review Request: barman - Backup and Recovery Manager for PostgreSQL

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018092



--- Comment #7 from Dale Macartney  ---
items put back in spec to cover all bases! 

SPEC: http://dbmacartney.fedorapeople.org/barman/barman.spec
SRPM: http://dbmacartney.fedorapeople.org/barman/barman-1.2.3-4.fc19.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 1018092] Review Request: barman - Backup and Recovery Manager for PostgreSQL

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018092

Ken Dreyer  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||ktdre...@ktdreyer.com



--- Comment #6 from Ken Dreyer  ---
(In reply to Peter Robinson from comment #5)
> > 3. Remove BuildRoot:/rm -fr $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%clean/%defattr(-,root,root)
> 
> Those bits are needed if you wish to support EL6 using a single spec file

EL6 or EL5?

-- 
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 1018092] Review Request: barman - Backup and Recovery Manager for PostgreSQL

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018092



--- Comment #5 from Peter Robinson  ---
> 3. Remove BuildRoot:/rm -fr $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%clean/%defattr(-,root,root)

Those bits are needed if you wish to support EL6 using a single spec file

-- 
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 1018498] Review Request: wondershaper(NG) - Simple network shaper

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018498

Johan Swensson  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||k...@kupo.se



--- Comment #2 from Johan Swensson  ---
I'm not a current package maintainer but here's an informal review:

$ rpmlint wondershaper1.2-1.fc19.noarch.rpm 
wondershaper.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) shaper -> shape, sharper,
shapes
wondershaper.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cablemodem ->
cable modem, cable-modem, demonstrable
wondershaper.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/share/doc/wondershaper-1.2/COPYING
wondershaper.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary wondershaper
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings.

$ rpmlint wondershaper.spec 
wondershaper.spec: W: no-%build-section
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

Also:
%defattr(-,root,root,-) 

isn't needed

-- 
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 1018092] Review Request: barman - Backup and Recovery Manager for PostgreSQL

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018092



--- Comment #4 from Dale Macartney  ---
Right... working scratch build, 

http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6066624

SPEC: http://dbmacartney.fedorapeople.org/barman/barman.spec
SRPM: http://dbmacartney.fedorapeople.org/barman/barman-1.2.3-4.fc19.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 1020014] Review Request: pylcdsysinfo - Python interface to Coldtears Electronics LCD Sys Info device

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020014



--- Comment #1 from Johan Swensson  ---
Koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6066487

-- 
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 1018542] Review Request: go-bindata - A small utility which generates Go code from any file

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018542



--- Comment #12 from Matthew Miller  ---
(In reply to Vincent Batts from comment #11)
> does this still build fine if the rpm is installed on the host that is
> trying to do a new build of the RPM?
> Is setting of GOBIN needed? or passing '-o %{buildroot}/usr/bin/go-bindata'
> to go build?

I'm pretty sure go-bindata just needs to be in the path. However, I see that
etcd's mod/dashboard build script wants to build the binary into $PWD (not even
$GOBIN!) and calls it as ./go-bindata.

We should either patch or ignore that build script (which we'll have to do
anyway because it's got other oddities).

Let me know if I'm missing something here.

-- 
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 1020014] Review Request: pylcdsysinfo - Python interface to Coldtears Electronics LCD Sys Info device

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020014

Johan Swensson  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841
[Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a
sponsor
-- 
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 1020014] New: Review Request: pylcdsysinfo - Python interface to Coldtears Electronics LCD Sys Info device

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020014

Bug ID: 1020014
   Summary: Review Request: pylcdsysinfo - Python interface to
Coldtears Electronics LCD Sys Info device
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: k...@kupo.se
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: nott...@redhat.com,
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: http://kupo.se/pub/review/pylcdsysinfo.spec
SRPM URL:
http://kupo.se/pub/review/pylcdsysinfo-0.0.1-5.20131014git98e1b80.fc19.src.rpm
Description: LCD Sys Info is an USB LCD gadget which display system and
environmental information or pictures from your computer.

