[Bug 1203167] Review Request: golang-github-docopt-docopt-go - Command-line interface description language in Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1203167 Jakub Jedelsky jakub.jedel...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Jakub Jedelsky jakub.jedel...@gmail.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: golang-github-docopt-docopt-go Short Description: Command-line interface description language in Go Upstream URL: https://github.com/docopt/docopt.go Owners: kubo Branches: f22 f21 f20 epel7 -- 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 1204812] Review Request: perl-Crypt-DH-GMP - Crypt::DH Using GMP Directly
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1204812 --- Comment #1 from Petr Šabata psab...@redhat.com --- A bunch of missing buildtime deps: - Config, inc/Module/Install/Can.pm:5, inc/Module/Install/XSUtil.pm:13 - constant, inc/Module/Install/XSUtil.pm:18 - ExtUtils::MM_Unix, inc/Module/Install/Metadata.pm:323, inc/Module/Install/Metadata.pm:332 - Fcntl, inc/Module/Install/Makefile.pm:7 - File::Spec, inc/Module/Install/XSUtil.pm:15 Optional bug recommended missing build time deps: - Crypt::DH, 03_compat.t:3, 04_compat-results.t:3 - Math::BigInt::GMP, t/03_compat.t:3, t/04_compat-results.t:3 - Net::OpenID::Consumer, 02_binhack.t:3 (not yet packaged in Fedora) Note: Both strict and warnings are also required for build (by Module::Install::*), not just runtime; listing the dependencies under # Run-time: could be confusing. Missing runtime deps: - XSLoader (or alternatively DynaLoader; XSLoader is preferred) -- 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 894602] Review Request: coin-or-Dip - Decomposition for Integer Programming
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894602 Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #12 from Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com --- 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 1203018] Review Request: baculum - WebGUI tool for Bacula Community program
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1203018 --- Comment #7 from Marcin Haba marcin.h...@bacula.pl --- New Spec file and SRPM location: Spec URL: http://www.bacula.pl/baculum.spec SRPM URL: http://www.bacula.pl/baculum-7.0.6-0.1.a.fc21.src.rpm I fixed pointed things to change: 1) I added Source0:, 2) I added systemd unit file, 3) I did not add other webservers config files. If it is possible, for now I would assume that only Lighttpd is supported. It could be a bit difficult in support if on Lighttpd it works with full functionality, on other webservers Baculum works with limited functionality. Instruction how to configure Baculum manually with Apache is in INSTALL file. Is it OK for you? 4) I changed release tag according to pre-release snapshot versions, 5) I added support for SELinux as subpackage baculum-selinux defined in Spec file, 6) I moved license file to %license macro. From other things, I have started use /var/cache/baculum/ directory for Baculum cache data. Additionally I used more macros in Spec file instead of static paths. Thank you in advance for next comments and advises. -- 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 1204812] Review Request: perl-Crypt-DH-GMP - Crypt::DH Using GMP Directly
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1204812 Petr Šabata psab...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Petr Šabata psab...@redhat.com --- Ack. However, I see you also added a build time dependency on DynaLoader. This isn't used when XSLoader is present (and it is, you buildrequire it as well). Drop it before pushing. -- 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 1198312] Review Request: xpra - screen for X
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1198312 --- Comment #25 from Jonathan Underwood jonathan.underw...@gmail.com --- Actually, the way I added the conditionals is broken, so for now we'll go with this: SRPM: https://jgu.fedorapeople.org/xpra-0.14.21-1.fc20.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 1199189] Review Request: js-web-socket-js - HTML5 Web Socket implementation powered by Flash
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199189 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |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 469892] Review Request: examiner - Utility to disassemble and comment foreign executable binaries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=469892 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- 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 469892] Review Request: examiner - Utility to disassemble and comment foreign executable binaries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=469892 --- Comment #12 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- 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 1204777] Review Request: python3-pkgversion-macros - Convenience macros for Fedora/EPEL Python 3 packages building
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1204777 --- Comment #2 from Robert Kuska rku...@redhat.com --- BuildArch: noarch is missing otherwise looks good. -- 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 1204777] Review Request: python3-pkgversion-macros - Convenience macros for Fedora/EPEL Python 3 packages building
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1204777 --- Comment #3 from Matej Stuchlik mstuc...@redhat.com --- Updated. -- 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 1204777] Review Request: python3-pkgversion-macros - Convenience macros for Fedora/EPEL Python 3 packages building
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1204777 Robert Kuska rku...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Robert Kuska rku...@redhat.com --- Looks good. -- 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 1205248] New: Review Request: jaxws-undertow-httpspi - Undertow to JAXWS 2.2 HTTP SPI bridge
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1205248 Bug ID: 1205248 Summary: Review Request: jaxws-undertow-httpspi - Undertow to JAXWS 2.2 HTTP SPI bridge Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: mgold...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/jaxws-undertow-httpspi/1/jaxws-undertow-httpspi.spec SRPM URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/jaxws-undertow-httpspi/1/jaxws-undertow-httpspi-1.0.1-1.fc22.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: goldmann Description: This package contains the JBoss httpserver to JAXWS 2.2 HTTP SPI bridge. Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9310745 Fedora Account System Username: goldmann -- 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 1186819] Review Request: burp - Network backup / restore program
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1186819 --- Comment #14 from Andrew Niemantsverdriet andrewniema...@gmail.com --- Uploaded updated SRPM built against the new version of librsync that was released to the repos recently. SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~kaptk2/burp-1.3.48-5.fc20.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 1205192] Review Request: perl-Net-OpenID-Consumer - Library for consumers of OpenID identities
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1205192 Jitka Plesnikova jples...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1205121 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1205121 [Bug 1205121] Review Request: perl-Net-OpenID-Common - Libraries shared between Net::OpenID::Consumer and Net::OpenID::Server -- 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 1205194] New: Review Request: mingw-libepoxy - MinGW Windows libepoxy library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1205194 Bug ID: 1205194 Summary: Review Request: mingw-libepoxy - MinGW Windows libepoxy library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: kalevlem...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://kalev.fedorapeople.org/mingw-libepoxy.spec SRPM URL: https://kalev.fedorapeople.org/mingw-libepoxy-1.2-1.fc22.src.rpm Description: Epoxy is a library for handling OpenGL function pointer management. This package contains the MinGW Windows cross compiled libepoxy library. Fedora Account System Username: kalev -- 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 1204812] Review Request: perl-Crypt-DH-GMP - Crypt::DH Using GMP Directly
