[Bug 1089559] Review Request: tlp - Advanced power management tool for Linux
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1089559 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|tlp-0.5-2.fc19 |tlp-0.5-2.fc20 --- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System --- tlp-0.5-2.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1062901] Review Request: openspecfun - Library providing a collection of special mathematical functions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1062901 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|openspecfun-0.3-1.fc19 |openspecfun-0.3-1.fc20 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System --- openspecfun-0.3-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1091636] Review Request: utf8cpp - A simple, portable and lightweight library for handling UTF-8 encoded strings
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1091636 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|utf8cpp-2.3.4-4.fc19|utf8cpp-2.3.4-4.fc20 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System --- utf8cpp-2.3.4-4.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1089559] Review Request: tlp - Advanced power management tool for Linux
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1089559 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||tlp-0.5-2.fc19 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2014-05-12 01:24:10 --- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System --- tlp-0.5-2.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1091636] Review Request: utf8cpp - A simple, portable and lightweight library for handling UTF-8 encoded strings
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1091636 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||utf8cpp-2.3.4-4.fc19 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2014-05-12 01:20:15 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System --- utf8cpp-2.3.4-4.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1062901] Review Request: openspecfun - Library providing a collection of special mathematical functions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1062901 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||openspecfun-0.3-1.fc19 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2014-05-12 01:19:23 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System --- openspecfun-0.3-1.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1040517] Review Request: julia - High-level, high-performance dynamic language for technical computing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040517 Bug 1040517 depends on bug 1062901, which changed state. Bug 1062901 Summary: Review Request: openspecfun - Library providing a collection of special mathematical functions https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1062901 What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1058587] Review Request: drawpile - A collaborative drawing program
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1058587 --- Comment #9 from Christopher Meng --- (In reply to Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) from comment #8) > ALL bundled files still here in tarball. You may try delete in %prep if you > insist they are not needed. Sure: SPEC URL: http://misc.cicku.me/fedora/drawpile.spec SRPM URL: http://misc.cicku.me/fedora/drawpile-0.9.0-2.fc21.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1091032] Review Request: disruptor - Concurrent Programming Framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1091032 Mikolaj Izdebski changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||982541 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=982541 [Bug 982541] log4j - New version available: 2.0 beta7 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1091034] Review Request: lightcouch - CouchDB Java API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1091034 Mikolaj Izdebski changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||982541 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=982541 [Bug 982541] log4j - New version available: 2.0 beta7 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 979749] Review Request: rubygem-time-lord - Managing concepts of time and space in Ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=979749 Ricky Elrod changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |WONTFIX Last Closed||2014-05-11 23:22:10 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 979749] Review Request: rubygem-time-lord - Managing concepts of time and space in Ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=979749 --- Comment #4 from Ricky Elrod --- Bumping out of my bug queue for now as I don't need this anymore. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 979752] Review Request: rubygem-datagrepper - Ruby interface to the Datagrepper API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=979752 Bug 979752 depends on bug 979749, which changed state. Bug 979749 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-time-lord - Managing concepts of time and space in Ruby https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=979749 What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |WONTFIX -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1075601] Review Request: ghc-exceptions - Extensible optionally-pure exceptions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1075601 Ricky Elrod changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Ricky Elrod --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: ghc-exceptions Short Description: Extensible optionally-pure exceptions Owners: codeblock petersen Branches: f19 f20 epel7 InitialCC: haskell-sig -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1084777] Review Request: php-theseer-autoload - A tool and library to generate autoload code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1084777 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|php-theseer-autoload-1.14.2 |php-theseer-autoload-1.14.2 |-1.fc20 |-1.el6 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- php-theseer-autoload-1.14.2-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 982204] Review Request: Elm - The Elm language module
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=982204 --- Comment #12 from Jens Petersen --- (In reply to Jens Petersen from comment #11) > I wonder if it is better to use the tarball releases from github for now > which includes the standard library. Seems this is not necessary actually. The Elm package already includes the compiled libraries, see: > https://github.com/elm-lang/Elm/issues/580 Though I dunno if it would still not be better to do so strictly - more Fedora-esque perhaps? (building from source afap) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1074046] Review Request: telegram-cli - Linux Command-line interface for Telegram