Fedora Account System Username: opuk

-- 
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 1016807] Review Request: tubo - Library to thread process std-in/std-err/std-out from fork() child

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1016807



--- Comment #8 from Antonio Trande  ---
Ready !

Spec URL: http://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/libtubo/tubo.spec
SRPM URL: http://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/libtubo/tubo-5.0.7-2.fc19.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 1019902] Review Request: vagrant - Vagrant with the KVM plugin.

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019902

Mario Blättermann  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co
   ||m



--- Comment #1 from Mario Blättermann  ---
Please create one review ticket per package, not three in once.

-- 
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 1016807] Review Request: tubo - Library to thread process std-in/std-err/std-out from fork() child

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1016807

Mario Blättermann  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||needinfo?(rc040203@freenet.
   ||de)



--- Comment #7 from Mario Blättermann  ---
%dir %{_datadir}/gtk-doc
%dir %{_datadir}/gtk-doc/html
%dir %{_datadir}/gtk-doc/html/lib%{name}
%{_datadir}/gtk-doc/html/lib%{name}/*

The last three lines can be omitted. Just write %{_datadir}/gtk-doc to own the
whole folder. To own the parts of the folder path and the files separately
doesn't make a difference.

@Ralf, if you don't have any further objections, I would complete the review
after the mentioned issue has been fixed.

-- 
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 1018542] Review Request: go-bindata - A small utility which generates Go code from any file

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018542



--- Comment #11 from Vincent Batts  ---
(In reply to Matthew Miller from comment #4)
> I think this should do it for the %build section:
> 
> 
> %build
> 
> mkdir -p src/github.com/jteeuwen/
> ln -s $(pwd) src/github.com/jteeuwen/go-bindata
> export GOPATH=$(pwd)
> go build -v -a

does this still build fine if the rpm is installed on the host that is trying
to do a new build of the RPM?
Is setting of GOBIN needed? or passing '-o %{buildroot}/usr/bin/go-bindata' to
go build?

-- 
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 1016807] Review Request: tubo - Library to thread process std-in/std-err/std-out from fork() child

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1016807



--- Comment #6 from Antonio Trande  ---
@Mario

Have you some other observation ?

-- 
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 1019428] Review Request: python-alchimia - A Python library that integrates Twisted with SqlAlchemy

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019428



--- Comment #7 from Mario Blättermann  ---
Scratch build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6066357

Rpmlint is quite silent, only this:

python-alchimia.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog .4-3 ['0.4-3.fc21',
'0.4-3']
The latest entry in %changelog contains a version identifier that is not
coherent with the epoch:version-release tuple of the package.

Please add the missing name and mail address to the latest chengelog entry.
Such problems couldn't happen if you use rpmdev-bumpspec. It generates a proper
changelog entry template for you which you still have to fill with the changes.

-- 
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 1004556] Review Request: xmpcore - Java XMP Library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1004556

Björn "besser82" Esser  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||bjoern.es...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|bjoern.es...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review?



--- Comment #1 from Björn "besser82" Esser  ---
taken  ;)

-- 
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 1002703] Review Request: juniversalchardet - A Java port of Mozilla's universalchardet

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1002703

Björn "besser82" Esser  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||bjoern.es...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|bjoern.es...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review?



--- Comment #1 from Björn "besser82" Esser  ---
taken  ;)

-- 
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 1002704] Review Request: boilerpipe - Boilerplate Removal and Fulltext Extraction from HTML pages

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1002704

Björn "besser82" Esser  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||bjoern.es...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|bjoern.es...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review?