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1204812 Jitka Plesnikova jples...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Jitka Plesnikova jples...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: perl-Crypt-DH-GMP Short Description: Crypt::DH Using GMP Directly Upstream URL: http://search.cpan.org/dist/Crypt-DH-GMP/ Owners: jplesnik ppisar psabata Branches: f22 InitialCC: perl-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 1198312] Review Request: xpra - screen for X
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1198312 --- Comment #24 from Jonathan Underwood jonathan.underw...@gmail.com --- SPEC: https://jgu.fedorapeople.org/xpra.spec SRPM: https://jgu.fedorapeople.org/xpra-0.14.21-2.fc20.src.rpm * Mon Mar 23 2015 Jonathan G. Underwood jonathan.underw...@gmail.com - 0.14.21-2 - Add conditionals for building with ffmpeg and x264 support, disabled by default Doesn't affect the package for Fedora, but does make it to rebuild the package with support for the other codecs if one wanted to. Unintrusive change. The js-web-socket-js package is now built in Fedora, and so the unbundling work is now complete, so hopefully this package can now be 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 1204777] Review Request: python3-pkgversion-macros - Convenience macros for Fedora/EPEL Python 3 packages building
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1204777 Matej Stuchlik mstuc...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Matej Stuchlik mstuc...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python3-pkgversion-macros Short Description: Convenience macros for Fedora/EPEL Python 3 packages building Upstream URL: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Bkabrda/EPEL7_Python3 Owners: mstuchli rkuska bkabrda Branches: f21 f22 f23 el6 epel7 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 1204151] Review Request: perl-PBKDF2-Tiny - Minimalist PBKDF2 (RFC 2898) with HMAC-SHA1 or HMAC-SHA2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1204151 Jitka Plesnikova jples...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||jples...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jples...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-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 1203801] Review Request: osbs - Python module and command line client for OpenShift Build Service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1203801 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- osbs-0.1-4.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/osbs-0.1-4.fc21 -- 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 1203801] Review Request: osbs - Python module and command line client for OpenShift Build Service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1203801 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- osbs-0.1-4.el7 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 7. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/osbs-0.1-4.el7 -- 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 1201325] Review Request: python-oslo-context - OpenStack Oslo context library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1201325 --- Comment #5 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com --- Hi Chandan, Thanks for the updated package and sorry for confusing you about using sphinx-build in %install. I asked on packaging list and got the confirmation that it should be used in %build. Actually, I got confused by other oslo library packaging. E.g. See http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/python-oslo-config.git/tree/python-oslo-config.spec http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/python-oslo-messaging.git/tree/python-oslo-messaging.spec Can you please provide one last update here and I will approve this package. Move the documentation building to %build. Thanks. -- 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 1204172] Review Request: perl-Authen-SASL-SASLprep - Stringprep profile for user names and passwords (RFC 4013)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1204172 Paul Howarth p...@city-fan.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|p...@city-fan.org Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Paul Howarth p...@city-fan.org --- rpmlint output == perl-Authen-SASL-SASLprep.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Stringprep - String prep, String-prep, Stripping perl-Authen-SASL-SASLprep.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US stringprep - string prep, string-prep, stripping perl-Authen-SASL-SASLprep.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/perl-Authen-SASL-SASLprep/LICENSE perl-Authen-SASL-SASLprep.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Stringprep - String prep, String-prep, Stripping perl-Authen-SASL-SASLprep.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US stringprep - string prep, string-prep, stripping 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings. Spellings are technical terms and can be ignored. FSF address issue raised as https://rt.cpan.org/Public/Bug/Display.html?id=102903 checklist = - rpmlint OK - package and spec file naming OK - package meets guidelines - license is same as perl, OK for Fedora, matches upstream, license file packaged - spec file written in English and is legible - source matches upstream apart from timestamp - package builds OK in mock for Rawhide - buildreqs OK - no locale data, libraries, devel files etc. to consider - package is not intended to be relocatable - directory ownership and permissions OK, no duplicate files - macro usage is consistent - code, not content - no large docs to worry about - docs don't affect runtime - not a GUI app, no desktop file needed - filenames are all ASCII issues == I prefer to use a patch rather than running iconv in %prep to fix character encodings. The reason for this is that sometimes upstreams switch character encodings themselves, and you can end up running iconv to convert an already-UTF8 file to UTF8, which usually doesn't generate an error but mangles the content of the file, and this problem is not detected by rpmlint. Using a patch instead catches this as the patch wouldn't apply if upstream changed character encoding. This is not a blocker but it's something to watch out for if you don't want to change this. If you do decide to use a patch, you could get rid of the BR: glibc-common too. Consider using wget/spectool to retrieve sources to maintain timestamp. No blockers. Package is 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 910798] Review Request: perl-Text-Tabs+Wrap - Expand tabs and do simple line wrapping
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=910798 --- Comment #10 from Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com --- I did not uploaded the package actually. Now it should be correct. -- 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 1203801] Review Request: osbs - Python module and command line client for OpenShift Build Service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1203801 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- osbs-0.1-4.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/osbs-0.1-4.fc22 -- 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 1205248] Review Request: jaxws-undertow-httpspi - Undertow to JAXWS 2.2 HTTP SPI bridge
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1205248 Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1181081, 652183 ||(FE-JAVASIG) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652183 [Bug 652183] Java SIG tracker bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1181081 [Bug 1181081] wildfly: Upgrade to 8.2.0.Final -- 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 1155793] Review Request: hyperrogue - An SDL roguelike in a non-euclidean world
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1155793
--- Comment #10 from Christopher Meng i...@cicku.me ---
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.
