[Bug 218225] Review Request: php-pear-MDB2-Driver-mysql - MySQL MDB2 Driver
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: php-pear-MDB2-Driver-mysql - MySQL MDB2 Driver Alias: pear-MDB2-mysql https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218225 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-27 06:11 EST --- MUST items: * rpmlint output: W: php-pear-MDB2-Driver-mysql no-documentation * package is named well * spec file name is good * package meets Packaging Guidelines * package is licensed with a BSD open-source compatible license * License field in spec file matches actual license * license file isn't included in %doc * md5sums are matching (16a7b836904b36ca77a743554c7f0061) * package successfully compiles on x86_64 * BuildRequires listed well * no locales * proper %post and %postun sections * not relocatable * package owns directories well * no duplicates in %files * %files section includes %defattr * proper %clean section * macros used well We can omit rpmlint output because in fact package doesn't contain any documentation. So package is APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 214087] Review Request: libextractor -- Simple library for keyword extraction
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libextractor -- Simple library for keyword extraction https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=214087 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-27 07:34 EST --- * Wed Dec 27 2006 Enrico Scholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 0.5.16-3 - added a README.fedora - removed the previously added 'Requires: plugin(%name)' - added the pdf plugin to the requirements of the -plugins subpackage http://ensc.de/fedora/libextractor/ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 216105] Review Request: python-twisted-web - Twisted web server, programmable in Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: python-twisted-web - Twisted web server, programmable in Python https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=216105 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-27 07:45 EST --- OK, Approved. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 220766] Review Request: ScientificPython - a collection of Python modules that are useful for scientific computing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ScientificPython - a collection of Python modules that are useful for scientific computing https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220766 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-27 08:04 EST --- Some rpmlints issues which need to be corrected: rpmlint /home/chitlesh/rpmbuild/SRPMS/ScientificPython-2.6-3.src.rpm W: ScientificPython summary-not-capitalized a collection of Python modules that are useful for scientific computing E: ScientificPython description-line-too-long ScientificPython is a collection of Python modules that are useful for scientific computing. In this collection you will find modules that cover basic geometry (vectors, tensors, transformations, vector and tensor fields), quaternions, automatic derivatives, (linear) interpolation, polynomials, elementary statistics, nonlinear least-squares fits, unit calculations, Fortran-compatible text formatting, 3D visualization via VRML, and two Tk widgets for simple line plots and 3D wireframe models. There are also interfaces to the netCDF library (portable structured binary files), to MPI (Message Passing Interface, message-based parallel programming), and to BSPlib (Bulk Synchronous Parallel programming) chitlesh(SPECS)[1]$rpmlint /home/chitlesh/rpmbuild/RPMS/i386/ScientificPython-mpi-2.6-3.i386.rpm E: ScientificPython-mpi description-line-too-long This package contains the ScientificPython mpi enabled python intepreter and associated modules rpmlint /home/chitlesh/rpmbuild/RPMS/i386/ScientificPython-bsp-2.6-3.i386.rpm E: ScientificPython-bsp description-line-too-long This package contains the necessary ScientificPython modules for virtual bsp. This is useful for running multiple virtual processes in a bsp manner on a single cpu. chitlesh(SPECS)[1]$rpmlint /home/chitlesh/rpmbuild/RPMS/i386/ScientificPython-tk-2.6-3.i386.rpm W: ScientificPython-tk summary-not-capitalized tk widgets from ScientificPython chitlesh(SPECS)[1]$rpmlint /home/chitlesh/rpmbuild/RPMS/i386/ScientificPython-qt-2.6-3.i386.rpm W: ScientificPython-qt summary-not-capitalized qt widgets from ScientificPython shouldn't the sub packages be a dependency of the ScientificPython package ? you missed Doc/BSP_Tutorial.pdf in ScientificPython-doc package -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 220775] Review Request: Exaile! - A music player
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Exaile! - A music player https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220775 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-27 08:28 EST --- (In reply to comment #1) Maybe you need to add python-devel as BR. I already did add python-devel as BR, and I also built it succesfully in rawhide mock. However, I think i know where the problem is. The updated version below should be ok. Spec URL: ftp://czar.eas.yorku.ca/pub/exaile/exaile.spec SRPM URL: ftp://czar.eas.yorku.ca/pub/exaile/exaile-0.2.6-2.src.rpm Thanks for doing the review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 216105] Review Request: python-twisted-web - Twisted web server, programmable in Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: python-twisted-web - Twisted web server, programmable in Python https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=216105 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-27 08:58 EST --- imported, waiting for fc-6 branch -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 216102] Review Request: python-twisted-conch - Twisted SSHv2 implementation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: python-twisted-conch - Twisted SSHv2 implementation https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=216102 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-27 09:14 EST --- imported, waiting for branch to build -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 216104] Review Request: python-twisted-runner - process management library and inetd replacement