--- Comment #1 from Björn "besser82" Esser  ---
taken  ;)

-- 
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 1019948] Review Request: python-astroML - Python tools for machine learning and data mining in Astronomy

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019948



--- Comment #2 from Björn "besser82" Esser  ---
NOTE:  Running this review on Fedora 20, because in rawhide are (still) broken
dependencies from the ATLAS-update:

Getting requirements for python-astroML-0.1.2-1.fc21.src
 --> python-devel-2.7.5-8.fc21.x86_64
 --> 1:numpy-1.8.0-0.5.b2.fc21.x86_64
 --> scipy-0.13.0-0.3.b1.fc21.x86_64
 --> python-scikit-learn-0.14.1-3.fc21.x86_64
 --> pyfits-3.1.2-2.fc20.x86_64
 --> python-matplotlib-1.3.0-1.fc20.x86_64
Error: Package: python-scikit-learn-0.14.1-3.fc21.x86_64 (fedora)
   Requires: libatlas.so.3()(64bit)
Error: Package: python-scikit-learn-0.14.1-3.fc21.x86_64 (fedora)
   Requires: libptf77blas.so.3()(64bit)
Error: Package: python-scikit-learn-0.14.1-3.fc21.x86_64 (fedora)
   Requires: libptcblas.so.3()(64bit)
 You could try using --skip-broken to work around the problem
 You could try running: rpm -Va --nofiles --nodigest
Child return code was: 1

#

Package has some issues  :(

#

Package Review
==

Legend:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated


Issues:
===
- Permissions on files are set properly.
  Note: See rpmlint output
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions


= MUST items =

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[-]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
 attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.

 ---> This is intentional on c-compiled python-plugins.

[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
 "Unknown or generated". 306 files have unknown license. Detailed output
 of licensecheck in /home/besser82/shared/fedora/review/1019948-python-
 astroML/licensecheck.txt

 ---> License-tag is fine.

[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
 Note: No known owner of /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/astroML,
 /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/astroML_addons

 ---> You can solve this issue quite easily by changing this
  inside the spec-file:

   %files
   %doc CHANGES.rst LICENSE.rst README.rst
  -# For arch-specific packages: sitearch
  -%{python_sitelib}/astroML/*
  +%{python_sitelib}/astroML
   %{python_sitelib}/astroML-%{version}-py2.7.egg-info

   %files addons
  -%doc CHANGES.rst LICENSE.rst README.rst
  -# For arch-specific packages: sitearch
  -%{python_sitearch}/astroML_addons/*
  +%{python_sitearch}/astroML_addons
   %{python_sitearch}/astroML_addons-%{version}-py2.7.egg-info

[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python2.7/site-
 packages/astroML, /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/astroML_addons

 ---> as said above

[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.

 ---> You can remove `CFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS"` safely, because this
  gets pick-up by python-setuptools automatically.

[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[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]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[!]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 6 files.

 ---> having `%doc CHANGES.rst LICENSE.rst README.rst` in the main-pkg
  is enough.  there's no reason for duplicating this into the
  addon-subpkg.

[Bug 1019603] Review Request: openlmi-scripts - Client-side python modules and command line utilities

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019603

Stephen Gallagher  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||mimi...@redhat.com
 Depends On||1019977
  Flags||needinfo?(mimi...@redhat.co
   ||m)



--- Comment #1 from Stephen Gallagher  ---
Sorry, took me longer than I expected to get to this today.

First comment: it doesn't build in mock/Koji. Among other things, the 'make -C
doc html' step fails because it's trying to access the internet to pull down
'docopt' and 'lmi'. The 'docopt' issue is easy: you need to add "BuildRequires:
python-docopt". The 'lmi' issue is puzzling. You have BuildRequires:
openlmi-tools, which pulls in openlmi-python-base, so the 'lmi' module should
be available.

After performing a few tests, this looks like a bug in the openlmi-python-base
package. It's not registering the 'lmi' module correctly, and thus setuptools
doesn't know it is present on the system. I've filed BZ #1019977 to track this.

Other comments:
I'm not sure that the bash completion script should be %config(noreplace).
Under what circumstances do we expect a user to modify this?


Nitpicks:
These are all noarch packages. The %{?isa} parts aren't required (though it
won't hurt).


Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019977
[Bug 1019977] 'lmi' python namespace not properly registered
-- 
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 1017401] Review Request: ghc-primes - Efficient purely functional generation of prime numbers

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1017401



--- Comment #3 from Jochen Schmitt  ---
Updated Package:

SPEC file: http://www.herr-schmitt.de/pub/ghc-primes/ghc-primes.spec
SRPM file:
http://www.herr-schmitt.de/pub/ghc-primes/ghc-primes-0.2.1.0-2.fc19.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 1018905] Review Request: scap-security-guide - Security guidance and baselines in SCAP formats

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018905

Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #10 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  ---
Looks fine now.