[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:
GPL (v2 or later), Unknown or generated. 14 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck:
GPL (v2 or later)
-
hyperrogue-55/hyper.cpp
Unknown or generated
hyperrogue-55/achievement.cpp
hyperrogue-55/achievement.h
hyperrogue-55/cell.cpp
hyperrogue-55/classes.cpp
hyperrogue-55/game.cpp
hyperrogue-55/geometry.cpp
hyperrogue-55/graph.cpp
hyperrogue-55/heptagon.cpp
hyperrogue-55/hyperpoint.cpp
hyperrogue-55/language-cz.cpp
hyperrogue-55/language-pl.cpp
hyperrogue-55/language-tr.cpp
hyperrogue-55/language.cpp
hyperrogue-55/polygons.cpp
[-]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must
be documented in the spec.
[!]: %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.
[-]: 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.
[!]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
Note: Test run failed
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Test run failed
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Note: Test run failed
[!]: 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 contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-
file-validate if there is such a file.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[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.
= 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]:
[Bug 1205121] Review Request: perl-Net-OpenID-Common - Libraries shared between Net::OpenID::Consumer and Net::OpenID::Server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1205121 Jitka Plesnikova jples...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1205192 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1205192 [Bug 1205192] Review Request: perl-Net-OpenID-Consumer - Library for consumers of OpenID identities -- 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 1205192] New: Review Request: perl-Net-OpenID-Consumer - Library for consumers of OpenID identities
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1205192 Bug ID: 1205192 Summary: Review Request: perl-Net-OpenID-Consumer - Library for consumers of OpenID identities Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: jples...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://jplesnik.fedorapeople.org/perl-Net-OpenID-Consumer/perl-Net-OpenID-Consumer.spec SRPM URL: https://jplesnik.fedorapeople.org/perl-Net-OpenID-Consumer/perl-Net-OpenID-Consumer-1.16-1.fc23.src.rpm Description: This is the Perl API for (the consumer half of) OpenID, a distributed identity system based on proving you own a URL, which is then your identity. Fedora Account System Username: jples...@redhat.com -- 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 1203167] Review Request: golang-github-docopt-docopt-go - Command-line interface description language in Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1203167 --- Comment #8 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- 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 1204009] Review Request: rubygem-clutter-gstreamer - Ruby binding of Clutter-GStreamer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1204009 --- Comment #3 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- 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 1204009] Review Request: rubygem-clutter-gstreamer - Ruby binding of Clutter-GStreamer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1204009 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |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 1203167] Review Request: golang-github-docopt-docopt-go - Command-line interface description language in Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1203167 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |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 1199189] Review Request: js-web-socket-js - HTML5 Web Socket implementation powered by Flash
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199189 --- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- 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 1199189] Review Request: js-web-socket-js - HTML5 Web Socket implementation powered by Flash
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199189 --- Comment #6 from Jonathan Underwood jonathan.underw...@gmail.com --- Ok, all checked in and built. Thanks very much for the review Marek. -- 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 1198312] Review Request: xpra - screen for X
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1198312 Bug 1198312 depends on bug 1199189, which changed state. Bug 1199189 Summary: Review Request: js-web-socket-js - HTML5 Web Socket implementation powered by Flash https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199189 What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE -- 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 1199189] Review Request: js-web-socket-js - HTML5 Web Socket implementation powered by Flash
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199189 Jonathan Underwood jonathan.underw...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed||2015-03-24 09:36:19 -- 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 1204777] Review Request: python3-pkgversion-macros - Convenience macros for Fedora/EPEL Python 3 packages building
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1204777 Robert Kuska rku...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||rku...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Robert Kuska rku...@redhat.com --- I'll take this. -- 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 1202604] Review Request: python-sscg - Self-signed Certificate Generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1202604 Stephen Gallagher sgall...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(zbys...@in.waw.pl ||) --- Comment #15 from Stephen Gallagher sgall...@redhat.com --- Spec URL: https://sgallagh.fedorapeople.org/sscg/sscg.spec SRPM URL: https://sgallagh.fedorapeople.org/sscg/sscg-0.3.0-1.fc22.src.rpm Rawhide Koji Build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9310671 This should also include all of the recommended upstream changes. Thanks for the review, both of the package and the code behind it :) -- 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 1205121] Review Request: perl-Net-OpenID-Common - Libraries shared between Net::OpenID::Consumer and Net::OpenID::Server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1205121 Petr Šabata psab...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||psab...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|psab...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-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 910798] Review Request: perl-Text-Tabs+Wrap - Expand tabs and do simple line wrapping
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=910798 --- Comment #9 from Petr Šabata psab...@redhat.com --- Um, the License tag still states `FIXME: Waiting on legal department'. Packaging looks good to me. Just update the License tag to TTWL and perhaps remove the extra empty line at the end of the file :) -- 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 1204812] Review Request: perl-Crypt-DH-GMP - Crypt::DH Using GMP Directly