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: python-twisted-runner - process management library and inetd replacement https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=216104 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-27 09:23 EST --- portmap.so is a python module, afaict everything works correctly. It's not meant to be linked against. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 216104] Review Request: python-twisted-runner - process management library and inetd replacement
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: python-twisted-runner - process management library and inetd replacement https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=216104 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-27 09:45 EST --- http://thomas.apestaart.org/download/pkg/fedora-6-i386-extras/python-twisted-runner-0.2.0-4.fc6/ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 208169] Review Request: python-twisted-core - An asynchronous networking framework written in Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: python-twisted-core - An asynchronous networking framework written in Python https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208169 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 219972] Review Request: poker-network - A poker server, client and abstract user interface library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: poker-network - A poker server, client and abstract user interface library Alias: poker-network https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219972 Bug 219972 depends on bug 208169, which changed state. Bug 208169 Summary: Review Request: python-twisted-core - An asynchronous networking framework written in Python https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208169 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 209214] Review Request: libprelude - Prelude library collection
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libprelude - Prelude library collection https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=209214 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-27 10:13 EST --- ok, rpath and permission problems are fixed now. timestamp issue is fixed as well. new package is available here: http://people.redhat.com/tscherf/fedora-extra/libprelude-0.9.12-3.src.rpm http://people.redhat.com/tscherf/fedora-extra/libprelude.spec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 216106] Review Request: python-twisted-words - Twisted Words contains Instant Messaging implementations
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: python-twisted-words - Twisted Words contains Instant Messaging implementations https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=216106 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-27 10:51 EST --- http://thomas.apestaart.org/download/pkg/fedora-6-i386-extras/python-twisted-words-0.4.0-3.fc6/ the idea of core is that indeed it upgrades compatibly. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 216104] Review Request: python-twisted-runner - process management library and inetd replacement
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: python-twisted-runner - process management library and inetd replacement https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=216104 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-27 12:16 EST --- In reply to comment #2: Yeah, I know it's not meant to be linked against, but the rpm shows it as a provides. So, if some package somewhere requires 'portmap.so' it will get this package installed. Nothing currently does that I can see, but it just looks messy to provide something that isn't really usable by other packages. There's nothing in the guidelines blocking this, I just thought I would bring it to your attention. The package in comment #3 looks good. I don't see any further blockers, so this package is APPROVED. Don't forget to close this review request with NEXTRELEASE once it's been imported and built. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 218225] Review Request: php-pear-MDB2-Driver-mysql - MySQL MDB2 Driver
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: php-pear-MDB2-Driver-mysql - MySQL MDB2 Driver Alias: pear-MDB2-mysql https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218225 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-27 12:56 EST --- - SRPM checked into CVS - Entry added to owners.list - Built for devel - Requested branch for FC5/6 Thanks for the review! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 218226] Review Request: php-pear-Structures-DataGrid-DataSource-MDB2 - DataSource driver using PEAR::MDB2 and an SQL query
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: php-pear-Structures-DataGrid-DataSource-MDB2 - DataSource driver using PEAR::MDB2 and an SQL query Alias: pear-DG-MDB2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218226 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-27 13:06 EST --- MUST items: * rpmlint output: W: php-pear-Structures-DataGrid-DataSource-MDB2 filename-too-long-for-joliet php-pear-Structures-DataGrid-DataSource-MDB2-0.1.2-1.fc7.noarch.rpm * package is named wel * spec file name is good * package meets Packaging Guidelines * package is licensed with a PHP open-source compatible license * License field in spec file matches actual license * license file is included in %doc * md5sums are matching (2c31b48d18bc610cae3f91b86b822932) * BuildRequires listed well * no locales * proper %post and %postun sections * not relocatable * package owns directories well * no duplicates in %files * %files section includes %defattr * proper %clean section * macros used well Another easy to review package ;) Approved! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 209468] Review Request: Sjitter - Another network performance tool...