Rpmlint only complains about spelling, all false positives.

Note that scap-secuirity-guide(8) still refers to the old path (with
/content/).

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 1018859] Review Request: perl-Term-Clui - Term::Clui Perl module

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018859



--- Comment #3 from Kostas Georgiou  ---
Thanks for the review, here are the new files and the changes.

Spec URL: http://georgiou.fedorapeople.org/perl-Term-Clui.spec
SRPM URL: http://georgiou.fedorapeople.org/perl-Term-Clui-1.68-2.fc21.src.rpm

> FIX: The summary is not descriptive. See README or Clui.pm for better text.
DONE

> TODO: Remove the BuildRoot definition and cleaning in the %install section and
> remove the whole %clean section. They are not needed for Fedora.
DONE, I can always add them back if we need the package in epel-5

> TODO: You can replace `%{__perl}' macro with plain `perl' command.
DONE

> TODO: You can replace PERL_INSTALL_ROOT argument with standard DESTDIR 
> argument
> in the %install section.
This doesn't seem to work:
  make pure_install
DISTDIR=/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/perl-Term-Clui-1.68-2.fc21.x86_64
  ERROR: Can't create '/usr/share/man/man3'
  Do not have write permissions on '/usr/share/man/man3'

> TODO: You can remove deleting empty directories in the %install section.
> ExtUtils::MakeMaker does not create empty directories anymore.
DONE

> FIX: Remove %defattr macro from %files section. This is not needed anymore
> (since rpm-4.4).
DONE

> TODO: You could package the `example' subdirectory as a documentation.
DONE

> FIX: Build-require `perl(Exporter)' (Clui.pm:13).
> TODO: Build-require `perl(strict)' (Clui.pm:20).
> TODO: Build-require `perl(warnings)' (Clui.pm:20).
> TODO: Run-require `perl(strict)' (Clui.pm:20).
> TODO: Run-require `perl(warnings)' (Clui.pm:20).
DONE

-- 
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 1019948] Review Request: python-astroML - Python tools for machine learning and data mining in Astronomy

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019948

Björn "besser82" Esser  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||bjoern.es...@gmail.com
 Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR),
   ||100 (ML-SIG)
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|bjoern.es...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review?



--- Comment #1 from Björn "besser82" Esser  ---
taken ;)


Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841
[Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a
sponsor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=100
[Bug 100] Machine Learning SIG - review tracker
-- 
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 1019948] New: Review Request: python-astroML - Python tools for machine learning and data mining in Astronomy

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019948

Bug ID: 1019948
   Summary: Review Request: python-astroML - Python tools for
machine learning and data mining in Astronomy
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: chrisder...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: nott...@redhat.com,
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL:
http://lupinix.fedorapeople.org/packages/python-astroML/python-astroML.spec
SRPM URL:
http://lupinix.fedorapeople.org/packages/python-astroML/python-astroML-0.1.2-1.fc19.src.rpm

Description:
AstroML is a Python module for machine learning and data mining built on numpy,
scipy,
scikit-learn, and matplotlib, and distributed under the 3-clause BSD license. 
It contains a growing library of statistical and machine learning routines for 
analyzing astronomical data in python, loaders for several open astronomical
datasets,
and a large suite of examples of analyzing and visualizing astronomical
datasets.

Fedora Account System Username: lupinix

Thank you very much for reviewing.

-- 
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 1018588] Review Request: gssntlmssp - A GSSAPI mechanism for NTLMSSP

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018588

David Woodhouse  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|dw...@infradead.org



-- 
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 1018905] Review Request: scap-security-guide - Security guidance and baselines in SCAP formats

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018905



--- Comment #9 from Jan Lieskovsky  ---
(In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #8)

Thank you for the second round of review, Zbigniew. Much appreciated.