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1204812 --- Comment #2 from Jitka Plesnikova jples...@redhat.com --- Updated. Links are same. -- 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 1205121] New: Review Request: perl-Net-OpenID-Common - Libraries shared between Net::OpenID::Consumer and Net::OpenID::Server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1205121 Bug ID: 1205121 Summary: Review Request: perl-Net-OpenID-Common - Libraries shared between Net::OpenID::Consumer and Net::OpenID::Server Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: jples...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://jplesnik.fedorapeople.org/perl-Net-OpenID-Common/perl-Net-OpenID-Common.spec SRPM URL: https://jplesnik.fedorapeople.org/perl-Net-OpenID-Common/perl-Net-OpenID-Common-1.19-1.fc23.src.rpm Description: The Consumer and Server implementations share a few libraries which live with this module. This module is here largely to hold the version number and this documentation, though it also incorporates some utility functions inherited from previous versions of Net::OpenID::Consumer. Fedora Account System Username: jples...@redhat.com -- 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 1204172] Review Request: perl-Authen-SASL-SASLprep - Stringprep profile for user names and passwords (RFC 4013)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1204172 Paul Howarth p...@city-fan.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||p...@city-fan.org Summary|Stringprep profile for user |Review Request: |names and passwords (RFC|perl-Authen-SASL-SASLprep - |4013)Review Request:|Stringprep profile for user |perl-Authen-SASL-SASLprep - |names and passwords (RFC ||4013) -- 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 1201325] Review Request: python-oslo-context - OpenStack Oslo context library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1201325 --- Comment #4 from Chandan Kumar chkumar...@gmail.com --- Hi Parag, I have again updated the SPEC: https://chandankumar.fedorapeople.org/python-oslo-context.spec SRPM: https://chandankumar.fedorapeople.org/python-oslo-context-0.2.0-3.fc21.src.rpm and Koji Build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9309651 Please have a look. Thanks, Chandan Kumar -- 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 1184446] Review Request: tunir - An ultra light CI system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1184446 Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com --- I observed that COPYING and LICENSE files both have same text that is GPLv2+. You may want to drop generic file name COPYING and keep LICENSE in %license You may want to change docker-io to docker as its renamed last week only. This change happened for epel7, F22 and F23 only. You may want to remove unnecessary empty lines between sections. Please fix above issues before importing this package in Fedora. otherwise looks fine. 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 1203476] Review Request: sslh - Applicative protocol(SSL/SSH) multiplexer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1203476 --- Comment #9 from James Hogarth james.hoga...@gmail.com --- (In reply to Piotr Popieluch from comment #8) There is a policy on stalled review requests: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews Thanks for the link Piotr - the reviewer did ask him for an update in November so by that it would appear it should have been closed NOTABUG in December... In which case I would have made my request a little sooner... And this big entry was based on advice from people in #fedora-devel. (In reply to Mukundan Ragavan from comment #7) Thanks for the input - I'll update the spec to take this info account. I'm moving house at present so my site is likely to be down a couple of weeks whilst I wait for my new broadband provider to bring connectivity to the new property but I'll file a ticket for temporary fedorahosted space in the meantime so any potential sponsors will be able to check it there. I'll update with a comment to links there when I've adjusted for the utf8, spelling and timestamp issues. -- 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 1201325] Review Request: python-oslo-context - OpenStack Oslo context library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1201325 --- Comment #3 from Chandan Kumar chkumar...@gmail.com --- Hello Parag, Thanks for the review. Here is the updated SPEC: https://chandankumar.fedorapeople.org/python-oslo-context.spec SRPM: https://chandankumar.fedorapeople.org/python-oslo-context-0.2.0-2.fc21.src.rpm and koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9309575 Please have a look. Thanks, Chandan Kumar -- 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 1202303] Review Request: python-colour-runner - Colour formatting for unittest test output
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1202303 Matej Stuchlik mstuc...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-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 1205121] Review Request: perl-Net-OpenID-Common - Libraries shared between Net::OpenID::Consumer and Net::OpenID::Server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1205121 Jitka Plesnikova jples...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1204812 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1204812 [Bug 1204812] Review Request: perl-Crypt-DH-GMP - Crypt::DH Using GMP Directly -- 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 1204812] Review Request: perl-Crypt-DH-GMP - Crypt::DH Using GMP Directly
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1204812 Jitka Plesnikova jples...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1205121 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1205121 [Bug 1205121] Review Request: perl-Net-OpenID-Common - Libraries shared between Net::OpenID::Consumer and Net::OpenID::Server -- 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 910798] Review Request: perl-Text-Tabs+Wrap - Expand tabs and do simple line wrapping
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=910798 Petr Šabata psab...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|psab...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #8 from Petr Šabata psab...@redhat.com --- I'll take it. -- 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 1199693] Review Request: pcp-pmda-cpp - C++ library for PCP PMDAs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199693 --- Comment #17 from Paul Colby red...@colby.id.au --- The -examples package now needs an explicit dependency on pcp Done :) The explicit dependency on pcp-libs-devel would be safer ... if it were arch-specific Done :) I see now that this is a requirement (well, stated as should at least) in the official Packaging Guidelines too (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requires_2). It doesn't build with latest GCC 5 in Rawhide Fixed. Now builds, tests, etc on Fedora 22 Alpha 3. Once again, I've updated the Spec and SRPM files linked at the top. You can see all of the changes (not many) since the previous review Spec and SRPM files at: https://github.com/pcolby/pcp-pmda-cpp/compare/5fde84b0f1468a8d7f4266e8a910b4eb74f13086...440a0fd3aa4182b037cf04818d8210513959d2ac Thanks again! -- 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 1204812] Review Request: perl-Crypt-DH-GMP - Crypt::DH Using GMP Directly
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1204812 Petr Šabata psab...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||psab...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|psab...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-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 1202303] Review Request: python-colour-runner - Colour formatting for unittest test output
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1202303
Matej Stuchlik mstuc...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Matej Stuchlik mstuc...@redhat.com ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[ ]: 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/mstuchli/fedora_review/1202303-python-colour-
runner/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/lib/python3.3
[ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.3,
/usr/lib/python3.3/site-packages
[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[ ]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[ ]: 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
[ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: 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]: 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]: 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:
[ ]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process.