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Sjitter - Another network performance tool... Alias: sjitter https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=209468 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |NEEDINFO Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED] ||il.com) --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-27 13:07 EST --- switching to NEEDINFO from reporter. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 177747] Review Request: glade3
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: glade3 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177747 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-27 14:06 EST --- Hmm, is it going to be a painless dropin replacement for older versions of glade available in core? Regarding the packaging. 1. Builds fine in mock (x86) 2. glade3 rpm contains no documentation as does the -devel package (which is fine for the devel). 3. src.rpm has the mixed spaces/tabs warning 4. Why does this have an epoch number? As glade3 is a new package, it shouldn't need an epoch. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 218232] Review Request: php-pear-Math-Stats - Classes to calculate statistical parameters
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: php-pear-Math-Stats - Classes to calculate statistical parameters Alias: pear-Math-Stats https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218232 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 177747] Review Request: glade3
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: glade3 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177747 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-27 14:34 EST --- (In reply to comment #14) Hmm, is it going to be a painless dropin replacement for older versions of glade available in core? We can infer from the name of the source distribution and the binary--i.e., deliberately different from the 2.x series--that the answer is no. But I don't see how this is a packaging issue. (I asked Yuan Yijun to ignore my comment #8 and I ask that others do the same. This is an upstream issue.) I think it's up to the Core and glade2 package maintainers whether they want to keep that package alive alongside a glade3 package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 220210] Review Request: krename - Powerful batch file renamer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: krename - Powerful batch file renamer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220210 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-27 14:41 EST --- I managed to build this package today. Closing -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 216106] Review Request: python-twisted-words - Twisted Words contains Instant Messaging implementations
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: python-twisted-words - Twisted Words contains Instant Messaging implementations https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=216106 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-27 14:43 EST --- 1-4: all ok on 5: the idea of core is that indeed it upgrades compatibly. So, these python-twisted-* subpackages will work with _any_ version of python-twisted-core? Is that always going to be the case? If I have a python-twisted-core I install now, then down the road if I install say python-twisted-words it will work with the old un-updated core package I have? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 220284] Review Request: bcfg2 - Configuration management client and server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: bcfg2 - Configuration management client and server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220284 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-27 15:05 EST --- Here's the latest Spec/SRPM: Spec URL: http://repo.ocjtech.us/misc/fedora/6/SRPMS/bcfg2-0.8.7.1-5.fc6.spec SRPM URL: http://repo.ocjtech.us/misc/fedora/6/SRPMS/bcfg2-0.8.7.1-5.fc6.src.rpm I know that this has been approved but I want to wait until upstream pushes a new package that will be licenced according to the standard BSD license (which should happedn RSN). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 220766] Review Request: ScientificPython - a collection of Python modules that are useful for scientific computing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ScientificPython - a collection of Python modules that are useful for scientific computing https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220766 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-27 15:08 EST --- (In reply to comment #2) I'll clean up the descriptive tag crap before I submit. shouldn't the sub packages be a dependency of the ScientificPython package ? No, its the other way around. Subpackages depend on the main package. I broke these out as sub-packages specifically because they drag in additional requirements which may or may not be needed and as a result they should be optional. This is a codebase aimed at people writing homebrew scientific simulation code, not an end-user application. I expect everyone using this to have enough grey matter to look for subpackages as needed. I've no desire to delibrately force all subpackages to install dragging in tk and qt and openmpi on every system, systems which be delibrately streamlined for batched scientific computing. You'll notice this sort of thing is already done for python-matplotlib and python-matplotlib-tk so I'm not setting a precendent here. you missed Doc/BSP_Tutorial.pdf in ScientificPython-doc package Crap thats suppose to be in -BSP subpackage, I missed it when I split off BSP. I'm on the fence about the BSP stuff in general because libBSP is not available in Fedora yet. I'm not even sure what the licensing conditions on libBSP are. The only reason I'm including the BSP python modules at all is because ScientificPython includes a virtual BSP utility which allows you to simulate the use of the BSP protocal on a single processor without the need of libBSP. Cute, but I'm not sure how useful packaging that actually is. Since I've no experience with libBSP installs yet I wasn't going to hold up packaging ScientificPython for this optional functionality. I'm primarily interested in the provided netCDF support, and secondarily the mpi support. I probably need to add a README.Fedora to the -bsp subpackage stating that the libBSP support isn't available yet. -jef -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 218232] Review Request: php-pear-Math-Stats - Classes to calculate statistical parameters
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: php-pear-Math-Stats - Classes to calculate statistical parameters Alias: pear-Math-Stats https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218232 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-27 15:13 EST --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ rpmlint /home/jwhiter/redhat/RPMS/noarch/php-pear-Math-Stats-0.9.0-0.1.beta3.noarch.rpm W: php-pear-Math-Stats non-standard-dir-in-usr doc [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ I'm assuming thats ok since you are putting the doc into a php-pear doc directory. Everything else looks good. As this is my first review I'm going to wait on feedback for the rpmlint error before approving this. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 219973] Review Request: powerdns - A modern, advanced and high performance authoritative-only nameserver
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: powerdns - A modern, advanced and high performance
authoritative-only nameserver
Alias: powerdns
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219973
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-27 15:54 EST ---
Thanks for the review Kevin,
1. The upstream tar is 'pdns' and their shipped spec file makes a
'pdns-static'
package. Should this package be called 'pdns' instead of 'powerdns' ?