Fixed the points below with new spec and srpm versions as follows:
Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~jlieskov/scap-security-guide.spec
SRPM URL:
http://fedorapeople.org/~jlieskov/scap-security-guide-0.1-3.rc2.fc19.src.rpm

> (In reply to Jan Lieskovsky from comment #7)
> 
> > %description
> > The scap-security-guide project provides guide for configuration of the
> > system from final system's security point of view. The guidance is specified
> > in the Security Content Automation Protocol (SCAP) format and consitutes
> > a catalog of practical hardening advice linked to government requirements
> > where applicable. The project bridges the gap between generalized policy
> > requirements and specific implementation guidelines.
> 
> The scap-security-guide project provides [a] guide for configuration of the
> system from [the] final system's security point of view. The guidance is
> specified 
> in the Security Content Automation Protocol (SCAP) format and cons[t]itutes
> a catalog of practical hardening advice[,] linked to government requirements
> where applicable. The project bridges the gap between generalized policy
> requirements and specific implementation guidelines.
> 
> > Fixed - hopefully better now.
> I think one additional sentence, which gives an indication how this is to be
> used, would be great. Something like "The administrator can use ... from
> openscap-utils or openscap-workbench to verify that the system conforms to
> guidelines." Or something like that, because the name "-guide" suggests that
> this is just documentation.

Now it reads like:
%description
The scap-security-guide project provides a guide for configuration of the
system from the final system's security point of view. The guidance is
specified
in the Security Content Automation Protocol (SCAP) format and constitutes
a catalog of practical hardening advice, linked to government requirements
where applicable. The project bridges the gap between generalized policy
requirements and specific implementation guidelines. The Fedora system
administrator can use the oscap CLI tool from openscap-utils package, or the
scap-workbench GUI tool from scap-workbench package to verify that the system
conforms to provided guideline. Refer to scap-security-guide(8) manual page for
further information.

Let me know.

> 
> > > Gzipping of manpages will be done automatically, just copy it into the 
> > > right
> > > place. If the compression method changes, spec will not have to be 
> > > adjusted.
> > 
> > Fixed.
> > 
> > > 
> > > Drop the chcon. Every package I have seen installs man pages without this.
> > > 
> > > Drop %clean.
> > > 
> > > Change .gz to *. in %files, so that it works if the compression changes.
> > 
> > All three of the above fixed. Please have a look at new version.
> Looks fine

Thanks.
.
> 
> > > Fedora 19 version is hardcoded in various places. Is the package really so
> > > version specific, that it must be specific for each version of Fedora? You
> > > most certainly want to build this for F20 and rawhide too...
> > 
> > The original motivation for this was to have a way / possibility how to
> > distinguish cases, when for example Fedora18 and Fedora19 wouldn't have the
> > same content (IOW there would be certain Fedora release specific rules).
> > 
> > But after internal discussion we have agreed to handle this on the level
> > of XCCDF content definition, so removed the hard-coded Fedora release 
> > version
> > from final files path, provided by package (though still left it in
> > file names generated from SSG Makefile as at the moment not sure having for
> > example universal ssg-fedora-xccdf.xml file would cover all cases. We might
> > change this in the future yet if the reality shows all cases [scanning
> > Fedora18 guest on Fedora19 host] would be still possible while having this
> > filenames scheme).
> > 
> > > 
> > > Source refers to your personal page. Why can't you use an "real" URL like
> > > https://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/scap-security-guide.git/snapshot/scap-
> > > security-guide-d478d863b4166d105dbdd1b577d27edb3f847a86.tar.bz2? This has
> > > the advantage that it's easier to see the origin of sources.
> > 
> > Agree this way the tarball source might be more transparent to final users.
> > Though as of right now didn't find a way how to successfully predict future
> > git commit's id (in the moment i am commiting the change to local repository
> > don't know the id yet. Editing the spec file afterwards, committing again
> > and squashing / merging the change from latest commit into previous one [in
> > order the source URL to be correct] generates a new commit id.
> > 
> > So far didn't find a way how to know next upcoming Git commit id in the
> > moment of git commit (IOW no

[Bug 1019437] Review Request: eyesight - Hawaii desktop image viewer

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019437

Lubomir Rintel  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE
Last Closed||2013-10-16 12:24:47



--- Comment #12 from Lubomir Rintel  ---
Thank you!