[ ]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python3
-colour-runner
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[ ]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
[Bug 1205248] Review Request: jaxws-undertow-httpspi - Undertow to JAXWS 2.2 HTTP SPI bridge
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1205248 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed: What|Removed |Added CC||punto...@libero.it Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|punto...@libero.it Flags||fedora-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 1177805] Review Request: rubygem-uuid - UUID generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177805 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- rubygem-uuid-2.3.7-1.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rubygem-uuid-2.3.7-1.fc21 -- 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 1177805] Review Request: rubygem-uuid - UUID generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177805 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- rubygem-uuid-2.3.7-1.el7 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 7. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rubygem-uuid-2.3.7-1.el7 -- 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 1198312] Review Request: xpra - Remote display server for applications and desktops
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1198312
--- Comment #30 from T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues:
===
All blocking issues have been addressed!
TODO Post Review:
=
- Work with upstream to resolve the issue with resizing in GNOME Shell.
- Work on enabling OpenCL CSC support if possible.
= 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.
[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:
GPL (v2 or later), Unknown or generated, MIT/X11 (BSD like), LGPL
(v3 or later), BSD (2 clause), *No copyright* MIT/X11 (BSD like).
418 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/var/tmp/1198312-xpra/licensecheck.txt
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must
be documented in the spec.
[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.
[-]: 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
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]: update-desktop-database is invoked in %post and %postun if package
contains desktop file(s) with a MimeType: entry.
Note: desktop file(s) with MimeType entry in xpra
[x]: gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package
contains icons.
Note: icons in xpra
[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 112640 bytes in 3 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]: 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-
file-validate if there is such a file.
[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]: No %config files under /usr.
[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
[Bug 1198312] Review Request: xpra - Remote display server for applications and desktops
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1198312 T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #31 from T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com --- This package is APPROVED. Thank you for your contribution to Fedora! -- 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 1205248] Review Request: jaxws-undertow-httpspi - Undertow to JAXWS 2.2 HTTP SPI bridge
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1205248
--- Comment #1 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
Note: Maven packages do not need to (Build)Require jpackage-utils. It is
pulled in by maven-local
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
Note: Using prebuilt packages
[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.
[?]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
LGPL (v2.1 or later), *No copyright* Apache (v2.0). Detailed output
of licensecheck in /home/gil/1205248-jaxws-undertow-httpspi/review-jaxws-
undertow-httpspi/licensecheck.txt
[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/share/maven-metadata
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/maven-metadata
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
Note: Using prebuilt rpms.
[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
[-]: 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.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[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]: 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
Java:
[x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
[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_maven_depmap macro is not being used
[x]: Packages DO NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on jpackage-
utils for %update_maven_depmap macro
[x]: Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun
[x]: Packages use %{_mavenpomdir} instead of %{_datadir}/maven2/poms
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[!]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from
[Bug 1177805] Review Request: rubygem-uuid - UUID generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177805 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- 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 1205248] Review Request: jaxws-undertow-httpspi - Undertow to JAXWS 2.2 HTTP SPI bridge
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1205248 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|652183 (FE-JAVASIG) | Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652183 [Bug 652183] Java SIG tracker 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 1205194] Review Request: mingw-libepoxy - MinGW Windows libepoxy library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1205194 --- Comment #6 from Kalev Lember kalevlem...@gmail.com --- Thanks for the quick review, Erik! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: mingw-libepoxy Short Description: MinGW Windows libepoxy library Upstream URL: https://github.com/anholt/libepoxy Owners: kalev epienbro Branches: f22 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 1205194] Review Request: mingw-libepoxy - MinGW Windows libepoxy library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1205194 Kalev Lember kalevlem...@gmail.com 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 1057909] Review Request: mingw-qt5-qtquickcontrols - Qt5 for Windows - QtQuickControls component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1057909 --- Comment #4 from Erik van Pienbroek erik-fed...@vanpienbroek.nl --- Updated Spec URL: http://svn.nntpgrab.nl/svn/fedora_cross/mingw-qt5-qtquickcontrols/mingw-qt5-qtquickcontrols.spec Updated SRPM URL: http://koji.vanpienbroek.nl/kojifiles/packages/mingw-qt5-qtquickcontrols/5.4.1/1.fc23/src/mingw-qt5-qtquickcontrols-5.4.1-1.fc23.src.rpm Koji scratch build: https://koji.vanpienbroek.nl/koji/buildinfo?buildID=255 * Tue Mar 24 2015 Erik van Pienbroek epien...@fedoraproject.org - 5.4.1-1 - Update to 5.4.1 -- 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 1057910] Review Request: mingw-qt5-qtserialport - Qt5 for Windows - QtSerialPort component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1057910 --- Comment #3 from Erik van Pienbroek erik-fed...@vanpienbroek.nl --- Updated Spec URL: http://svn.nntpgrab.nl/svn/fedora_cross/mingw-qt5-qtserialport/mingw-qt5-qtserialport.spec Updated SRPM URL: http://koji.vanpienbroek.nl/kojifiles/packages/mingw-qt5-qtserialport/5.4.1/1.fc23/src/mingw-qt5-qtserialport-5.4.1-1.fc23.src.rpm Koji scratch build: http://koji.vanpienbroek.nl/koji/buildinfo?buildID=257 * Tue Mar 24 2015 Erik van Pienbroek epien...