[Bug 443588] Review Request: fig2sxd - fig to sxd converter
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: fig2sxd - fig to sxd converter https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=443588 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-05-10 02:20 EST --- Ping? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227191] Review Request: php-pear-Services-Yadis - PHP Yadis
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-Services-Yadis - PHP Yadis
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=227191
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-05-10 09:06 EST ---
I made some little changes since Services_Yadis-1.0.2.tgz tarball was rebuilt
and moved to new destination. Now it can be downloaded from the following:
http://openidenabled.com/files/php-openid/files/PHP-yadis-1.0.2.tar.gz
Another two minor changes was to rename BuildRoot and to add empty
%build-section.
There are slightly modified files:
http://peter.fedorapeople.org/php-pear-Services-Yadis.spec
http://peter.fedorapeople.org/php-pear-Services-Yadis-1.0.2-2.fc9.src.rpm
REVIEW:
- rpmlint is not silent. It complains to wring license, LGPL. We should add
actual license (LGPLv1, LGPLv2+ or something else). BTW I found mentions of
non-existent COPYING file in sources. Maybe we should provide it? Another
confusing thing is that there is MPL-1.1.txt file among %docs.
+ The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
+ The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption on Package Naming Guidelines.
+ The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
+ The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines.
+ The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
+ The spec file must be written in American English.
+ The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
+ The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
+ The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least
one supported architecture.
+/- All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires. I think we also need
to Require those packages that provide %dir %{pear_phpdir}/Auth/Services if any.
- A package must own all directories that it creates. I think we must include
the following line in the %files section:
%dir %{pear_phpdir}/Auth/Services/Yadis
+ A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
+ Permissions on files must be set properly.
+ Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}
(or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros section
of Packaging Guidelines.
+ The package must contain code, or permissable content. This is described in
detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines.
+ If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the
application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it
is not present.
+ At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
Summarizing things:
* we should fix license field in spec-file and add proper COPYING file into
%docs
* we should own only our directory and add Requires for those packages that own
upper directories
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 227190] Review Request: php-pear-Auth-OpenID - PHP OpenID
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-Auth-OpenID - PHP OpenID https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=227190 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-review? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-05-10 09:11 EST --- Looks like Brandon is too busy to review this request so I reassign it to myself. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 439141] Review Request: python-demjson - Python JSON module and lint checker
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-demjson - Python JSON module and lint checker https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439141 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-05-10 09:50 EST --- python-demjson-1.3-2.fc7.1 has been pushed to the Fedora 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 439141] Review Request: python-demjson - Python JSON module and lint checker
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-demjson - Python JSON module and lint checker https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439141 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-05-10 09:53 EST --- python-demjson-1.3-2.fc8.1 has been pushed to the Fedora 8 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 427722] Review Request: xsettings-kde - XSettings Daemon for KDE
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: xsettings-kde - XSettings Daemon for KDE https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427722 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||CURRENTRELEASE Fixed In Version||0.6-3.fc8 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 439141] Review Request: python-demjson - Python JSON module and lint checker
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-demjson - Python JSON module and lint checker https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439141 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|CLOSED |CLOSED Resolution|NEXTRELEASE |CURRENTRELEASE Fixed In Version||1.3-2.fc7.1 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 443195] Review Request: pAgenda -A cross platform calendar and scheduler
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: pAgenda -A cross platform calendar and scheduler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=443195 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-05-10 09:55 EST --- pAgenda-3.2-2.fc8 has been pushed to the Fedora 8 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 442473] Review Request: parcellite - A lightweight GTK+ clipboard 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: parcellite - A lightweight GTK+ clipboard manager https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=442473 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|ON_QA --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-05-10 09:51 EST --- parcellite-0.7-2.fc8 has been pushed to the Fedora 8 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update parcellite'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F8/FEDORA-2008-3552 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 427722] Review Request: xsettings-kde - XSettings Daemon for KDE
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: xsettings-kde - XSettings Daemon for KDE https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427722 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-05-10 09:53 EST --- xsettings-kde-0.6-3.fc7 has been pushed to the Fedora 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 427722] Review Request: xsettings-kde - XSettings Daemon for KDE
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: xsettings-kde - XSettings Daemon for KDE https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427722 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-05-10 09:52 EST --- xsettings-kde-0.6-3.fc8 has been pushed to the Fedora 8 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 445279] Review Request: brettfont-fonts - A handwriting font
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: brettfont-fonts - A handwriting font https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=445279 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|ON_QA --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-05-10 09:55 EST --- brettfont-fonts-20080506-1.fc8 has been pushed to the Fedora 8 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update brettfont-fonts'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F8/FEDORA-2008-3468 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 445970] New: Review Request: g2ipmsg2 - IP Messenger for GNOME 2
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/show_bug.cgi?id=445970 Summary: Review Request: g2ipmsg2 - IP Messenger for GNOME 2 Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: fedora-package-review@redhat.com,[EMAIL PROTECTED] Spec URL: http://linuxfire.com.cn/~hellwolf/software/g2ipmsg/g2ipmsg.spec SRPM URL: http://linuxfire.com.cn/~hellwolf/software/g2ipmsg/g2ipmsg-0.9.6-0.1.src.rpm Description: This package contains IP Messenger for the GNOME2 desktop environment. IP Messenger is a pop up style message communication software for multi platforms. It is based on TCP/IP(UDP). Win, Win16, Mac/MacOSX, X11R6/GTK/GNOME, Java, Div version and all source is open to public. You can get in the following URL. http://www.ipmsg.org/index.html.en -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227190] Review Request: php-pear-Auth-OpenID - PHP OpenID
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-Auth-OpenID - PHP OpenID
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=227190
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-05-10 15:37 EST ---
ОK, some remarks first.
* According to PearSpecTemplate buildroot must be
BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
In any case this is cosmetic issue and may be omitted. I wonder why we still
need to explicitly define
BuildRoot?