Imported and built.

-- 
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 1018588] Review Request: gssntlmssp - A GSSAPI mechanism for NTLMSSP

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018588



--- Comment #8 from David Woodhouse  ---
I filed bug 1019937 for the 'krb5-libs should own /etc/gss' issue.

-- 
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 726989] Review Request: ipwatchd - IP conflict detection tool

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=726989

Jon Ciesla  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-cvs? |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 726989] Review Request: ipwatchd - IP conflict detection tool

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=726989



--- Comment #21 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 1018588] Review Request: gssntlmssp - A GSSAPI mechanism for NTLMSSP

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018588



--- Comment #7 from David Woodhouse  ---
Thanks for fixing the above, and other complaints I made in IRC. You're
supposed to update the Spec: and SRPM: URLs with a new post to bugzilla, but
since you've updated the files in-place I can cope with that...

Issues:
===
- All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are
  listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
  Note: These BR are not needed: findutils
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2


- Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
  Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib64/gssntlmssp/gssntlmssp.so
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DuplicateFiles

(You include the whole directory now, so no need to list that file explicitly)

- Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in
  the spec URL.
  Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in
  /home/dwmw2/1018588-gssntlmssp/diff.txt
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL

If you're calling this a 0.1.0 release, please make sure it matches the
downloadable tarball.

We also need to file a bug against krb5-libs for not owning the /etc/gss/
directory.

Other than that, it looks fine. Please fix the above issues and I'll pass it.


= MUST items =

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
 attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
 "LGPL (v3 or later)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 1
 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/dwmw2/1018588-gssntlmssp/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
 Note: No known owner of /etc/gss
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/gss
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[-]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[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]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
 supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[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]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: No %config files under /usr.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{na

[Bug 726989] Review Request: ipwatchd - IP conflict detection tool

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=726989

Jaroslav Imrich  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs?



--- Comment #20 from Jaroslav Imrich  ---
Package Change Request
==
Package Name: ipwatchd
New Branches: el5
Owners: jariq

-- 
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 1019902] Review Request: vagrant - Vagrant with the KVM plugin.

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019902

Alex Drahon  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||998503




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=998503
[Bug 998503] Vagrant
-- 
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 1019902] New: Review Request: vagrant - Vagrant with the KVM plugin.

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019902

Bug ID: 1019902
   Summary: Review Request: vagrant - Vagrant with the KVM plugin.
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: adra...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: nott...@redhat.com,
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: http://srpms.adrahon.org/vagrant.spec
SRPM URL: http://srpms.adrahon.org/vagrant-1.3.3-1.fc20.src.rpm
Spec URL: http://srpms.adrahon.org/rubygem-vagrant-kvm.spec
SRPM URL: http://srpms.adrahon.org/rubygem-vagrant-kvm-0.1.4-1.fc20.src.rpm
Spec URL: http://srpms.adrahon.org/rubygem-log4r.spec
SRPM URL: http://srpms.adrahon.org/rubygem-log4r-1.1.10-1.fc20.src.rpm
Description:
Vagrant is an automation tool used to manage development environments using
virtualization and configuration management tools. It allows developers and
teams to work on their projects and test them in an environment similar to
production. Historically, Vagrant had a dependency on VirtualBox, but the newer
versions have a plugin system allowing it to work with other virtualization
technologies, including KVM.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Vagrant
Fedora Account System Username: adrahon

-- 
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 1019824] Review Request: python-dopy - Python client for the Digital Ocean API

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019824



--- Comment #3 from Björn "besser82" Esser  ---
Package has minor issues.  :(

You should add BuildRequires: python-setuptools.
Please remove the hashbang from `manager.py` during %prep.

#

Package Review
==

Legend:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated



= 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.
[!]: 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.