@fedoraproject.org - 5.4.1-1 - Update to 5.4.1 -- 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 1205459] Review Request: mingw-qt5-qtwebsockets - Qt5 for Windows - QtWebSockets component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1205459 Erik van Pienbroek erik-fed...@vanpienbroek.nl changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||858058 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=858058 [Bug 858058] Review Request: mingw-qt5-qtbase - Qt5 for Windows - QtBase component -- 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 1205457] Review Request: mingw-qt5-qtenginio - Qt5 for Windows - QtEnginio component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1205457 Erik van Pienbroek erik-fed...@vanpienbroek.nl changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||858058 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=858058 [Bug 858058] Review Request: mingw-qt5-qtbase - Qt5 for Windows - QtBase component -- 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 858058] Review Request: mingw-qt5-qtbase - Qt5 for Windows - QtBase component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=858058 Erik van Pienbroek erik-fed...@vanpienbroek.nl changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1205458 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1205458 [Bug 1205458] Review Request: mingw-qt5-qtwebchannel - Qt5 for Windows - QtWebChannel component -- 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 1205458] Review Request: mingw-qt5-qtwebchannel - Qt5 for Windows - QtWebChannel component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1205458 Erik van Pienbroek erik-fed...@vanpienbroek.nl changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||858058 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=858058 [Bug 858058] Review Request: mingw-qt5-qtbase - Qt5 for Windows - QtBase component -- 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 858058] Review Request: mingw-qt5-qtbase - Qt5 for Windows - QtBase component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=858058 Erik van Pienbroek erik-fed...@vanpienbroek.nl changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1205457 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1205457 [Bug 1205457] Review Request: mingw-qt5-qtenginio - Qt5 for Windows - QtEnginio component -- 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 894602] Review Request: coin-or-Dip - Decomposition for Integer Programming
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894602 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- 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 894602] Review Request: coin-or-Dip - Decomposition for Integer Programming
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894602 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- coin-or-Dip-0.91.2-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/coin-or-Dip-0.91.2-1.fc22 -- 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 1203105] Review Request: rubygem-amq-protocol - AMQP 0.9.1 encoder decoder
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1203105 --- Comment #8 from Graeme Gillies ggill...@redhat.com --- Hi Guys, Thanks for the feedback. I've updated the package and specfile with all the requested changes. http://ggillies.fedorapeople.org//rubygem-amq-protocol.spec http://ggillies.fedorapeople.org//rubygem-amq-protocol-1.9.2-2.fc21.src.rpm Regards, Graeme -- 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 1205458] New: Review Request: mingw-qt5-qtwebchannel - Qt5 for Windows - QtWebChannel component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1205458 Bug ID: 1205458 Summary: Review Request: mingw-qt5-qtwebchannel - Qt5 for Windows - QtWebChannel component Product: Fedora Version: 21 Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: erik-fed...@vanpienbroek.nl QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: fedora-mi...@lists.fedoraproject.org, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://svn.nntpgrab.nl/svn/fedora_cross/mingw-qt5-qtwebchannel/mingw-qt5-qtwebchannel.spec SRPM URL: http://koji.vanpienbroek.nl/kojifiles/packages/mingw-qt5-qtwebchannel/5.4.1/1.fc23/src/mingw-qt5-qtwebchannel-5.4.1-1.fc23.src.rpm Koji scratch build: https://koji.vanpienbroek.nl/koji/buildinfo?buildID=256 Fedora Account System Username: epienbro Description: This package contains the Qt software toolkit for developing cross-platform applications. This is the Windows version of Qt, for use in conjunction with the Fedora Windows cross-compiler. -- 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 858058] Review Request: mingw-qt5-qtbase - Qt5 for Windows - QtBase component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=858058 Erik van Pienbroek erik-fed...@vanpienbroek.nl changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1205459 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1205459 [Bug 1205459] Review Request: mingw-qt5-qtwebsockets - Qt5 for Windows - QtWebSockets component -- 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 1203105] Review Request: rubygem-amq-protocol - AMQP 0.9.1 encoder decoder
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1203105 --- Comment #10 from Graeme Gillies ggill...@redhat.com --- Ah thanks. I've fixed that now and re-uploaded the spec and srpm (didn't bump release for such a trivial change) http://ggillies.fedorapeople.org//rubygem-amq-protocol.spec http://ggillies.fedorapeople.org//rubygem-amq-protocol-1.9.2-2.fc21.src.rpm Regards, Graeme -- 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 1205194] Review Request: mingw-libepoxy - MinGW Windows libepoxy library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1205194
--- Comment #4 from Erik van Pienbroek erik-fed...@vanpienbroek.nl ---
(In reply to Kalev Lember from comment #2)
(In reply to Erik van Pienbroek from comment #1)
* Please use a versioned BR: mingw{32,64}-filesystem (for example = 95)
Why? We don't have anything older in any supported Fedora releases anyway.
It is part of the current MinGW packages guidelines @
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:MinGW#Dependencies
But I agree with you that it is a bit redundant these days as all current
Fedora and EPEL releases provide mingw-filesystem 95 or higher. Sounds like
something we should fix whenever we update our packaging guidelines again. For
now you can leave it 'as is'
--
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 1186501] Review Request: libticables2 - Texas Instruments link cables library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1186501 --- Comment #12 from Ben Rosser rosser@gmail.com --- Based on some additional experimental evidence, it seems the tests assume that /dev is mounted. I'll work with upstream on getting them to fail gracefully rather than outright segfault if there is no /dev partition. -- 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 1203105] Review Request: rubygem-amq-protocol - AMQP 0.9.1 encoder decoder
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1203105 --- Comment #9 from Ken Dreyer ktdre...@ktdreyer.com --- macro-in-changelog alert... :) * Wed Mar 25 2015 Graeme Gillies ggill...@redhat.com - 1.9.2-2 - Cleaned up spec file as per feedback from review (%license, remove extra gemspec, explicit rubygems-requires) This should be %%license -- 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 1203105] Review Request: rubygem-amq-protocol - AMQP 0.9.1 encoder decoder
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1203105
Ken Dreyer ktdre...@ktdreyer.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktdre...@ktdreyer.com
--- Comment #7 from Ken Dreyer ktdre...@ktdreyer.com ---
A couple nice-to-haves:
- Remove the Generated from ... comment added by gem2rpm; this will get stale
over time.