* According to PearSpecTemplate Requires(post) and Requires(postun) must be
Requires(post): %{__pear}
Requires(postun): %{__pear}
I personally don't know whether this is an issue at all or just a cosmetic
* to make rpmlint happy we need some CRLF-conversions, so we must add
BuildRequires: dos2unix and
add to %prep
dos2unix doc/media/*.css
in %files section we must add directories it owns and not only %{pear_phpdir}/*
but %{pear_phpdir}/data/Auth_OpenID
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 436677] Review Request: xxdiff
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: xxdiff https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=436677 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-05-10 16:01 EST --- (In reply to comment #16) I think the CFLAGS are correctly set now (with the help of some sed commands) Seems to work. If upstream is still active, it would be good to ask them to support passing additional compilation flags. See also http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/PatchUpstreamStatus, which meanwhile got accepted, if I understand correctly. Removed python from xxdiff requires (my bad was on the list of things to fix). Ok. Please also remove Requires: python from the -tools subpackage; rpm will bring in python(abi) and /usr/bin/python requirements automagically (tested). Furthermore, as fc7, f8 and f9 all have qt = 3.3, you can drop the qt = 3.2 requirement. rpm automatically adds libqt-mt.so.3 as a requirement. The python_sitelib stuff was driving me crazy, it was always coming up as /usr/lib/etc even on the 64 bit platform. But this is intentional, and exactly the difference between %python_sitearch and %python_sitelib. As xxdiff-tools only contains architecture-independent scripts (no compiled stuff), %python_sitelib (i.e. /usr/lib) is just fine, please use that. See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Python#head-875cc97c2232a5b3ceda75ea41eed525da7d3929 . There's another thing I totally forgot, and which I should have mentioned earlier (sorry about that): we need a .desktop file as xxdiff is an application with a gui. It's not that complicated, see #426611#c4 for an example. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 445018] Review Request: python-beaker - WSGI middleware for sessions
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-beaker - WSGI middleware for sessions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=445018
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-05-10 17:03 EST ---
There are some problems with your submission:
First of all please update the package to 0.9.4 as 0.9.3 contains a remotely
exploitable bug (allows overwriting arbitrary files, manipulating the
application's session and last but not least remote code execution, see
http://groups.google.com/group/turbogears/browse_thread/thread/0f1079fb982c549b
for more details).
Furthermore there are some problems with your spec file:
$ rpmlint python-beaker-0.9.3-1.fc8.src.rpm
python-beaker.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot WSGI middleware layer to provide
sessions.
Please fix this (and assure that rpmlint does not complain about other things).
Manual inspection of the spec file revealed another issue:
Source0: http://pypi.python.org/packages/source/B/Beaker-%{version}.tar.gz;
This URL is not valid,
http://pypi.python.org/packages/source/B/Beaker-0.9.3.tar.gz does not exist.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 445021] Review Request: python-routes - A RoR-like routes library for 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-routes - A RoR-like routes library for python https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=445021 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-05-10 17:21 EST --- rpmlint says: $ rpmlint python-decorator-2.2.0-1.fc8.src.rpm python-decorator.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot Simplified decorators for Python. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 254008] Review Request: objectweb-asm - Version 3.0 of the ObjectWeb ASM
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: objectweb-asm - Version 3.0 of the ObjectWeb ASM https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=254008 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-05-10 17:22 EST --- If not I can co-maintain. I don't expect it to be difficult to get working on F-8. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 445019] Review Request: python-decorator - Simplified decorator functions for 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-decorator - Simplified decorator functions for python https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=445019 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-05-10 17:24 EST --- rpmlint warning: $ rpmlint python-decorator-2.2.0-1.fc8.src.rpm python-decorator.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot Simplified decorators for Python. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 445020] Review Request: python-mako - The Mako template system
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-mako - The Mako template system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=445020 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-05-10 17:24 EST --- $ rpmlint python-mako-0.1.10-1.fc8.src.rpm python-mako.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot Mako template library for Python. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 445024] Review Request: python-webhelpers - Helper routines for writing web applications
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-webhelpers - Helper routines for writing web applications https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=445024 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-05-10 17:23 EST --- $ rpmlint python-mako-0.1.10-1.fc8.src.rpm python-mako.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot Mako template library for Python. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 438804] Review Request: php-pear-Auth - provides methods for creating an authentication system using PHP
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-Auth - provides methods for creating an authentication system using PHP https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=438804 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-05-10 17:28 EST --- I wanted to go ahead and add requirements for all functionality of Auth so that it just works. For example, does Auth even work if there is not a DB package installed? Some requirements like Log we should add too because it adds a lot of extra functionality without bringing in too many extra packages. If we added Auth_Radius however, this might bring in too many extra packages and not benefit most users. So my thought was to split out the radius component into a separate package, which would require Auth_Radius which requires radius. I'm not sure if this is the best approach however, it might just be easier to assume someone using radius and Auth will also have Auth_Radius installed. Again, please let me know if you can communicate via IRC as this will make discussion *much* easier (see comment #4). Thanks. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 445977] New: Review Request: ikiwiki - A wiki compiler
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/show_bug.cgi?id=445977 Summary: Review Request: ikiwiki - A wiki compiler Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: fedora-package-review@redhat.com,[EMAIL PROTECTED] Spec URL: http://thm.fedorapeople.org/ikiwiki.spec SRPM URL: http://thm.fedorapeople.org/ikiwiki-2.45-1.fc9.src.rpm Description: Ikiwiki is a wiki compiler. It converts wiki pages into HTML pages suitable for publishing on a website. Ikiwiki stores pages and history in a revision control system such as Subversion or Git. There are many other features, including support for blogging, as well as a large array of plugins. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 428228] Review Request: OpenEXR_Viewers - Viewers programs for OpenEXR
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: OpenEXR_Viewers - Viewers programs for OpenEXR https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=428228 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 188542] Review Request: hylafax