Changed it to pdns, althought I'm not entirely happy about it. Most users will
try to yum install
powerdns.
2. Doesn't build on x86_64 under mock. Looks like they have a hard coded
check for mysql libs using /usr/lib:
Changed to %{_libdir}/mysql, but I can't test if that works. Can you give it a
try?
3. You should probably have your Requires for the subpackages
also require the release, ie:
Fixed.
4. Why the ldconfig calls in post/postun?
Left them in by accident, now fixed.
New files:
http://rubenkerkhof.com/packages/powerdns/pdns.spec
http://rubenkerkhof.com/packages/powerdns/pdns-2.9.20-2.src.rpm
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 220743] Review Request: postgis - Geographic Information Systems Extensions to PostgreSQL
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: postgis - Geographic Information Systems Extensions to PostgreSQL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220743 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 220743] Review Request: postgis - Geographic Information Systems Extensions to PostgreSQL
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: postgis - Geographic Information Systems Extensions to PostgreSQL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220743 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 218232] Review Request: php-pear-Math-Stats - Classes to calculate statistical parameters
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: php-pear-Math-Stats - Classes to calculate statistical
parameters
Alias: pear-Math-Stats
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218232
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-27 16:20 EST ---
Ok everything looks good, here is my review check list.
review check:
-rpmlint output:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$
rpmlint
/home/jwhiter/redhat/RPMS/noarch/php-pear-Math-Stats-0.9.0-0.1.beta3.noarch.rpm
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$
- package is named according to the php package naming guidelines
- spec file name matches %{name}
- package meets package guidlines
- package is licensed with appropriate open source license
- license feild matches actual license
- license is in %doc
- license file is written in american english
- spec file is legible
- sources match upstream
ffc0b653e5e2985113262a5299ebe69b Math_Stats-0.9.0beta3.tgz
- package successfully compiled on fc6 x86_64 box
- buildrequires makes sense and everything required is present
- no locales
- no shared libraries
- not relocatable
- owns all directories it creates
- no duplicates in %files
- permissions set properly
- contains a %clean section
- uses macros consistently
- contains code
- no large documentation
- files in %doc do not affect runtime
- no header files or static libraries
- no pkgconfig files
- no dynamic libraries provided by package, no need for -devel package
- no .la files
- not a GUI application
- does not own files or directories owned by other packages
sorry about the rpmlint problem before, I hadn't run fedora-buildrpmtree on
the box I was building on.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 189195] Review Request: horde - php application framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: horde - php application framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189195 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-27 16:32 EST --- OK, finally some time. I note that you emit a message in %post; you generally shouldn't do this. (There's a good chance that the packaging committee will add a guideline banning this sort of output soon.) I set up a test machine with a minimal OS install, installed this package and started httpd. Everything works fine, so that's good. Still, I wonder if we couldn't have this package spit out a subpackage that pulls in all of the optional dependencies (save php-mysql and php-pgsql, leaving the admin to choose). This would make it even easier for an admin to get up and running. The stuff in comment 45 might be useful as well, although we should carefully consider whether increasing the limits like that is safe. Perhaps you could include the lines but comment them out and include some useful info, like how high you need to increase the limits to handle attachments of a certain size (assuming it's possible to calculate that). Now, let's deal with the rpmlint output. I'll put any issues worth considering at the front. Only two things I consider blockers: E: horde script-without-shebang /usr/share/horde/lib/Net/IMSP/Auth/imtest.php This could be an issue; this is executable, but it has no shebang line and thus won't do anything useful if executed. Perhaps it shouldn't be executable? W: horde symlink-should-be-relative /usr/share/horde/config /etc/horde This is