- Use the %license macro for %{gem_instdir}/LICENSE
- You can delete %{gem_instdir}/%{gem_name}.gemspec immediately after
%gem_install, since you're already shipping %{gem_spec}. Like this:
%build
gem build %{gem_name}.gemspec
%gem_install
# Remove unnecessary gemspec file
rm .%{gem_instdir}/%{gem_name}.gemspec
--
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 1205194] Review Request: mingw-libepoxy - MinGW Windows libepoxy library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1205194
Erik van Pienbroek erik-fed...@vanpienbroek.nl changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Erik van Pienbroek erik-fed...@vanpienbroek.nl ---
$ rpmlint mingw-libepoxy.spec
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
$ rpmlint mingw-libepoxy-1.2-2.fc22.src.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
$ rpmlint mingw32-libepoxy-1.2-2.fc22.noarch.rpm
mingw64-libepoxy-1.2-2.fc22.noarch.rpm
mingw32-libepoxy.noarch: W: no-documentation
mingw64-libepoxy.noarch: W: no-documentation
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
$ rpm --query --requires mingw32-libepoxy
mingw32(kernel32.dll)
mingw32(msvcrt.dll)
mingw32-crt
mingw32-filesystem = 95
mingw32-pkg-config
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) = 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) = 4.0-1
rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) = 5.2-1
$ rpm --query --requires mingw64-libepoxy
mingw64(kernel32.dll)
mingw64(msvcrt.dll)
mingw64-crt
mingw64-filesystem = 95
mingw64-pkg-config
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) = 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) = 4.0-1
rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) = 5.2-1
$ rpm --query --provides mingw32-libepoxy
mingw32(libepoxy-0.dll)
mingw32-libepoxy = 1.2-2.fc22
$ rpm --query --provides mingw64-libepoxy
mingw64(libepoxy-0.dll)
mingw64-libepoxy = 1.2-2.fc22
$ wget --quiet
https://github.com/anholt/libepoxy/archive/v1.2/libepoxy-1.2.tar.gz -O - |
md5sum
12d6b7621f086c0c928887c27d90bc30 -
$ md5sum libepoxy-1.2.tar.gz
12d6b7621f086c0c928887c27d90bc30 libepoxy-1.2.tar.gz
+ OK
! Needs to be looked into
/ Not applicable
[+] Compliant with generic Fedora Packaging Guidelines
[+] Source package name is prefixed with 'mingw-'
[+] Spec file starts with %{?mingw_package_header}
[+] BuildRequires: mingw32-filesystem = 95 is in the .spec file
[+] BuildRequires: mingw64-filesystem = 95 is in the .spec file
[+] Spec file contains %package sections for both mingw32 and mingw64 packages
[+] Binary mingw32 and mingw64 packages are noarch
[+] Spec file contains %{?mingw_debug_package} after the %description section
[+] Uses one of the macros %mingw_configure, %mingw_cmake, or %mingw_cmake_kde4
to configure the package
[+] Uses the macro %mingw_make to build the package
[+] Uses the macro %mingw_make to install the package
[/] If package contains translations, the %mingw_find_lang macro must be used
[+] No binary package named mingw-$pkgname is generated
[+] Libtool .la files are not bundled
[+] .def files are not bundled
[+] Man pages which duplicate native package are not bundled
[+] Info files which duplicate native package are not bundled
[+] Provides of the binary mingw32 and mingw64 packages are equal
[+] Requires of the binary mingw32 and mingw64 packages are equal
The rpmlint warning can be avoided by adding %doc README.md to both subpackages
but this is a minor issue
==
The package mingw-libepoxy is APPROVED by epienbro
==
--
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 1205248] Review Request: jaxws-undertow-httpspi - Undertow to JAXWS 2.2 HTTP SPI bridge
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1205248 --- Comment #2 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- ISSUES: - Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils Note: Maven packages do not need to (Build)Require jpackage-utils. It is pulled in by maven-local See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [!]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. jaxws-undertow-httpspi.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.jboss.org/jbossws HTTP Error 403: Forbidden Please, use: http://jbossws.jboss.org/ jaxws-undertow-httpspi-javadoc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Javadocs - Java docs, Java-docs, Avocados Please, use: Javadoc Please, remove Group tags are unneeded -- 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 858063] Review Request: mingw-qt5-qtconnectivity - Qt5 for Windows - QtConnectivity component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=858063 --- Comment #7 from Erik van Pienbroek erik-fed...@vanpienbroek.nl --- Updated Spec URL: http://svn.nntpgrab.nl/svn/fedora_cross/mingw-qt5-qtconnectivity/mingw-qt5-qtconnectivity.spec Updated SRPM URL: http://koji.vanpienbroek.nl/kojifiles/packages/mingw-qt5-qtconnectivity/5.4.1/1.fc23/src/mingw-qt5-qtconnectivity-5.4.1-1.fc23.src.rpm Koji scratch build: http://koji.vanpienbroek.nl/koji/buildinfo?buildID=253 * Tue Mar 24 2015 Erik van Pienbroek epien...@fedoraproject.org - 5.4.1-1 - Update to 5.4.1 -- 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 858062] Review Request: mingw-qt5-qtactiveqt - Qt5 for Windows - QtActiveQt component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=858062 --- Comment #8 from Erik van Pienbroek erik-fed...@vanpienbroek.nl --- Updated Spec URL: http://svn.nntpgrab.nl/svn/fedora_cross/mingw-qt5-qtactiveqt/mingw-qt5-qtactiveqt.spec Updated SRPM URL: http://koji.vanpienbroek.nl/kojifiles/packages/mingw-qt5-qtactiveqt/5.4.1/1.fc23/src/mingw-qt5-qtactiveqt-5.4.1-1.fc23.src.rpm Koji scratch build: http://koji.vanpienbroek.nl/koji/buildinfo?buildID=252 * Tue Mar 24 2015 Erik van Pienbroek epien...@fedoraproject.org - 5.4.1-1 - Update to 5.4.1 -- 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 1205457] New: Review Request: mingw-qt5-qtenginio - Qt5 for Windows - QtEnginio component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1205457 Bug ID: 1205457 Summary: Review Request: mingw-qt5-qtenginio - Qt5 for Windows - QtEnginio component Product: Fedora Version: 21 Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: erik-fed...@vanpienbroek.nl QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: fedora-mi...@lists.fedoraproject.org, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://svn.nntpgrab.nl/svn/fedora_cross/mingw-qt5-qtenginio/mingw-qt5-qtenginio.spec SRPM URL: http://koji.vanpienbroek.nl/kojifiles/packages/mingw-qt5-qtenginio/5.4.1/1.fc23/src/mingw-qt5-qtenginio-5.4.1-1.fc23.src.rpm Koji scratch build: https://koji.vanpienbroek.nl/koji/buildinfo?buildID=254 Fedora Account System Username: epienbro Description: This package contains the Qt software toolkit for developing cross-platform applications. This is the Windows version of Qt, for use in conjunction with the Fedora Windows cross-compiler. -- 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 1177805] Review Request: rubygem-uuid - UUID generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177805 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- rubygem-uuid-2.3.7-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rubygem-uuid-2.3.7-1.fc22 -- 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 1203067] Review Request: rubygem-em-worker - Provides a simple task worker, with a task concurrency limit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1203067 Graeme Gillies ggill...