[Bug 485604] Review Request: gigolo - GIO/GVFS management application
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485604 --- Comment #2 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-02-15 03:50:28 EDT --- - By the way how we can check if the binary part in waf script file are under FOSS license? -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485607] New: Review Request: SciTools - A Python library for scientific computing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: SciTools - A Python library for scientific computing https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485607 Summary: Review Request: SciTools - A Python library for scientific computing Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: josephsm...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://jsmidt.fedorapeople.org/SciTools.spec SRPM URL: http://jsmidt.fedorapeople.org/SciTools-0.4-0.fc10.src.rpm Description: SciTools is a Python package containing lots of useful tools for scientific computing in Python. The package is built on top of other widely used packages such as NumPy, SciPy, ScientificPython, Gnuplot, etc. Webpage: http://code.google.com/p/scitools/ -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485604] Review Request: gigolo - GIO/GVFS management application
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485604 --- Comment #1 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-02-15 03:47:49 EDT --- I guess I don't have time to review this, however * Please make the build log more verbose so we can check if Fedora specific compiler flags are correctly honored. - Usually the output like + ./waf build [ 1/20] cc: src/main.c - _build_/default/src/main_1.o [ 2/20] cc: src/compat.c - _build_/default/src/compat_1.o [ 3/20] cc: src/window.c - _build_/default/src/window_1.o [ 4/20] cc: src/bookmark.c - _build_/default/src/bookmark_1.o is not useful. - And actually ps auwwx shows 8626 pts/15 S+ 0:00 /bin/sh -e /home/tasaka1/rpmbuild/INSTROOT/rpm-tmp.KdfCEV 8651 pts/15 Sl+0:00 python ./waf build 8696 pts/15 S+ 0:00 /usr/bin/gcc -g -O0 -DDEBUG -Idefault -I.. -I/usr/include/gtk-2.0 -I/usr/lib/gtk-2.0/include -I/usr/include/atk-1.0 -I/usr/include/cairo -I/usr/include/pango-1.0 -I/usr/include/glib-2.0 -I/usr/lib/glib-2.0/include -I/usr/include/pixman-1 -I/usr/include/freetype2 -I/usr/include/libpng12 ../src/common.c -c -o default/src/common_1.o so Fedora specific compilation flags are not correctly honored. - Would you explain why this package does not Provide sion despite that this Obsoletes sion? - --vendor=fedora should not be used anymore. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 426751] Review Request: ghc-X11 - A Haskell binding to the X11 graphics library.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=426751 --- Comment #49 from Conrad Meyer kon...@tylerc.org 2009-02-15 04:37:53 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=331958) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=331958) Patch from current ghc-X11.spec to the new templates. I ported ghc-X11.spec to the new templates, here's the diff. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485607] Review Request: SciTools - A Python library for scientific computing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485607 Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||jussi.leht...@iki.fi AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jussi.leht...@iki.fi 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485580] Review Request: netactview - Graphical network connections viewer for Linux
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485580
--- Comment #2 from leigh scott leigh123li...@googlemail.com 2009-02-15
05:18:55 EDT ---
I have applied these changes that you recommended.
--add-category X-Fedora
and add instead
--remove-category=Application
Bonus points for adding
chmod -x src/*{h,c}
Spec URL: http://dnmouse.org/fedora/netactview_review/new_1/netactview.spec
SRPM URL:
http://dnmouse.org/fedora/netactview_review/new_1/netactview-0.4.1-2.fc11.src.rpm
Thank you for reviewing the package.
Leigh
--
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.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485607] Review Request: SciTools - A Python library for scientific computing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485607
--- Comment #1 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi 2009-02-15 05:31:43
EDT ---
- Name should be scitools, not SciTools.
* You need to change also setup -q to setup -q -n SciTools-%{version}
- Double Requires: gnuplot, remove the latter one.
- Missing BuildRequires: python-devel
- Missing python_sitelib macro, see
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Python
- Install section should be
%install
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
%{__python} setup.py install --root $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
- Files should be
%{python_sitelib}/*egg-info
%{python_sitelib}/%{name}
instead of
%{_libdir}/*
as the latter version would own system directories, and doesn't work on 64-bit
architectures.