valid; the symlink should be relative to avoid breaking various odd setups like chroots. W: horde strange-permission registry.php 0640 W: horde mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 143, tab: line 1) These are not a big deal; clean them up if you like. I think checking into CVS will fix the first one, as it's only complaining about the permissions of the file in the SRPM. E: horde htaccess-file /usr/share/horde/lib/.htaccess E: horde htaccess-file /usr/share/horde/locale/.htaccess E: horde htaccess-file /usr/share/horde/po/.htaccess E: horde htaccess-file /usr/share/horde/scripts/.htaccess E: horde htaccess-file /usr/share/horde/templates/.htaccess Yes, indeed, these are htaccess files, and they need to be there. E: horde non-executable-script /usr/share/horde/scripts/temp-cleanup.cron 0644 Not a big deal, although it does open the question of whether we should consider running that. I've never done so on any of my systems. E: horde non-readable /etc/horde/conf.php 0660 E: horde non-readable /etc/horde/conf.php.dist 0640 E: horde non-readable /etc/horde/conf.xml 0660 E: horde non-readable /etc/horde/mime_drivers.php 0660 E: horde non-readable /etc/horde/mime_drivers.php.dist 0640 E: horde non-readable /etc/horde/motd.php 0660 E: horde non-readable /etc/horde/motd.php.dist 0640 E: horde non-readable /etc/horde/nls.php 0660 E: horde non-readable /etc/horde/nls.php.dist 0640 E: horde non-readable /etc/horde/prefs.php 0660 E: horde non-readable /etc/horde/prefs.php.dist 0640 E: horde non-readable /etc/horde/registry.php 0660 E: horde non-readable /etc/horde/registry.php.dist 0640 Yes, and they need to be non-readable. E: horde non-standard-dir-perm /etc/horde 0770 Again, this is necessary. E: horde non-standard-gid /etc/horde apache E: horde non-standard-gid /etc/horde/conf.php apache E: horde non-standard-gid /etc/horde/conf.php.dist apache E: horde non-standard-gid /etc/horde/conf.xml apache E: horde non-standard-gid /etc/horde/mime_drivers.php apache E: horde non-standard-gid /etc/horde/mime_drivers.php.dist apache E: horde non-standard-gid /etc/horde/motd.php apache E: horde non-standard-gid /etc/horde/motd.php.dist apache E: horde non-standard-gid /etc/horde/nls.php apache E: horde non-standard-gid /etc/horde/nls.php.dist apache E: horde non-standard-gid /etc/horde/prefs.php apache E: horde non-standard-gid /etc/horde/prefs.php.dist apache E: horde non-standard-gid /etc/horde/registry.php apache E: horde non-standard-gid /etc/horde/registry.php.dist apache E: horde non-standard-uid /etc/horde apache E: horde non-standard-uid /etc/horde/conf.php apache E: horde non-standard-uid /etc/horde/conf.php.dist apache E: horde non-standard-uid /etc/horde/conf.xml apache E: horde non-standard-uid /etc/horde/mime_drivers.php apache E: horde non-standard-uid /etc/horde/mime_drivers.php.dist apache E: horde non-standard-uid /etc/horde/motd.php apache E: horde non-standard-uid /etc/horde/motd.php.dist apache E: horde non-standard-uid /etc/horde/nls.php apache E: horde non-standard-uid /etc/horde/nls.php.dist apache E: horde non-standard-uid /etc/horde/prefs.php apache E: horde non-standard-uid /etc/horde/prefs.php.dist apache E: horde non-standard-uid /etc/horde/registry.php apache E: horde
[Bug 220743] Review Request: postgis - Geographic Information Systems Extensions to PostgreSQL
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: postgis - Geographic Information Systems Extensions to
PostgreSQL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220743
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779
nThis||
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-27 16:33 EST ---
Must items:
OK - Spec file matches base package name.
OK - Spec has consistant macro usage.
OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines.
OK - License (GPL,LGPL for the jdbc driver)
OK - License field in spec matches
OK - License file included in package
OK - Spec in American English
OK - Spec is legible.
OK - Sources match upstream md5sum:
59b5f89d0a0230b00d80e779bb517520 postgis-1.2.0.tar.gz
59b5f89d0a0230b00d80e779bb517520 postgis-1.2.0.tar.gz.1
OK - BuildRequires correct
OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files are good.
OK - Package has a correct %clean section.
OK - Package has correct buildroot
OK - Package is code or permissible content.
OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime.
OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch.
OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files.
OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own.
OK - Package owns all the directories it creates.
OK - No rpmlint output.
SHOULD Items:
OK - Should build in mock.
OK - Should build on all supported archs
OK - Should have sane scriptlets.