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: hylafax https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=188542 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||182235 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-05-10 18:02 EST --- Note to FE-Legal folks, this package needs attention for two reasons and perhaps a third as well. Please search for FE-Legal below. Now, to the review. Was the hylafax/hylafax+ issue ever resolved? Do we need FE-Legal to be involved in that? Can you explain why the tarball in the src.rpm does not match the tarball fetched from the Source0: URL? There seem to be rather significant source differences. This kind of thing is not permissible; the sources in the src.rpm must be identical to the upstream sources except in specific limited cases where we must remove something. I note that the tarball in the src.rpm seems to be three days newer than the one upstream. I don't believe we should package /etc/hylafax/faxcover_example_sgi.ps. It contains the old SGI name and logo and I'm pretty certain we shouldn't be sticking it in /etc whenever someone installs this software. I'm not even sure we have the legal right to distribute it, which is reason one for blocking FE-Legal. It doesn't particularly bother me, but the guidelines to specify that you not use a specific sourceforge mirror for the source URL. See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL (although personally I find I often have to add one just to get things to download, since sourceforge is so incredibly unreliable). I recommend not using the name of the package in the summary, as it tends to look rather redundant in listings. Still, there is a change of case so I won't block the package if you think it really needs to be there. I'm going to have to get expert assistance with the License: tag; the license given in the COPYRIGHT file is actually identical to the libtiff license, which gets its own libtiff license tag, but the regex code is clearly the bad BSD+Advertising clause which is GPL-incompatible and thus causes issues. Reason two that I'm blocking FE-Legal for guidance. Your changelog entries are not in one of the acceptable formats. These are parsed automatically, so please follow the formats given in the Changelogs section of http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines and please also include a comment every time you change the release. You need a dependency on the crontabs package if you want to put things in /etc/cron.daily. You call ldconfig in your scriptlets, but you don't have any dependencies on it. When you use the single-line scriptlets (%post -p /sbin/ldconfig) then you don't need them, but when you use multiline scriptlets you have to specify the dependencies manually. Finally, I have significant issues with the amount of stuff this package puts under /var/spool. I don't believe any of the files belong there at all. Executables, certainly not. Unless you can illustrate how the FHS allows such things, I cannot approve this package. The modem config files need to be under /etc; the executables probably belong under /usr/libexec if they're not supposed to be run by the end user. Checklist: X source files do not match upstream. * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. ? summary includes the name of the package. * description is OK. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. X license field matches the actual license. ? license is open source-compatible. * license text included in package. X changelogs not correctly formatted. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly. * debuginfo package looks complete. * rpmlint has acceptable complaints. X final provides and requires: config(hylafax) = 5.2.4-3.fc9 libfaxserver.so.5.2.4()(64bit) libfaxutil.so.5.2.4()(64bit) hylafax = 5.2.4-3.fc9 = /bin/sh /sbin/chkconfig /sbin/service config(hylafax) = 5.2.4-3.fc9 gawk ghostscript libfaxserver.so.5.2.4()(64bit) libfaxutil.so.5.2.4()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) liblber-2.4.so.2()(64bit) libldap-2.4.so.2()(64bit) libpam.so.0()(64bit) libpam.so.0(LIBPAM_1.0)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4)(64bit) libtiff.so.3()(64bit) libutil.so.1()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) mailx sharutils X (missing crontabs for /etc/cron.*) X (missing
[Bug 187318] Review Request: mondo
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: mondo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=187318 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-05-10 18:24 EST --- This builds but fails to install for me: /usr/bin/yum --installroot /mock/fedora-development-x86_64/root/ install /mock/fedora-development-x86_64/result/mondo-2.2.6-1.fc8.x86_64.rpm /mock/fedora-development-x86_64/result/mondo-debuginfo-2.2.6-1.fc8.x86_64.rpm Error: Missing Dependency: mindi = 1.2.1 is needed by package mondo Error: Missing Dependency: afio is needed by package mondo Error: Missing Dependency: buffer is needed by package mondo I guess the mindi review is stalled out. I don't see any review tickets for afio or buffer, though; what are they? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 239164] Review Request: perl-Net-SinFP - Full operating system stack fingerprinting suite
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-Net-SinFP - Full operating system stack fingerprinting suite Alias: perl-Net-SinFP https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=239164 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |NEEDINFO Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED] ||ject.org) --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-05-10 18:48 EST --- Looks like there's not been any progress. Setting NEEDINFO; I'll close this soon if nothing happens. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 248431] Review Request: perl-Net-FTPServer - Secure, extensible and configurable Perl FTP 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: perl-Net-FTPServer - Secure, extensible and
configurable Perl FTP server
Alias: perl-Net-FTPServer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=248431
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-05-10 18:47 EST ---
I'm not taking this review so as to not steal it from Richard if he wants it,
but here's a completed review checklist and some comments.
Seems to me the license should be GPLv2+. The copyright notices are there in
the code and documentation and have the usual either version 2 of the License,
or (at your option) any later version language.
I don't have a problem with not including the actual server executables, or
with splitting them out, but if the package doesn't actually install a server,
shouldn't the Summary: and %description be adjusted?
Some weird stuff appears when running the tests:
error: Tried to add member with zero or undef value for time
at /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.10.0/Archive/Zip/Member.pm line 487
Archive::Zip::Member::_unixToDosTime(0) called at
/usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.10.0/Archive/Zip/Member.pm line 180
Archive::Zip::Member::setLastModFileDateTimeFromUnix('Net::FTPServer::ZipMember=HASH(0x145a8d0)',
0) called at /builddir/build/BUI
LD/Net-FTPServer-1.122/blib/lib/Net/FTPServer.pm line 8121
Net::FTPServer::ZipMember::_newFromFileHandle('Net::FTPServer::ZipMember',
'Net::FTPServer::InMem::FileHandle=HASH(0x14590e0)') ca
lled at /builddir/build/BUILD/Net-FTPServer-1.122/blib/lib/Net/FTPServer.pm
line 4219
Net::FTPServer::__ANON__() called at
/builddir/build/BUILD/Net-FTPServer-1.122/blib/lib/Net/FTPServer.pm line 4341
Net::FTPServer::visit('Net::FTPServer::InMem::Server=HASH(0xb0f418)',
'Net::FTPServer::InMem::DirHandle=HASH(0x1450ef8)', 'HASH(0x
1450e80)') called at
/builddir/build/BUILD/Net-FTPServer-1.122/blib/lib/Net/FTPServer.pm line 4334
Net::FTPServer::visit('Net::FTPServer::InMem::Server=HASH(0xb0f418)',
'Net::FTPServer::InMem::DirHandle=HASH(0x13ffae8)', 'HASH(0x
1450e80)') called at
/builddir/build/BUILD/Net-FTPServer-1.122/blib/lib/Net/FTPServer.pm line 4243
Net::FTPServer::_archive_generator_zip('Net::FTPServer::InMem::Server=HASH(0xb0f418)',
'Net::FTPServer::InMem::DirHandle=HASH(0x13
ffae8)') called at
/builddir/build/BUILD/Net-FTPServer-1.122/blib/lib/Net/FTPServer.pm line 5362
Net::FTPServer::_RETR_command('Net::FTPServer::InMem::Server=HASH(0xb0f418)',
'RETR', 'dir.zip') called at /builddir/build/BUILD/N
et-FTPServer-1.122/blib/lib/Net/FTPServer.pm line 3002
Net::FTPServer::run('Net::FTPServer::InMem::Server', 'ARRAY(0x6239f8)')
called at t/350generatorzip.t line 41
This error repeats several times. Nevertheless, the tests pass.
* source files match upstream:
d7a5257c982edaa83b2cd5c1cbb3190a27b8f9996b382cbaa69d2c5d6171d75c
Net-FTPServer-1.122.tar.gz
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is OK.
X license field does not match the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* license text included in package.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64).
* package installs properly.
* rpmlint is silent.