--
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.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485607] Review Request: SciTools - A Python library for scientific computing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485607 --- Comment #2 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi 2009-02-15 05:45:18 EDT --- - Missing Requires: ScientificPython. - Actually you don't need Requires: gnuplot at all, since gnuplot-py already pulls in gnuplot. - I'd only Requires: numpy, scipy, ScientificPython and gnuplot-py for the base package, and branch the other suggested requirements into an -extras package. At the moment it would pull in python-numeric, python-numarray, vtk-python, python-matplotlib, PyX, veusz (and the rest of the suggested requirements once they get into Fedora). -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485607] Review Request: SciTools - A Python library for scientific computing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485607
--- Comment #3 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi 2009-02-15 05:50:00
EDT ---
I don't think I can accept the package even after the aforementioned
modifications, since there are files in %{_bindir} that probably shouldn't be
there.
Also most of them have really general names, which may clash with other
packages.
/usr/bin/_gnuplot.py
/usr/bin/_gnuplot.pyc
/usr/bin/_gnuplot.pyo
/usr/bin/file2interactive.py
/usr/bin/file2interactive.pyc
/usr/bin/file2interactive.pyo
/usr/bin/floatdiff.py
/usr/bin/floatdiff.pyc
/usr/bin/floatdiff.pyo
/usr/bin/floatdiff.verify
/usr/bin/gnuplot.bat
/usr/bin/hgtools.py
/usr/bin/hgtools.pyc
/usr/bin/hgtools.pyo
/usr/bin/profiler.py
/usr/bin/profiler.pyc
/usr/bin/profiler.pyo
/usr/bin/ps2mpeg.py
/usr/bin/ps2mpeg.pyc
/usr/bin/ps2mpeg.pyo
/usr/bin/pyreport
/usr/bin/regression.py
/usr/bin/regression.pyc
/usr/bin/regression.pyo
/usr/bin/subst.py
/usr/bin/subst.pyc
/usr/bin/subst.pyo
/usr/bin/timer.py
/usr/bin/timer.pyc
/usr/bin/timer.pyo
--
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.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485617] New: Review Request: pygrace - Python bindings for grace
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: pygrace - Python bindings for grace https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485617 Summary: Review Request: pygrace - Python bindings for grace Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: jussi.leht...@iki.fi QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://theory.physics.helsinki.fi/~jzlehtol/rpms/pygrace.spec SRPM URL: http://theory.physics.helsinki.fi/~jzlehtol/rpms/pygrace-0.3-1.fc10.src.rpm Description: Python bindings for grace, based on Nathan Gray's gracePlot. Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1128032 rpmlint output: pygrace.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/pygrace/grace_np.py 0644 pygrace.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/pygrace/__init__.py 0644 pygrace.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/pygrace/pygrace.py 0644 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 0 warnings. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485580] Review Request: netactview - Graphical network connections viewer for Linux
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485580 manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro 2009-02-15 06:53:34 EDT --- package 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485580] Review Request: netactview - Graphical network connections viewer for Linux
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485580 leigh scott leigh123li...@googlemail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from leigh scott leigh123li...@googlemail.com 2009-02-15 07:11:49 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: netactview Short Description: Graphical network connections viewer for Linux Owners: leigh123linux Branches: F-9 F-10 InitialCC: leigh123linux -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 480857] Review Request: pdumpfs - Daily backup system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480857 --- Comment #3 from Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net 2009-02-15 07:34:36 EDT --- There are some rpmlint error [...@laptop24 i386]$ rpmlint pdumpfs* pdumpfs.i386: E: no-binary pdumpfs-debuginfo.i386: E: empty-debuginfo-package 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings. noarch? -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485621] New: Review Request: perl-Gtk2-MozEmbed - Interface to the Mozilla embedding widget
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: perl-Gtk2-MozEmbed - Interface to the Mozilla embedding widget https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485621 Summary: Review Request: perl-Gtk2-MozEmbed - Interface to the Mozilla embedding widget Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: fed...@famillecollet.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://remi.fedorapeople.org/perl-Gtk2-MozEmbed.spec SRPM URL: http://remi.fedorapeople.org/perl-Gtk2-MozEmbed-0.08-1.fc8.src.rpm Mock Log: http://remi.fedorapeople.org/perl-Gtk2-MozEmbed-build.log Koji Scratch Build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1128243 Description: This module allows you to use the Mozilla embedding widget from Perl. --- rpmlint output : perl-Gtk2-MozEmbed.src: I: checking perl-Gtk2-MozEmbed.x86_64: I: checking perl-Gtk2-MozEmbed.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/5.10.0/x86_64-linux-thread-multi/Gtk2/MozEmbed/Install/gtkmozembed2perl.h perl-Gtk2-MozEmbed.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/5.10.0/x86_64-linux-thread-multi/Gtk2/MozEmbed/Install/gtkmozembed2perl-autogen.h perl-Gtk2-MozEmbed-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. no -devel package seems ok according to perl Guidelines This package is needed for gmusicbrowser (comming soon for 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485563] Review Request: fsarchiver - Safe and flexible file-system backup/deployment tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485563 Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||fab...@bernewireless.net AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|fab...@bernewireless.net 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458359] Review Request: gpscorrelate - A GPS photo correlation / geotagging tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458359
Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #10 from Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net 2009-02-15
08:18:36 EDT ---
Package Review
==
Package:
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines
[x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture.