NOT OK - Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned
depend. You need Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
OK - Should have dist tag
OK - Should package latest version
I'll accept the package trusting you'll fix that last item.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 220743] Review Request: postgis - Geographic Information Systems Extensions to PostgreSQL
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: postgis - Geographic Information Systems Extensions to PostgreSQL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220743 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 197754] Review Request: perl-Perl6-Bible
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-Perl6-Bible https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197754 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-27 16:58 EST --- I almost forgot about it too. * source files match upstream: b0cbdf1397f1a16ad6e34a39bbb12382 Perl6-Bible-0.30.tar.gz * package meets naming and packaging guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * dist tag is present. * build root is correct. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. License text not included upstream, but appropriate clarification is included in the package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper (none needed) * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * package installs properly * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: perl(Perl6::Bible) perl-Perl6-Bible = 0.30-2.fc7 = /usr/bin/perl perl = 0:5.000 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.8) perl(File::Spec) perl(Perl6::Bible) perl(strict) perl(warnings) * %check is present and all tests pass: All tests successful. Files=2, Tests=2, 0 wallclock secs ( 0.03 cusr + 0.03 csys = 0.06 CPU) * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no scriptlets present. * This is mostly content, not code, but it is permissible content (package documentation) * This is pretty much all documentation; a -docs subpackage would be kind of dumb. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. (Most of the content is not marked %doc, as then the package would indeed be useless.) APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 198839] Review Request: sear - WorldForge client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: sear - WorldForge client Alias: sear https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198839 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-27 17:00 EST --- So this has been sitting for a couple of months now; has there been any progress? The blocking SDL bug has been fixed for about a month. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 199029] Review Request: jokosher
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: jokosher https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199029 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-27 17:01 EST --- Was there an update for gstreamer to fix this? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 220393] Review Request: Synopsis - Source-code Introspection Tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Synopsis - Source-code Introspection Tool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220393 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-27 17:01 EST --- I did write the spec file myself, and validated the generated packages with rpmlint. (In fact, I started by using python's own rpm packaging tools, i.e. distutils / build_rpm, and then applied manual modifications to customize the generated spec file to obtain the desired sub-packages as required by the project structure.) I would appreciate if you could provide some detail as to what aspects of the packaging guidelines the existing spec file violates. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193059] Review Request: ibmasm
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ibmasm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193059 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEEDINFO Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED] ||) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 206877] Review Request: bzr-gtk - Bazaar plugin for GTK+ interfaces to most Bazaar operations
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: bzr-gtk - Bazaar plugin for GTK+ interfaces to most Bazaar operations https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=206877 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEEDINFO Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED] ||) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 189195] Review Request: horde - php application framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: horde - php application framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189195 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-27 17:38 EST --- Spec URL: http://theholbrooks.org/RPMS/horde.spec SRPM URL: http://theholbrooks.org/RPMS/horde-3.1.3-10.src.rpm * Wed Dec 27 2006 Brandon Holbrook fedora at theholbrooks.org 3.1.3-10 - Remove execute permission from all php scripts under horde/lib/ - Make /usr/share/horde/config/ symlink relative - Don't echo anything in %%post Thanks, Jason. I've addressed your blockers in this next RPM. All the php files under horde/lib/ are just class definitions and aren't supposed to be executed. upstream must have let that slip by. I put a find section in prep to clear these bits. I also made the config symlink relative. WRT output in %post, I've been keeping my eye on the thread in the list with interest, knowing that I output in this package. The only issue I have is that this (and some of my other) packages don't work out of the box, but first require per-site configuration. Coupled with this is the fact that /usr/share/doc is almost unheard of outside of our die-hard linux users circle, and even less so that some packages create a README.Fedora file targeted specifically at users for post-install instructions. We need to find a way to better educate our userbase about /usr/share/doc and README.Fedora files. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 219071] Review Request: pyfribidi - A Python binding for GNU FriBidi
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pyfribidi - A Python binding for GNU FriBidi https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219071 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-27 17:42 EST --- this is not a propper review i will not branch until it has a full review -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 220210] Review Request: krename - Powerful batch file renamer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: krename - Powerful batch file renamer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220210 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-27 17:47 EST --- This package has not had a proper review, and wont be branched until it has. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 219962] Review Request: crystal-clear - Crystal Clear KDE Icon set