* final provides and requires are sane:
perl(Net::FTPServer) = 1.122
perl(Net::FTPServer::DBeg1::DirHandle)
perl(Net::FTPServer::DBeg1::FileHandle)
perl(Net::FTPServer::DBeg1::IOBlob)
perl(Net::FTPServer::DBeg1::Server)
perl(Net::FTPServer::DirHandle)
perl(Net::FTPServer::FileHandle)
perl(Net::FTPServer::Full::DirHandle)
perl(Net::FTPServer::Full::FileHandle)
perl(Net::FTPServer::Full::Server)
perl(Net::FTPServer::Handle)
perl(Net::FTPServer::InMem::DirHandle)
perl(Net::FTPServer::InMem::FileHandle)
perl(Net::FTPServer::InMem::Server)
perl(Net::FTPServer::Proxy::DirHandle)
perl(Net::FTPServer::Proxy::FileHandle)
perl(Net::FTPServer::Proxy::Server)
perl(Net::FTPServer::RO::DirHandle)
perl(Net::FTPServer::RO::FileHandle)
perl(Net::FTPServer::RO::Server)
perl(Net::FTPServer::ZipMember)
perl-Net-FTPServer = 1.122-3.fc9
=
perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.10.0)
perl(Authen::PAM)
perl(BSD::Resource)
perl(Carp)
perl(Carp::Heavy)
perl(Config)
perl(DBI)
perl(Errno)
perl(Fcntl)
perl(File::Sync)
perl(File::Temp)
perl(FileHandle)
perl(Getopt::Long)
perl(IO::Dir)
perl(IO::File)
perl(IO::Scalar)
perl(IO::Scalar) = 1.126
perl(IO::Seekable)
[Bug 445067] Review Request: ocaml-ounit - Unit test framework for OCaml
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: ocaml-ounit - Unit test framework for OCaml https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=445067 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 445980] New: Review Request: odpdom - Oversized Document Parser
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/show_bug.cgi?id=445980 Summary: Review Request: odpdom - Oversized Document Parser Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: fedora-package-review@redhat.com,[EMAIL PROTECTED] Spec URL: http://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/odpdom.spec SRPM URL: http://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/odpdom-0.2.1-1.src.rpm Description: ODPdom is a simple non-validating DOM (Document Object Model) parser written in C++, that can handle relatively large XML files with the size in order of several 10 MB (pro file). Currently it is used to process large output files (~100MB) from scientific simulations (http://cms.mpi.univie.ac.at/vasp/Welcome.html). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 445067] Review Request: ocaml-ounit - Unit test framework for OCaml
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: ocaml-ounit - Unit test framework for OCaml https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=445067 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-05-10 19:50 EST --- I think the license text is almost exactly that of the Modern Style with sublicense example from http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/MIT. I don't think it's BSD. Any reason you don't run the included tests? A simple make test in a %check section seems to work OK. * source files match upstream: 3ab40dfe4202aa83fa0309d1265b30e1acd633fec1ad728e5b463dde07737e13 ounit-1.0.2.tar.gz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. X license field does not match the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text included in package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly. * rpmlint has acceptable complaints. * final provides and requires are sane: ocaml-ounit-1.0.2-1.fc9.x86_64.rpm ocaml(OUnit) = 06781756bb7be2785cf39ab7edd5c92b ocaml-ounit = 1.0.2-1.fc9 = ocaml(Arg) = 03e86a4154064ea900dc32c05f53e364 ocaml(Array) = aa8e3cd5824f9bb40b93fcd38d0c95b5 ocaml(Buffer) = f6cef633ea14963b84b79c4095c63dc3 ocaml(Format) = 35fe566f7a37d8991a5c822bd1463949 ocaml(List) = da1ce9168f0408ff26158af757456948 ocaml(Pervasives) = 8ba3d1faa24d659525c9025f41fd0c57 ocaml(Printexc) = 82717999a586ede6925c0aa18d6562ac ocaml(Sys) = 0da495f5a80f31899139359805318f28 ocaml(Unix) = 9a46a8db115947409e54686ada118599 ocaml(runtime) = 3.10.1 ocaml-ounit-devel-1.0.2-1.fc9.x86_64.rpm ocaml-ounit-devel = 1.0.2-1.fc9 = ocaml-ounit = 1.0.2-1.fc9 X %check is not present, but a functional test suite exists. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files (except for the LICENSE file) * file permissions are appropriate. * no scriptlets present. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * .cma, .cmi, .so, .so.owner, META files in the main package. * .a, .cmxa, .cmx and .mli files are in the -devel subpackage. * .cmo, .o and .ml files not included -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 445070] Review Request: ocaml-res - OCaml library for resizing arrays and strings
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: ocaml-res - OCaml library for resizing arrays and strings https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=445070 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 445070] Review Request: ocaml-res - OCaml library for resizing arrays and strings
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: ocaml-res - OCaml library for resizing arrays and strings https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=445070 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-05-10 20:32 EST --- Everything looks good to me. * source files match upstream: 66baf7fad87e0d57ce1f26aebcfa28dbcfabfb398e359541f8c0335122df0ac6 res-2.2.5.tar.bz2 * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text included in package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly. * rpmlint has acceptable complaints. * final provides and requires are sane: ocaml-res-2.2.5-1.fc9.x86_64.rpm ocaml(Nopres_impl) = 2697c3dca5a9a4131c2f7dc5bca6e6b2 ocaml(Nopres_intf) = f2cba38fded498038fd106aabbc371be ocaml(Pres_impl) = d05f1f1cf02dfc1bfe56cf355d5018f9 ocaml(Pres_intf) = 5060ab1bb64fee94343c4690c8789ce5 ocaml(Res) = d769dae087931ccbbb44a6627ba33f91 ocaml(Strat) = 0b33ba7ac9fa02a1261cebcc20abf463 ocaml(Weak_impl) = 57391fc3a31be2c6d4a3e5467cb76427 ocaml(Weak_intf) = b9d9520f4da69b2cd69d0482c429f16d ocaml-res = 2.2.5-1.fc9 = ocaml(Array) = aa8e3cd5824f9bb40b93fcd38d0c95b5 ocaml(Hashtbl) = 083f2c94b44ff4e0b3220aaea6a783b4 ocaml(List) = da1ce9168f0408ff26158af757456948 ocaml(Obj) = 5cfae708052c692ea39d23ed930fd64d ocaml(Pervasives) = 8ba3d1faa24d659525c9025f41fd0c57 ocaml(String) = 2c162ab314b2f0a2cfd22d471b2e21ab ocaml(Sys) = 0da495f5a80f31899139359805318f28 ocaml(Weak) = 6d509339939dea165d9dfd44d8a6a035 ocaml(runtime) = 3.10.1 ocaml-res-devel-2.2.5-1.fc9.x86_64.rpm ocaml-res-devel = 2.2.5-1.fc9 = ocaml-res = 2.2.5-1.fc9 * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files (except for LICENSE, which is OK although unnecessary) * file permissions are appropriate. * no scriptlets present. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * .cma, .cmi, .so, .so.owner, META files in the main package. * .a, .cmxa, .cmx and .mli files are in the -devel subpackage. * .cmo, .o and .ml files not included APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 434707] Review Request: ocaml-sexplib - OCaml library for converting OCaml values to S-expressions
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: ocaml-sexplib - OCaml library for converting OCaml values to S-expressions https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=434707 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag||fedora-review? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-05-10 20:35 EST --- Looks like ocaml-type-conv 1.5 is stuck in limbo. Maybe when rawhide becomes rawhide again. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 275491] Review Request: ocaml-pgocaml - OCaml library for type-safe access to PostgreSQL databases