 ---> see rpmlint report

[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
 "Unknown or generated". 3 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
 licensecheck in /home/besser82/shared/fedora/review/1019824-python-
 dopy/licensecheck.txt

 ---> License-tag is fine  :)

[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[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]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines

 ---> Issues present

[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
 supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
 are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
 in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
 provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[-]: 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]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
 architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the packag

[Bug 1018588] Review Request: gssntlmssp - A GSSAPI mechanism for NTLMSSP

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018588

David Woodhouse  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||dw...@infradead.org



--- Comment #6 from David Woodhouse  ---
Absent COPYING file from built package.

-- 
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 1017628] Review Request: solr3 - Apache Solr

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1017628

Stanislav Ochotnicky  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #5 from Stanislav Ochotnicky  ---
Package Review
==

Issues:
 - Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
forgotten '?' in macro
 - Latest version is packaged.
This is a compat package so it's expected
 - Package uses upstream build method (ant/maven/etc.)
Upstream probably doesn't use Maven, in this case this seems to work
 - Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments)
provides for pom artifacts should be versioned as well I believe. Otherwise
we could have multiple packages providing same artifact even though one is
compat and other is not

For example:
mvn(org.apache.solr:solr-contrib)

should be in my opinion
mvn(org.apache.solr:solr-contrib:3)

I won't block review on this, it's just something that needs to be fixed
(most likely on XMvn/javapackages-tools side)

Basically the only issue is dist tag/non-versioned provide for pom artifacts
but that's not blocker. Since you are already repacking the tarball it might be
nicer to run find class/jar && rm routine there instead of prep (smaller
tarball, easier audit etc).

APPROVED

= 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[-]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
 supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
[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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
 are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
 in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

Java:
[x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
[x]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
[x]: Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
 subpackage
[x]: Javadoc subpackages should not have Requires: jpackage-utils
[x]: Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink)

Maven:
[x]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even
 when building with ant
[x]: Pom files have correct Maven mapping
[x]: Maven packages should use new style packaging
[x]: Old add_to_

[Bug 1019824] Review Request: python-dopy - Python client for the Digital Ocean API

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019824

Björn "besser82" Esser  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||bjoern.es...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|bjoern.es...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review?



--- Comment #2 from Björn "besser82" Esser  ---
taken  :)

-- 
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 981711] Review Request: openpgpsdk - OpenPGP library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=981711

Miro Hrončok  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |NOTABUG
 Whiteboard|NotReady|
Last Closed||2013-10-16 10:10:07



--- Comment #1 from Miro Hrončok  ---
No longer working on 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 1016943] Review Request: crystal - KDE WM theme (KDE4-compatible version)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1016943

Rex Dieter  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |



--- Comment #7 from Rex Dieter  ---
OK, Ben, I sponsored you, so that part is done.


Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841
[Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a
sponsor
-- 
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 1019852] New: Review Request: ultimaker2-marlin-firmware - Ultimaker2 firmware for the 3D printer

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019852

Bug ID: 1019852
   Summary: Review Request: ultimaker2-marlin-firmware -
Ultimaker2 firmware for the 3D printer
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: mhron...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: nott...@redhat.com,
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL:
https://raw.github.com/hroncok/SPECS/master/ultimaker2-marlin-firmware.spec
SRPM URL:
http://churchyard.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/ultimaker2-marlin-firmware-13.10-1.fc19.src.rpm

Description: Ultimaker2 firmware for the 3D printer.

Fedora Account System Username: churchyard

-- 
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 1018523] Review Request: golang-github-coreos-go-log - A golang library for logging to systemd

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018523

Jon Ciesla  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-cvs? |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 1018523] Review Request: golang-github-coreos-go-log - A golang library for logging to systemd

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018523



--- Comment #11 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 1016943] Review Request: crystal - KDE WM theme (KDE4-compatible version)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1016943



--- Comment #6 from Rex Dieter  ---
I looked at the existing crystal package in fedora, it is indeed does already
work with kde4, even though it is quite old.

Let's give chitlesh at least a few more days to explicitly respond.  

If he does not by the weekend or early next week say, I'll be happy to sponsor
you and we can get you into a comaintainer position.