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: crystal-clear - Crystal Clear KDE Icon set https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219962 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 218226] Review Request: php-pear-Structures-DataGrid-DataSource-MDB2 - DataSource driver using PEAR::MDB2 and an SQL query
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: php-pear-Structures-DataGrid-DataSource-MDB2 - DataSource driver using PEAR::MDB2 and an SQL query Alias: pear-DG-MDB2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218226 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-27 18:43 EST --- - srpm checked into cvs - entry added to owners.list - built for devel - branch requested for fc5/6 Thanks for the review! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 218217] Review Request: telepathy-stream-engine - Telepathy client to handle media streaming
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: telepathy-stream-engine - Telepathy client to handle media streaming https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218217 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-27 19:31 EST --- Jef, thanks for the review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 207839] Review Request: lush - An object-oriented Lisp interpreter and compiler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: lush - An object-oriented Lisp interpreter and compiler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207839 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-27 20:31 EST --- My sincere apologies; I seem to have completely forgotten about this one. The compiler flags certainly look correct now. The debuginfo package looks better as a result. Only the acceptable (since this is a compiler) devel-file-in-non-devel-package rpmlint complaints remain. Those were the only problems I was, and they're all fixed. APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 189195] Review Request: horde - php application framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: horde - php application framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189195 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-27 20:50 EST --- OK, the issues I had are fixed; the symlink is relative, the errant executable permissions are fixed and %post is slient. I agree with you that we need a better way of notifying administrators about things like additional necessary configuration work, but I doubt my suggestion for a simple script to notify the admin in a configurable fashion will get much traction and I doubt anyone would actually see anything sent to syslog. One think you might do is mention README.fedora in your %description. I did ask around about the feasibility of having a subpackage which pulls in the optional dependency and the concensus seems to be that it's not a bad idea. It would be trivial to add and would save the admin some typing. In any case, though, this review is finally done. APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 220707] Review Request: linuxwacom-0.7.6_3-3.1.i386.rpm - with wacomcpl tool, man page
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: linuxwacom-0.7.6_3-3.1.i386.rpm - with wacomcpl tool, man page https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220707 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163776 | nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196837] Review Request: php-pear-PHPUnit3 - PEAR: Regression testing framework for unit tests
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: php-pear-PHPUnit3 - PEAR: Regression testing framework for unit tests Alias: pear-PHPUnit3 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196837 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-27 20:57 EST --- Any movement here? It would be nice to get this closed out once and for all. I'm hapy to review this even if it doesn't end up replacing the older versionf of PHPUnit. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 199029] Review Request: jokosher
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: jokosher https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199029 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-27 22:16 EST --- gstreamer-plugins-good 0.10.5 was released a few days ago but it hasn't made it into Fedora yet... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 219973] Review Request: powerdns - A modern, advanced and high performance authoritative-only nameserver
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: powerdns - A modern, advanced and high performance
authoritative-only nameserver
Alias: powerdns
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219973
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-27 22:22 EST ---
On the name, I don't think it's a blocker either way, but since the upstream
source calls it pdns, I think thats the better choice. If a lot of people know
it by 'powerdns' perhaps you could add a:
Provides: powerdns = %{name}-%{version}
That way if someone does a 'yum install powerdns' it would install the pdns
package, and if someone brings in a package called powerdns, you could just make
sure it is a newer version than pdns...
3 and 4 look to be fixed.
2 seems to still be broken. You will need to patch the configure or the like...
:(
checking whether we will be doing verbose logging... no
checking whether we should build static binaries...
checking whether we will be building the server... yes
checking whether we will be building the recursor... no
checking for MySQL library directory... configure: error: Didn't find the mysql
library dir in '/usr/local/mysql/lib/mysql /usr/local/lib/mysql
/opt/mysql/lib/mysql /usr/lib/mysql /usr/local/mysql/lib /usr/local/lib
/opt/mysql/lib /usr/lib'
error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.2512 (%build)
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 220284] Review Request: bcfg2 - Configuration management client and server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: bcfg2 - Configuration management client and server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220284 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-27 22:43 EST --- Spec URL: http://repo.ocjtech.us/misc/fedora/6/SRPMS/bcfg2-0.8.7.3-1.fc6.spec SRPM URL: http://repo.ocjtech.us/misc/fedora/6/SRPMS/bcfg2-0.8.7.3-1.fc6.src.rpm This is the new version of the package with the updated license... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 220860] New: Review Request: galternatives - Alternatives Configurator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220860 Summary: Review Request: galternatives - Alternatives Configurator Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: ftp://czar.eas.yorku.ca/pub/galternatives/galternatives.spec SRPM URL: ftp://czar.eas.yorku.ca/pub/galternatives/galternatives-0.13.4-1.src.rpm Description: Graphical setup tool for the alternatives system. A GUI to help the system administrator to choose what program should provide a given service. Builds fine in (rawhide) mock. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 220862] New: Review Request: php-channel-phpunit - Add phpunit channel to pear