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: ocaml-pgocaml - OCaml library for type-safe access to PostgreSQL databases https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=275491 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 275491] Review Request: ocaml-pgocaml - OCaml library for type-safe access to PostgreSQL databases
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: ocaml-pgocaml - OCaml library for type-safe access to PostgreSQL databases https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=275491 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-05-10 20:49 EST --- There's a .cmo in the main package; I'm going to assume this is a syntax extension or something which otherwise needs to be included, but I guess it's possible that there's just a missing %exclude so I figured I'd ask. Since you know far more about ocaml than I, I'm not going to block on it. * source files match upstream: 9ab3808bb9f2f29bf12a80aac8ca722524b7d6e0e75a1f1a9be5058322be665a pgocaml-1.1.tar.gz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text included in package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly. * rpmlint has acceptable complaints. * final provides and requires are sane: ocaml-pgocaml-1.1-1.fc9.x86_64.rpm ocaml(Pa_pgsql) = 6c80230157384b5460e814494ec3bfb4 ocaml(PGOCaml) = 0e086abf49f4f7dd885beda5a3f33347 ocaml(PGOCaml_config) = 3a213460288e45681958941e81d1020c ocaml(Pgocaml_prof) = 2c46f9db17216c1e2caf9b3971ddd454 ocaml-pgocaml = 1.1-1.fc9 = libpcre.so.0()(64bit) ocaml(Arg) = 03e86a4154064ea900dc32c05f53e364 ocaml(Array) = aa8e3cd5824f9bb40b93fcd38d0c95b5 ocaml(Buffer) = f6cef633ea14963b84b79c4095c63dc3 ocaml(Calendar) = bf2d533aa4bba61b1d373c5d237d52f0 ocaml(Camlp4) = 1e46a133b8062d1571640f7fa36f32c4 ocaml(Camlp4_config) = cb716b4361f43326c6ad695c7a1bb5c0 ocaml(Camlp4_import) = 0134ca95282ef6821081c0c11802cea0 ocaml(Char) = e98bc9c9e918a84b3c1a5a122d42fac1 ocaml(Csv) = ae0aaf6ac1a19f8dfc45722e1b9f6616 ocaml(Digest) = a5dd2d89492338578de12105e88c803f ocaml(Enum) = c16e527384c2b6d71d8b19582503f5f1 ocaml(ExtList) = f0f729e9c5635a8010fc862a9c31fed4 ocaml(ExtString) = a3a294a12ef901b2e812ef847ce8c233 ocaml(Filename) = 633a1e7f590ff5e95124293dbef3b476 ocaml(Format) = 35fe566f7a37d8991a5c822bd1463949 ocaml(Hashtbl) = 083f2c94b44ff4e0b3220aaea6a783b4 ocaml(Int32) = 711321870c949bd3bbdd092d9bae92e4 ocaml(Int64) = f8f7e2e4c0667ead94596040b12e732d ocaml(Lexing) = b1793496643444d3762dd42bebe2cfe3 ocaml(List) = da1ce9168f0408ff26158af757456948 ocaml(Nativeint) = e79cdc4d3575c2ed044955cb7ef49aca ocaml(Obj) = 5cfae708052c692ea39d23ed930fd64d ocaml(Option) = 77e72c890789e19a0e7444e00377d171 ocaml(Parsing) = 62cca107e4e88af303516459a87c3e9a ocaml(Pcre) = 9cf03a45728e3cf29272c957775befee ocaml(Pervasives) = 8ba3d1faa24d659525c9025f41fd0c57 ocaml(Printexc) = 82717999a586ede6925c0aa18d6562ac ocaml(Printf) = 5dbbf45a03b54e6dbfcf39178d0d6341 ocaml(Queue) = caa3a209bfc63d23a30f573541a88fec ocaml(Random) = 9936935480b36bcbc716ee513f37876c ocaml(Set) = 7da14e671a035f12386ace3890018ef3 ocaml(Str) = 56bb7ee61b2da83d42394686e3558fe4 ocaml(Stream) = 21a833e12efd34ea0c87d8d9da959809 ocaml(String) = 2c162ab314b2f0a2cfd22d471b2e21ab ocaml(Sys) = 0da495f5a80f31899139359805318f28 ocaml(Unix) = 9a46a8db115947409e54686ada118599 ocaml(runtime) = 3.10.1 ocaml-pgocaml-devel-1.1-1.fc9.x86_64.rpm ocaml-pgocaml-devel = 1.1-1.fc9 = ocaml-pgocaml = 1.1-1.fc9 * %check is necessarily disabled. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files (except COPYING.LIB, ok) * file permissions are appropriate. * no scriptlets present. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * .cma, .cmi, .so, .so.owner, META files in the main package. * .a, .cmxa, .cmx and .mli files are in the -devel subpackage. ? .cmo, .o and .ml files not included APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 437667] Review Request: dvipdfm - A DVI to PDF converter
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: dvipdfm - A DVI to PDF converter https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=437667 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-05-10 20:48 EST --- Opened a new bug for removing dvipdfm from the texlive packages: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=445983 Closing this review bug. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 434707] Review Request: ocaml-sexplib - OCaml library for converting OCaml values to S-expressions
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: ocaml-sexplib - OCaml library for converting OCaml values to S-expressions https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=434707 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-05-10 20:51 EST --- Well, crap, I hadn't intended to assign this to me but I got it confused with another bug. I'll build the new ocaml-type-conf from CVS so that I can review this. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 435287] Review Request: ocaml-json-static - OCaml JSON validator and converter (syntax extension)
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: ocaml-json-static - OCaml JSON validator and converter (syntax extension) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435287 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 433174] Review Request: squeeze - A modern and advanced archive manager for the Xfce Desktop Environment
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: squeeze - A modern and advanced archive manager for the Xfce Desktop Environment https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433174 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-05-10 21:00 EST --- 0.2.3 is out with a proported fix for the crash, but it doesn't seem to work here. I still see it take up all memory. ;( Spec URL: http://www.scrye.com/~kevin/fedora/squeeze.spec SRPM URL: http://www.scrye.com/~kevin/fedora/squeeze-0.2.3-1.fc10.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 248431] Review Request: perl-Net-FTPServer - Secure, extensible and configurable Perl FTP 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: perl-Net-FTPServer - Secure, extensible and configurable Perl FTP server Alias: perl-Net-FTPServer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=248431 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-05-10 21:09 EST --- (In reply to comment #18) Seems to me the license should be GPLv2+. The copyright notices are there in the code and documentation and have the usual either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version language. You're right. My script that bumps the release converts GPL to GPL+, and I didn't think to look any closer than that. That's fixed in -4. I don't have a problem with not including the actual server executables, or with splitting them out, but if the package doesn't actually install a server, shouldn't the Summary: and %description be adjusted? Well, it *does* provide the ftp server functionality... What to put in %description gets really confusing splitting out the server scripts. :-) Anyway, let me know what you think of -4, if you have time: http://ftp.kspei.com/pub/steve/rpms/perl-Net-FTPServer-1.122-4.src.rpm Some weird stuff appears when running the tests: error: Tried to add member with zero or undef value for time at /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.10.0/Archive/Zip/Member.pm line 487 Archive::Zip::Member::_unixToDosTime(0) called at /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.10.0/Archive/Zip/Member.pm line 180 [...] Reported in the RT ticket mentioned in comment #14. I haven't had time to dig any deeper than that yet. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 434707] Review Request: ocaml-sexplib - OCaml library for converting OCaml values to S-expressions