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1074046 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|telegram-cli-0-0.5.20140321 |telegram-cli-0-0.5.20140321 |git1dad2e.fc19 |git1dad2e.el6 --- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System --- telegram-cli-0-0.5.20140321git1dad2e.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 991689] Review Request: dislocker - Utility to access BitLocker encrypted volumes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=991689 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|dislocker-0.3.1-2.20140423g |dislocker-0.3.1-2.20140423g |it.el5 |it.el6 --- Comment #31 from Fedora Update System --- dislocker-0.3.1-2.20140423git.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1089634] Review Request: perl-Crypt-SaltedHash - Perl interface to functions that assist in working with salted hashes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1089634 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|perl-Crypt-SaltedHash-0.09- |perl-Crypt-SaltedHash-0.09- |1.fc20 |1.el6 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- perl-Crypt-SaltedHash-0.09-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1089653] Review Request: perl-Devel-Hexdump - Print nice hex dump of binary data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1089653 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|perl-Devel-Hexdump-0.02-1.f |perl-Devel-Hexdump-0.02-1.e |c20 |l6 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- perl-Devel-Hexdump-0.02-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 991689] Review Request: dislocker - Utility to access BitLocker encrypted volumes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=991689 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|dislocker-0.3.1-2.20140423g |dislocker-0.3.1-2.20140423g |it.fc19 |it.el5 --- Comment #30 from Fedora Update System --- dislocker-0.3.1-2.20140423git.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1091770] Review Request: ctlib - A fast generic C++ library for applied and computational topology
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1091770 --- Comment #10 from Michael Schwendt --- > I just wanted to put the subpackage there so I don't need to > re-review later. Similar for examples. Adding sub-packages doesn't need a re-review. You could push a simpler package through review and add sub-packages once it's in Fedora dist git. > I'm not sure what you mean here. What are you looking for this to say? https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package > I wrote in every single header GPLv2 (or at your discretion, a later version). > So GPLv3+ seems perfectly reasonable. If you'd like I can make it GPLv2+ If the source file headers say GPLv2+ and the COPYING file says GPLv3, that's ambiguous - and GPLv3+ licensing doesn't permit the same things (such as copying from GPLv2+ sources into a GPLv2 project). https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Clarification -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1070510] Review Request: getdns - Modern asynchronous API to the DNS
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1070510 --- Comment #9 from Paul Wouters --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: getdns Short Description: Modern asynchronous API to the DNS Owners: pwouters pavlix Branches: f20 el6 epel7 InitialCC: pavlix -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1070510] Review Request: getdns - Modern asynchronous API to the DNS
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1070510 Patrick Uiterwijk changed: What|Removed |Added CC||psime...@redhat.com --- Comment #8 from Patrick Uiterwijk --- *** Bug 1090501 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1090501] Review Request: getdns - Implementation of the getdns API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1090501 Patrick Uiterwijk changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED CC||puiterw...@redhat.com Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Last Closed||2014-05-11 18:08:11 --- Comment #5 from Patrick Uiterwijk --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1070510 *** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1070510] Review Request: getdns - Modern asynchronous API to the DNS
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1070510 Patrick Uiterwijk changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #7 from Patrick Uiterwijk --- New SRPM: ftp://ftp.nohats.ca/getdns/getdns-0.1.1-1.el6.src.rpm Spec unchanged. Found the URL through browsing your FTP server, thanks for rebuilding with correct upstream tarball. PACKAGE APPROVED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1058587] Review Request: drawpile - A collaborative drawing program
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1058587 --- Comment #8 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) --- ALL bundled files still here in tarball. You may try delete in %prep if you insist they are not needed. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1058019] Review Request: utf8proc - Library for processing UTF-8 encoded Unicode strings
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1058019 Orion Poplawski changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review+ fedora-cvs? |fedora-review? --- Comment #17 from Orion Poplawski --- I'm sorry, but I'm afraid I set the review flag to + on accident when taking the review. Still need to do a formal review. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1058019] Review Request: utf8proc - Library for processing UTF-8 encoded Unicode strings
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1058019 Milan Bouchet-Valat changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #16 from Milan Bouchet-Valat --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: utf8proc Short Description: Library for processing UTF-8 encoded Unicode strings Owners: nalimilan Branches: f19 f20 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1058019] Review Request: utf8proc - Library for processing UTF-8 encoded Unicode strings
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1058019 --- Comment #15 from Milan Bouchet-Valat --- Sorry. I've looked at it, and I feel like it's really too much to learn for something I'm not interested in at the moment (heck, I've a PhD to finish), and I'm not even sure people will use. If somebody comes asking for Ruby support, I'll happily cooperate, but without more expertise it's just a waste of my time as I guess somebody with more experience would package it in a few minutes. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1094041] Review Request: python-inlinestyler - Inlines external CSS into HTML elements
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1094041 --- Comment #9 from Dan Scott --- Looks great now! Thanks for the hard work revising this package. If you have any time at all, I would _really_ appreciate a review of my package at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1089553 :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1094041] Review Request: python-inlinestyler - Inlines external CSS into HTML elements
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1094041
Dan Scott changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #8 from Dan Scott ---
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.