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220862 Summary: Review Request: php-channel-phpunit - Add phpunit channel to pear Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: http://tkmame.retrogames.com/fedora-extras/php-channel-phpunit.spec SRPM URL: http://tkmame.retrogames.com/fedora-extras/php-channel-phpunit-1.0-1.src.rpm Description: This package adds the phpunit channel which allows PEAR packages from this channel to be installed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196837] Review Request: php-pear-PHPUnit3 - PEAR: Regression testing framework for unit tests
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: php-pear-PHPUnit3 - PEAR: Regression testing framework for unit tests Alias: pear-PHPUnit3 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196837 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn||220862 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196837] Review Request: php-pear-PHPUnit3 - PEAR: Regression testing framework for unit tests
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: php-pear-PHPUnit3 - PEAR: Regression testing framework for unit tests Alias: pear-PHPUnit3 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196837 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-27 23:35 EST --- SPEC: http://tkmame.retrogames.com/fedora-extras/php-pear-PHPUnit.spec SRPM: http://tkmame.retrogames.com/fedora-extras/php-pear-PHPUnit-3.0.0-1.src.rpm New SRPM updating to 3.0.0 final. Incorporates Remi's suggestion of adding a channel package. For some really strange reason, if you have php-pear-PHPUnit2 installed, and rpm -Uvh this package, it will remove all the files that are in common between the two packages. I do not understand why, either I am doing something wrong or there is a bug in rpm. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 189195] Review Request: horde - php application framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: horde - php application framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189195 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-28 00:03 EST --- * I went ahead and created a horde-enhanced subpackage as 3.1.3-11 before I imported it that pulls in all the suggested packages * devel build succeeded (logs at http://buildsys.fedoraproject.org/logs/fedora-development-extras/24665-horde-3.1.3-11.fc7/) * FC-6 branch requested -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 220796] Review Request: turba - horde contact manager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: turba - horde contact manager https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220796 Bug 220796 depends on bug 189195, which changed state. Bug 189195 Summary: Review Request: horde - php application framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189195 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 220577] Review Request: imp - webmail
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: imp - webmail https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220577 Bug 220577 depends on bug 189195, which changed state. Bug 189195 Summary: Review Request: horde - php application framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189195 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 220683] Review Request: rubygems - the Ruby standard for packaging ruby libraries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: rubygems - the Ruby standard for packaging ruby
libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220683
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED]
OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778
nThis||
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-28 00:13 EST ---
OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines
OK - Spec file matches base package name.
see below - Spec has consistant macro usage.
OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines.
See below - License
See below - License field in spec matches
See below - License file included in package
OK - Spec in American English
OK - Spec is legible.
OK - Sources match upstream md5sum:
5d496e1f415b8b4033ab867f01d1161f rubygems-0.9.0.tgz
5d496e1f415b8b4033ab867f01d1161f rubygems-0.9.0.tgz.1
OK - BuildRequires correct
See below - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good.
OK - Package has a correct %clean section.
OK - Package has correct buildroot
OK - Package is code or permissible content.
OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime.
OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch.
OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files.
OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own.
OK - Package owns all the directories it creates.
OK - No rpmlint output.
OK - final provides and requires are sane:
SHOULD Items:
OK - Should build in mock.
OK - Should build on all supported archs
OK - Should have dist tag
OK - Should package latest version
Issues:
1. You seem to be mixing
%{buildroot}
and
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT
best to pick one macro style and stick with it.
2. What is the license here?
The web page says: License: Ruby License
Your spec says GPL
The source files all say: # See LICENSE.txt for permissions.
There is no included LICENSE.txt file.
3. Might change
%defattr(-, root, root)
to
%defattr(-, root, root,-)
4. The i386 and x86_64 packages are different, which if this should really be
noarch. I see in them:
/usr/lib/ruby/gems/
/usr/lib64/ruby/gems/
5. Do you need the 'ruby' BuildRequires since you have ruby-devel?
That should pull that in I would think...
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 220730] Review Request:gpodder - Podcast receiver/catcher written in Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request:gpodder - Podcast receiver/catcher written in Python https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220730 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-28 01:48 EST --- Built in the development tree awaiting signing. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 220775] Review Request: Exaile! - A music player
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Exaile! - A music player https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220775 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-28 02:39 EST --- Same mock build errors i got. Then i removed patch and it worked well in mock build -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 220775] Review Request: Exaile! - A music player
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Exaile! - A music player https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220775 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-28 02:48 EST --- Also add license.txt to %doc then will do final review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