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: ocaml-sexplib - OCaml library for converting OCaml values to S-expressions https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=434707 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-05-10 21:25 EST --- Drat, it fails to build: sh: camlp4orf: command not found I added a build dependency on ocaml-camlp4-devel and things build OK. I'll assume it's there for the purposes of this review. There seems to be some sort of test suite in lib_test. As far as I can tell, it gets built but it doesn't run. Is there any way to run it? The main package includes a .cmo file; does it need to be there? * source files match upstream: 9e9ddef96daba4eba5377e74d3e1d75ebce976645269796043b7a2b1d3ad83cf sexplib310-3.7.4.tar.bz2 * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text included in package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly. * rpmlint has acceptable complaints. * final provides and requires are sane: ocaml-sexplib-3.7.4-1.fc9.x86_64.rpm ocaml(Pa_sexp_conv) = 81cb23e0f8dbe36dd669271f8d73f2a0 ocaml(Sexplib) = b2231946fa2832e7a14946e5809093da ocaml-sexplib = 3.7.4-1.fc9 = ocaml(Arg) = 03e86a4154064ea900dc32c05f53e364 ocaml(Array) = aa8e3cd5824f9bb40b93fcd38d0c95b5 ocaml(Bigarray) = e881a834bafaaa24bc612d94119cc0f5 ocaml(Big_int) = 992d682669507b99e689b5a2188c0b9a ocaml(Buffer) = f6cef633ea14963b84b79c4095c63dc3 ocaml(Camlp4) = 1e46a133b8062d1571640f7fa36f32c4 ocaml(Camlp4_config) = cb716b4361f43326c6ad695c7a1bb5c0 ocaml(Camlp4_import) = 0134ca95282ef6821081c0c11802cea0 ocaml(Char) = e98bc9c9e918a84b3c1a5a122d42fac1 ocaml(Complex) = bb333e8e4cda78107ccf27048ca40492 ocaml(Filename) = 633a1e7f590ff5e95124293dbef3b476 ocaml(Format) = 35fe566f7a37d8991a5c822bd1463949 ocaml(Hashtbl) = 083f2c94b44ff4e0b3220aaea6a783b4 ocaml(Int32) = 711321870c949bd3bbdd092d9bae92e4 ocaml(Int64) = f8f7e2e4c0667ead94596040b12e732d ocaml(Lazy) = 8a4b5e7f0bdc6316df9264fd73cde981 ocaml(Lexing) = b1793496643444d3762dd42bebe2cfe3 ocaml(List) = da1ce9168f0408ff26158af757456948 ocaml(Nat) = 0ea20dd1cc4533fd519b5542a89feb87 ocaml(Nativeint) = e79cdc4d3575c2ed044955cb7ef49aca ocaml(Num) = cfa2705c9c6d6f5a56b83f91fc630d2a ocaml(Obj) = 5cfae708052c692ea39d23ed930fd64d ocaml(Parsing) = 62cca107e4e88af303516459a87c3e9a ocaml(Pa_type_conv) = 432cfbcca727c79fd9a65c602aa4eb34 ocaml(Pervasives) = 8ba3d1faa24d659525c9025f41fd0c57 ocaml(Printexc) = 82717999a586ede6925c0aa18d6562ac ocaml(Printf) = 5dbbf45a03b54e6dbfcf39178d0d6341 ocaml(Queue) = caa3a209bfc63d23a30f573541a88fec ocaml(Ratio) = 7067125cce206dd2bbe93918ba7bdfe9 ocaml(Set) = 7da14e671a035f12386ace3890018ef3 ocaml(Stream) = 21a833e12efd34ea0c87d8d9da959809 ocaml(String) = 2c162ab314b2f0a2cfd22d471b2e21ab ocaml(Sys) = 0da495f5a80f31899139359805318f28 ocaml(Unix) = 9a46a8db115947409e54686ada118599 ocaml(runtime) = 3.10.1 ocaml-sexplib-devel-3.7.4-1.fc9.x86_64.rpm ocaml-sexplib-devel = 3.7.4-1.fc9 = ocaml-sexplib = 3.7.4-1.fc9 ? %check is not present, but a test suite seems to exist. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no scriptlets present. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * .cma, .cmi, .so, .so.owner, META files in the main package. * .a, .cmxa, .cmx and .mli files are in the -devel subpackage. ? .cmo, .o and .ml files not included -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 435287] Review Request: ocaml-json-static - OCaml JSON validator and converter (syntax extension)
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: ocaml-json-static - OCaml JSON validator and converter (syntax extension) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435287 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-05-10 21:44 EST --- I'm realizing that the text in the guidelines about .cmo files is pretty inadequate, because as a reviewer I simply have no way to tell if the .cmo file in this package actually needs to be there. I guess this could be a syntax extension but I just don't have enough information to decide. Perhaps it's a reasonable guess that if the package needs camlp4 then it's going to be building a syntax extension/preprocessor? The %description seems to be left over from the example specfile on the wiki. * source files match upstream: d3e2065b332e9633bde3b70235460900f13db4618dea73bd8eb3fa61dea9c84f json-static-0.9.6.tar.bz2 * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. X description is, erm, not there. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text included in package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly. * rpmlint has acceptable complaints. * final provides and requires are sane: ocaml(Pa_json_static) = 01714080414115d1c2ac98ce33810af4 ocaml-json-static = 0.9.6-1.fc9 = ocaml-json-wheel ocaml-camlp4 ocaml(Arg) = 03e86a4154064ea900dc32c05f53e364 ocaml(Array) = aa8e3cd5824f9bb40b93fcd38d0c95b5 ocaml(Buffer) = f6cef633ea14963b84b79c4095c63dc3 ocaml(Camlp4) = 1e46a133b8062d1571640f7fa36f32c4 ocaml(Camlp4_config) = cb716b4361f43326c6ad695c7a1bb5c0 ocaml(Camlp4_import) = 0134ca95282ef6821081c0c11802cea0 ocaml(Char) = e98bc9c9e918a84b3c1a5a122d42fac1 ocaml(Filename) = 633a1e7f590ff5e95124293dbef3b476 ocaml(Format) = 35fe566f7a37d8991a5c822bd1463949 ocaml(Hashtbl) = 083f2c94b44ff4e0b3220aaea6a783b4 ocaml(Int32) = 711321870c949bd3bbdd092d9bae92e4 ocaml(Int64) = f8f7e2e4c0667ead94596040b12e732d ocaml(Lexing) = b1793496643444d3762dd42bebe2cfe3 ocaml(List) = da1ce9168f0408ff26158af757456948 ocaml(Map) = dedde7683d54ae7db1eb97cc868dd047 ocaml(Nativeint) = e79cdc4d3575c2ed044955cb7ef49aca ocaml(Obj) = 5cfae708052c692ea39d23ed930fd64d ocaml(Parsing) = 62cca107e4e88af303516459a87c3e9a ocaml(Pervasives) = 8ba3d1faa24d659525c9025f41fd0c57 ocaml(Printf) = 5dbbf45a03b54e6dbfcf39178d0d6341 ocaml(Queue) = caa3a209bfc63d23a30f573541a88fec ocaml(Set) = 7da14e671a035f12386ace3890018ef3 ocaml(Stream) = 21a833e12efd34ea0c87d8d9da959809 ocaml(String) = 2c162ab314b2f0a2cfd22d471b2e21ab ocaml(Sys) = 0da495f5a80f31899139359805318f28 ocaml(runtime) = 3.10.1 * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no scriptlets present. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * .cma, .cmi, .so, .so.owner, META files in the main package. * .a, .cmxa, .cmx and .mli files are in the -devel subpackage. ? .cmo, .o and .ml files not included -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 435299] Review Request: ocaml-pa-monad - OCaml syntax extension for monads
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: ocaml-pa-monad - OCaml syntax extension for monads https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435299 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 435299] Review Request: ocaml-pa-monad - OCaml syntax extension for monads