[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". 5 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/dan/python-inlinestyler/licensecheck.txt
[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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 4 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 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]: 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
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.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[-]: 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 package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$R
[Bug 1070510] Review Request: getdns - Modern asynchronous API to the DNS
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1070510
--- Comment #6 from Patrick Uiterwijk ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in
the spec URL.
Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff also shows differences
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
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]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[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.
[x]: 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.
[x]: 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.
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 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]: 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]: 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
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: 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).
[-]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-]: 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]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
[x]: No file requires
[Bug 1090501] Review Request: getdns - Implementation of the getdns API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1090501 Paul Wouters changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pwout...@redhat.com --- Comment #4 from Paul Wouters --- This looks like a duplicate of #1070510 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1094864] Review Request: php-pecl-xmldiff - Pecl package for XML diff and merge
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1094864
--- Comment #5 from Remi Collet ---
Be consistent, if you protect %{pecl_uninstall} you should also protect
%{pecl_install} (or simply don't protect both, as now defined everywhere,
except RHEL-5)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1094864] Review Request: php-pecl-xmldiff - Pecl package for XML diff and merge
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1094864
Remi Collet changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fed...@famillecollet.com
--- Comment #4 from Remi Collet ---
Quick notes:
- unused macro php_apiver
- unneeded default value php_extdir (if really you want to provides default
value for it, you also need to provide default one for php_inidir)
- please run upstream provided test suite
- please install doc in %pecl_docdir (so "pecl list-files xmldiff" will be ok,
I know this is only explicitly written in Guildelines for pear package...)
- prefix ini file with numeric value in rawhide
%if 0%{?fedora} < 21
# After dom
%global ini_name %{pecl_name}.ini
%else
# After 20-dom
%global ini_name 40-%{pecl_name}.ini
%endif
- filtering private is no more needed in f20+ (and rhel7)
- why don't you provide the -devel sub package ? (with the installed header,
and perhaps the upstream test suite... useful as documentation)
- requires
Requires php-dom%{_isa} and php-libxml%{?_isa} instead of php-xml (from source
code):
xmldiff.cpp:ZEND_MOD_REQUIRED("dom")
xmldiff.cpp:ZEND_MOD_REQUIRED("libxml")
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1096479] Review Request: min-cloud-agent - Minimal client implementation of EC2/OpenStack metadata API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1096479 Colin Walters changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1086231] Review Request: nodejs-jsonparse - Pure-js JSON streaming parser for node.js
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1086231 --- Comment #3 from Tom Hughes --- A few more issues: * You need "BuildRequire: npm(tap)" so that %check can run * You will also need to BuildRequire any npm modules that the tests need - try building in mock to see if you have it right * You should use "%nodejs_symlink_deps --check" in %check instead of setting NODE_PATH -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1096479] Review Request: min-cloud-agent - Minimal client implementation of EC2/OpenStack metadata API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1096479 --- Comment #2 from Colin Walters --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: min-cloud-agent Short Description: Minimal client implementation of EC2/OpenStack metadata API Owners: walters Branches: f20 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1086217] Review Request: nodejs-strip-json-comments - Strip comments from JSON
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1086217
--- Comment #3 from Tom Hughes ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues
==
[!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
- You should ask upstream to include the licese file.
[!]: Latest version is packaged.
- Version 0.1.2 has been release.
[!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
- There are some tests (the test.js file) upstream but they're not
in the npm tar ball, so you should probably either include them as
a separate source file, or package from github so that you can run
them in the %check section.
= 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.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses
found. Please check the source files for licenses manually.
[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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 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 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]: 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
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[!]: 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).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[!]: Latest version is packaged.
[-]: 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.
[!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
[Bug 1093408] Review Request: vdr-scraper2vdr - A client plugin which provides scraped metadata from EPGD to other plugins
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1093408 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- vdr-scraper2vdr-0.1.2-3.20140511git7231362.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/vdr-scraper2vdr-0.1.2-3.20140511git7231362.fc20 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1096479] Review Request: min-cloud-agent - Minimal client implementation of EC2/OpenStack metadata API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1096479
Haïkel Guémar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||karlthe...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|karlthe...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Haïkel Guémar ---
Easy peasy, since this renamed package complies with Fedora packaging
guidelines, I hereby approve the renaming.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[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", "Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in /home/haikel/1096479-min-cloud-
agent/licensecheck.txt
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[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.
[x]: 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 30720 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 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]: 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
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: 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.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Pack
[Bug 1093408] Review Request: vdr-scraper2vdr - A client plugin which provides scraped metadata from EPGD to other plugins
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1093408 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- vdr-scraper2vdr-0.1.2-2.20140510gitea862b3.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/vdr-scraper2vdr-0.1.2-2.20140510gitea862b3.fc20 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