-- 
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 1017628] Review Request: solr3 - Apache Solr

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1017628



--- Comment #4 from Marek Goldmann  ---
Spec URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/solr3/4/solr3.spec
SRPM URL:
http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/solr3/4/solr3-3.6.2-4.fc19.src.rpm

Changes:

- Now using pom macros to do the changes
- Slim down the src distribution

-- 
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 1019772] Review Request: gnome-directory-thumbnailer - Thumbnailer for directories

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019772



--- Comment #2 from Yanko Kaneti  ---
Thanks

0.1.0-2
- Change url

Spec URL:
http://declera.com/~yaneti/gnome-directory-thumbnailer/gnome-directory-thumbnailer.spec
SRPM URL:
http://declera.com/~yaneti/gnome-directory-thumbnailer/gnome-directory-thumbnailer-0.1.0-2.fc21.src.rpm

I've also put a final dot. The sentence sounds complete to me. If you have
another suggestion I'll be happy to change it.

-- 
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 1016476] Review Request: spring-retry - Abstraction around retrying failed operations

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1016476

Michal Srb  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2013-10-16 09:23:50



--- Comment #8 from Michal Srb  ---
Thanks for the review and the repo. The package is now available in Rawhide.

-- 
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 1019772] Review Request: gnome-directory-thumbnailer - Thumbnailer for directories

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019772

Mohamed El Morabity  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|pikachu.2...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review?



--- Comment #1 from Mohamed El Morabity  ---
Hi,

some comments:
- gnome-directory-thumbnailer has a GNOME wiki page at
https://wiki.gnome.org/GnomeDirectoryThumbnailer; you should use it as URL,
instead of using the GIT one.
- it is recommended to use complete sentences for package descriptions. With a
final dot ;).

Otherwise the package looks quite good. The review will follow.

-- 
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 1019824] New: Review Request: python-dopy - Python client for the Digital Ocean API

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019824

Bug ID: 1019824
   Summary: Review Request: python-dopy - Python client for the
Digital Ocean API
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: rb...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: nott...@redhat.com,
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org




Spec URL: http://ralph.fedorapeople.org//python-dopy.spec
SRPM URL: http://ralph.fedorapeople.org//python-dopy-0.2.2-1.fc19.src.rpm

Description:
Digital Ocean API Python Wrapper

-- 
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 1018523] Review Request: golang-github-coreos-go-log - A golang library for logging to systemd

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018523

Matthew Miller  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 1019824] Review Request: python-dopy - Python client for the Digital Ocean API

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019824



--- Comment #1 from Ralph Bean  ---
This package built on koji: 
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6065180

-- 
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 1018092] Review Request: barman - Backup and Recovery Manager for PostgreSQL

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018092



--- Comment #3 from Dale Macartney  ---
Thanks Christopher, feedback is greatly appreciated. 

SPEC: http://dbmacartney.fedorapeople.org/barman/barman.spec
SRPM: http://dbmacartney.fedorapeople.org/barman/barman-1.2.3-3.fc19.src.rpm

Points 8 and 9 aren't too clear though if you wouldn't mind clarifying. 

package builds locally with rpmbuild without error, however fails when doing a
koji scratch build. 

sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory

http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6065150

-- 
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 1019341] Review Request: python-raven - python client for Sentry

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019341

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|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 1019341] Review Request: python-raven - python client for Sentry

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019341



--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-raven-3.5.0-2.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-raven-3.5.0-2.fc20

-- 
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 1019603] Review Request: openlmi-scripts - Client-side python modules and command line utilities

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019603

Stephen Gallagher  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||sgall...@redhat.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|sgall...@redhat.com



-- 
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 1019437] Review Request: eyesight - Hawaii desktop image viewer

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019437

Jon Ciesla  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 1019437] Review Request: eyesight - Hawaii desktop image viewer

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019437



--- Comment #11 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Complete.

-- 
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 1018384] Review Request: tinyca2 - TinyCA graphical openssl based CA

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018384



--- Comment #16 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Oh, this is an unretirement.  I've unretired devel, please submit a Package
Change request for the other branches.  Sorry for the extra 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