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: ocaml-pa-monad - OCaml syntax extension for monads https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435299 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-05-10 22:00 EST --- The guidelines don't say much about whether the underscore in the module name needs to be changed to a hyphen. I don't have a particular issue with your naming, and Debian doesn't seem to have this packaged yet so this is sort of blazing new territory. Still, did you give the matter any thought? I'm not seeing the LGPL exception in the package. I suppose it must be there for the package to be useful at all, but I'm not seeing an actual statement of it. There are several test programs; is it possible to run them at build time? I'm certain that the .cmo file is appropriate here, so that's good. It's kind of obvious when there are no other object files in the package. * source files match upstream: eaf67402205208c1bb34dda6d12b2f87e1b5dc7781cbf9c03dcf6c14d9e4fd5a pa_monad.tar.gz ? package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. ? license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text included in package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly. * rpmlint has acceptable complaints. * final provides and requires are sane: ocaml(Pa_monad) = 0772e3866372127d528565bcf7904b7b ocaml-pa-monad = 1.2.0-1.fc9 = ocaml(Arg) = 03e86a4154064ea900dc32c05f53e364 ocaml(Array) = aa8e3cd5824f9bb40b93fcd38d0c95b5 ocaml(Buffer) = f6cef633ea14963b84b79c4095c63dc3 ocaml(Camlp4) = 1e46a133b8062d1571640f7fa36f32c4 ocaml(Camlp4_config) = cb716b4361f43326c6ad695c7a1bb5c0 ocaml(Camlp4_import) = 0134ca95282ef6821081c0c11802cea0 ocaml(Char) = e98bc9c9e918a84b3c1a5a122d42fac1 ocaml(Filename) = 633a1e7f590ff5e95124293dbef3b476 ocaml(Format) = 35fe566f7a37d8991a5c822bd1463949 ocaml(Hashtbl) = 083f2c94b44ff4e0b3220aaea6a783b4 ocaml(Int32) = 711321870c949bd3bbdd092d9bae92e4 ocaml(Int64) = f8f7e2e4c0667ead94596040b12e732d ocaml(Lexing) = b1793496643444d3762dd42bebe2cfe3 ocaml(List) = da1ce9168f0408ff26158af757456948 ocaml(Nativeint) = e79cdc4d3575c2ed044955cb7ef49aca ocaml(Obj) = 5cfae708052c692ea39d23ed930fd64d ocaml(Parsing) = 62cca107e4e88af303516459a87c3e9a ocaml(Pervasives) = 8ba3d1faa24d659525c9025f41fd0c57 ocaml(Printf) = 5dbbf45a03b54e6dbfcf39178d0d6341 ocaml(Queue) = caa3a209bfc63d23a30f573541a88fec ocaml(Set) = 7da14e671a035f12386ace3890018ef3 ocaml(Stream) = 21a833e12efd34ea0c87d8d9da959809 ocaml(String) = 2c162ab314b2f0a2cfd22d471b2e21ab ocaml(Sys) = 0da495f5a80f31899139359805318f28 ocaml(runtime) = 3.10.1 X %check is not present, but test code seems to be available. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no scriptlets present. * code, not content. * most of the package is documentation, but it's still only a few K so there's no point in splitting it. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 435431] Review Request: ocaml-deriving - Extension to OCaml for deriving functions from types
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: ocaml-deriving - Extension to OCaml for deriving functions from types https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435431 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 435431] Review Request: ocaml-deriving - Extension to OCaml for deriving functions from types
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: ocaml-deriving - Extension to OCaml for deriving functions from types https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435431 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-05-10 22:11 EST --- License: should be MIT. The COPYING file says The MIT License and indeed our licensing guidelines agree with that. I had guessed that this one would have a .cmo file but it doesn't. So I guess I'm still pretty confused about that. The only issue is the license tag, and that's a trivial fix so I'll approve this and you can fix it when you check in. * source files match upstream: ab9e5403a383d57b3572b21587a23dc2f85980b0a95936ac748ccd2118c4f55e deriving-0.1.1a.tar.gz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. APPROVED X license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text included in package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly. * rpmlint has acceptable complaints. * final provides and requires are sane; listed above so no point in repeating them. * %check is present and all tests pass: Tests succeeded! * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files (besides COPYING file) * file permissions are appropriate. * no scriptlets present. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * .cma, .cmi, .so, .so.owner, META files in the main package. * .a, .cmxa, .cmx and .mli files are in the -devel subpackage. * .cmo, .o and .ml files not included -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 444428] Review Request: ocaml-cmigrep - Search OCaml compiled interface (cmi) files
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: ocaml-cmigrep - Search OCaml compiled interface (cmi) files https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=28 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-05-10 22:16 EST --- This does not seem to be buildable yet outside of koji; ocaml 3.10.2 doesn't seem to exist anywhere. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 248431] Review Request: perl-Net-FTPServer - Secure, extensible and configurable Perl FTP 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: perl-Net-FTPServer - Secure, extensible and configurable Perl FTP server Alias: perl-Net-FTPServer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=248431 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-05-10 22:57 EST --- I'd probably add a note to each of the descriptions about the exact contents, like: This package contains the Perl modules; install the perl-ftpd package for the server executables. and This package contains server executables. Also, once you have server executables, it may be prudent to consider how they'll be started by the system. That probably means initscripts or something in /etc/xinetd.d depending on how the server is supposed to be run, unless you really don't think anyone should be running this as their actual FTP server. I personally am wary of FTP servers, especially when they claim to be secure and haven't been updated in three years. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 435835] Review Request: perl-RPC-XML - Set of classes for core data, message and XML handling
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-RPC-XML - Set of classes for core data, message and XML handling Alias: perl-RPC-XML https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435835 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-05-10 23:06 EST --- Some additional comments: There's a test suite included; any reason why it's not being run? Of course, when you do run it, you'll find out why Chris was telling you about missing build dependencies, because most of the tests will fail without Test::More and XML::Parser. Note that pretty much any reviewer will consider it a blocker to fail to run the test suite without a good reason. Also, is there any particular reason why you didn't just use cpanspec to generate the package? While there's nothing specifically wrong with rolling your own by hand, it's a good but more difficult to review since it doesn't look anything like essentially all of the other Perl packages in the distro. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 437046] Review Request: mod_bw - Bandwidth Limiter For Apache