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Graeme Gillies ggill...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: rubygem-em-worker Short Description: Provides a simple task worker, with a task concurrency limit Upstream URL: https://github.com/portertech/em-worker Owners: ggillies Branches: f22 epel7 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 1205459] New: Review Request: mingw-qt5-qtwebsockets - Qt5 for Windows - QtWebSockets component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1205459 Bug ID: 1205459 Summary: Review Request: mingw-qt5-qtwebsockets - Qt5 for Windows - QtWebSockets component Product: Fedora Version: 21 Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: erik-fed...@vanpienbroek.nl QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: fedora-mi...@lists.fedoraproject.org, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://svn.nntpgrab.nl/svn/fedora_cross/mingw-qt5-qtwebsockets/mingw-qt5-qtwebsockets.spec SRPM URL: http://koji.vanpienbroek.nl/kojifiles/packages/mingw-qt5-qtwebsockets/5.4.1/1.fc23/src/mingw-qt5-qtwebsockets-5.4.1-1.fc23.src.rpm Koji scratch build: https://koji.vanpienbroek.nl/koji/buildinfo?buildID=258 Fedora Account System Username: epienbro Description: This package contains the Qt software toolkit for developing cross-platform applications. This is the Windows version of Qt, for use in conjunction with the Fedora Windows cross-compiler. -- 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 1177805] Review Request: rubygem-uuid - UUID generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177805 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- rubygem-uuid-2.3.7-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rubygem-uuid-2.3.7-1.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 1202604] Review Request: python-sscg - Self-signed Certificate Generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1202604
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|needinfo?(zbys...@in.waw.pl |
|) |
--- Comment #16 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl ---
Issues:
- missing ownership of %{python3_sitelib}/%{srcname}/ and
%{python2_sitelib}/%{srcname}/
- 2to3 is still used (specified in setup.py), which is not necessary
- The paragraph starting from # Set any script hashbangs to the appropriate
python version is not necessary, I think. setup.py will set the line by
itself.
- It seems that some imports are missing:
$ sscg --package foo --cert-file /tmp/file1 --cert-key-file /tmp/file2
--country pl --state '' --locality None --organization None
--organizational-unit www
Traceback (most recent call last):
File /usr/bin/sscg, line 9, in module
load_entry_point('sscg==0.3.0', 'console_scripts', 'sscg')()
File /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/sscg/main.py, line 126, in main
(ca_cert, ca_key) = create_temp_ca(options)
File /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/sscg/authority.py, line 20, in
create_temp_ca
print (_({host} is not a valid FQDN).format(
NameError: name '_' is not defined
- $ sscg
...
sscg: error: the following arguments are required: --package, --cert-file,
--cert-key-file, --country, --state, --locality, --organization,
--organizational-unit
Just a suggestion: maybe some of those could be made optional... E.g. --state
is a US-only thing, and some of the others could default to empty too.
= 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. 6 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /var/tmp/1202604-sscg/licensecheck.txt
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/sscg
Please add to %files.
[ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.4/site-
packages/sscg
[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.
[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]: 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]: 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
[Bug 1204172] Review Request: perl-Authen-SASL-SASLprep - Stringprep profile for user names and passwords (RFC 4013)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1204172 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |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 910798] Review Request: perl-Text-Tabs+Wrap - Expand tabs and do simple line wrapping
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=910798 Petr Šabata psab...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #11 from Petr Šabata psab...@redhat.com --- Yes, yes it is. -- 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 1203167] Review Request: golang-github-docopt-docopt-go - Command-line interface description language in Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1203167 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- golang-github-docopt-docopt-go-0-0.1.git.854c423.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/golang-github-docopt-docopt-go-0-0.1.git.854c423.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 1203167] Review Request: golang-github-docopt-docopt-go - Command-line interface description language in Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1203167 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- golang-github-docopt-docopt-go-0-0.1.git.854c423.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/golang-github-docopt-docopt-go-0-0.1.git.854c423.fc21 -- 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 1204812] Review Request: perl-Crypt-DH-GMP - Crypt::DH Using GMP Directly
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1204812 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- perl-Crypt-DH-GMP-0.00012-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Crypt-DH-GMP-0.00012-1.fc22 -- 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 1202890] Review Request: kaccounts-providers - Additional service providers for KAccounts framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1202890 Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rdie...@math.unl.edu Blocks||1135103 (plasma5) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1135103 [Bug 1135103] Plasma 5 Tracker -- 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 1204812] Review Request: perl-Crypt-DH-GMP - Crypt::DH Using GMP Directly
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1204812 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |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