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: mod_bw - Bandwidth Limiter For Apache https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=437046 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag||fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-05-10 23:16 EST --- Not sure why this hasn't been reviewed yet; it's a trivial package. * source files match upstream: 75d43f586b7662ccca7d67bc67c52e25a341c6caef89a4804fedbeaee25a13b3 mod_bw-0.8.tgz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text included in package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly. * debuginfo package looks complete. * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: config(mod_bw) = 0.8-1.fc9 mod_bw.so()(64bit) mod_bw = 0.8-1.fc9 = config(mod_bw) = 0.8-1.fc9 httpd * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. I can't easily test this. * no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no scriptlets present. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. * no static libraries. * no libtool .la files. APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 444733] Review Request: perl-HTTP-Cache-Transparent - Cache the result of http get-requests persistently
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-HTTP-Cache-Transparent - Cache the result of http
get-requests persistently
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=444733
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-05-10 23:47 EST ---
Why the complex License: tag? Same as Perl is generally taken to mean GPL+
or Artistic; look for Perl license under
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing or the Perl packaging guidelines at
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Perl.
Regardless of the comment you have in your %files section, this package should
own %{perl_vendorlib}/HTTP as well. See the File and Directory Ownership
section of http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines for an
explanation. cpanspec should have gotten this right.
* source files match upstream:
31b6b54d9488b35eb8ca54b6f5bcefd6eb1e208ca8a4038c1cee61042747f1d9
HTTP-Cache-Transparent-1.0.tar.gz
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* summary is OK.
* description is OK.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is OK.
? license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* license text not included upstream.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64).
* package installs properly.
* rpmlint is silent.
* final provides and requires are sane:
perl(HTTP::Cache::Transparent) = 1.0
perl-HTTP-Cache-Transparent = 1.0-1.fc9
=
perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.10.0)
perl(Carp)
perl(Cwd)
perl(Digest::MD5)
perl(File::Copy)
perl(File::Path)
perl(HTTP::Status)
perl(IO::File)
perl(LWP::UserAgent)
perl(strict)
* %check is present and all tests pass:
All tests successful.
Files=3, Tests=3, 0 wallclock secs ( 0.17 cusr + 0.03 csys = 0.20 CPU)
X fails to own the HTTP directory.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* no scriptlets present.
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 444933] Review Request: cairo-dock - Light eye-candy fully themable animated dock
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: cairo-dock - Light eye-candy fully themable animated dock https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=444933 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-05-10 23:52 EST --- http://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/Review_request/cairo-dock/cairo-dock-1.5.5.4-2.date20080506.tmp.src.rpm http://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/Review_request/cairo-dock/cairo-dock.spec * Sun May 11 2008 Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 1.5.5.4-2.date20080506 - Remove mail plug-in for now as there is license conflict - Enable weblet plug-in koji scratch build: For dist-f9-updates-candidate: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=603625 For dist-f8-updates-candidate: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=603626 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 438587] Review Request: libsqlite3x - C++ Wrapper for the SQLite3 database engine
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: libsqlite3x - C++ Wrapper for the SQLite3 database engine https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=438587 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-05-11 00:17 EST --- This failed to build for me in F9/rawhide: /bin/sh ./libtool --tag=CXX --mode=compile g++ -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m64 -mtune=generic -O2 -Wall -ansi -MT sq3.lo -MD -MP -MF .deps/sq3.Tpo -c -o sq3.lo sq3.cpp g++ -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m64 -mtune=generic -O2 -Wall -ansi -MT sq3.lo -MD -MP -MF .deps/sq3.Tpo -c sq3.cpp -fPIC -DPIC -o .libs/sq3.o sq3.cpp: In member function 'int sq3::statement::prepare(const char*, int)': sq3.cpp:70: error: 'strlen' was not declared in this scope sq3.cpp: In member function 'int sq3::statement::bind(int, const char*, int)': sq3.cpp:190: error: 'strlen' was not declared in this scope sq3.cpp: In member function 'int sq3::statement::bind(const char*, const char*, int)': sq3.cpp:226: error: 'strlen' was not declared in this scope -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 438588] Review Request: zfstream - C++ iostream like access to compressed files
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: zfstream - C++ iostream like access to compressed files https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=438588 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-05-11 00:23 EST --- I noticed the following troubling rpmlint complaints; it looks like this library isn't linked against libbz2 but is linked against libm even though it doesn't need to be. The latter is easily fixed with the trick in the unused-direct-shlib-dependency section of http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/CommonRpmlintIssues. zfstream.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libzfstream.so.0.0.0 inflateEnd zfstream.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libzfstream.so.0.0.0 gzopen zfstream.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libzfstream.so.0.0.0 gzclose zfstream.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libzfstream.so.0.0.0 deflate zfstream.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libzfstream.so.0.0.0 BZ2_bzwrite zfstream.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libzfstream.so.0.0.0 inflateInit2_ zfstream.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libzfstream.so.0.0.0 inflate zfstream.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libzfstream.so.0.0.0 BZ2_bzopen zfstream.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libzfstream.so.0.0.0 gzwrite zfstream.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libzfstream.so.0.0.0 crc32 zfstream.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libzfstream.so.0.0.0 deflateEnd zfstream.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libzfstream.so.0.0.0 BZ2_bzclose zfstream.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libzfstream.so.0.0.0 deflateInit2_ zfstream.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libzfstream.so.0.0.0 gzread zfstream.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libzfstream.so.0.0.0 BZ2_bzread zfstream.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libzfstream.so.0.0.0 get_crc_table zfstream.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libzfstream.so.0.0.0 BZ2_bzerror zfstream.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libzfstream.so.0.0.0 /lib64/libm.so.6 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