Tested on: F10/i386
[x] Rpmlint output:
Source RPM:
[...@laptop24 SRPMS]$ rpmlint gpscorrelate-1.5.8-1.tillf8.src.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Binary RPM(s):
[...@laptop24 i386]$ rpmlint gpscorrelate*
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[x] Package is not relocatable.
[x] Buildroot is correct
master : %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
spec file: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
[x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type: GPLv2+
[x] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package is included in %doc.
[x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
Upstream source: 99e61153ac1245955e780298a6125130
Build source:99e61153ac1245955e780298a6125130
[-] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[-] The spec file handles locales properly. %find_lang used for locales.
[x] %{optflags} or RPM_OPT_FLAGS are honoured.
[-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x] %install starts with rm -rf %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT.
[x] Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x] Permissions on files are set properly. %defattr(-,root,root,-) is in every
%files section.
[x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT.
[x] Package consistently uses macros.
[x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackage, if present.
[-] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present.
[-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
[x] -debuginfo subpackage is present and looks complete.
[x] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
[-] Timestamps preserved with cp and install.
[x] Uses parallel make (%{?_smp_mflags})
[x] Latest version is packaged.
[x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
Tested on: F10/i386
[x] Package should compile and build into binary RPMs on all supported
architectures.
Tested: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1128230
[x] Package functions as described.
[-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct.
[-] File based requires are sane.
[x] Changelog in allowed format
Is there a reason why RELEASES and README are not included in %doc? Beside the
%doc stuff I see no further blocker, package APPROVED.
The usage of 'redhat-starthere' is a bit problematic but I guess that if the
icon is missing there is no icon showing up in menu. Let's wait for the icon
from the ArtTeam.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are
[Bug 484644] Review Request: screenlets - Fully themeable mini-apps
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=484644 --- Comment #4 from Edouard Bourguignon ma...@linuxed.net 2009-02-15 08:30:22 EDT --- Do you mean screenlets package doesn't need to own the following directories: /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/screenlets /usr/share/screenlets /usr/share/screenlets-manager ? Is it ok to have unowned directories? -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 484644] Review Request: screenlets - Fully themeable mini-apps
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=484644
--- Comment #5 from leigh scott leigh123li...@googlemail.com 2009-02-15
09:29:16 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #4)
Do you mean screenlets package doesn't need to own the following directories:
/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/screenlets
/usr/share/screenlets
/usr/share/screenlets-manager
? Is it ok to have unowned directories?
A package should own any directory it creates.
i.e
%files -f %{name}.lang
%defattr(-,root,root,-)
%doc AUTHORS CHANGELOG COPYING DEVELOPERS LICENCE README TODO
%{_bindir}/screenlets
%{_bindir}/screenlets-daemon
%{_bindir}/screenlets-manager
%{_bindir}/screenlets-packager
%{_bindir}/screenletsd
%dir %{python_sitelib}/screenlets
%{python_sitelib}/screenlets/*
%{python_sitelib}/screenlets-%{version}-py2.5.egg-info
%{_datadir}/applications/screenlets-manager.desktop
%{_datadir}/icons/screenlets.svg
%dir %{_datadir}/screenlets-manager
%{_datadir}/screenlets-manager/*
%dir %{_datadir}/screenlets
%{_datadir}/screenlets/*
Also I made a mistake on the desktop-file-install, it should be
desktop-file-install --vendor --delete-original \
--dir $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/applications \
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/applications/%{name}-manager.desktop
I also believe the path in Icon= should be removed along with the .svg
Icon=/usr/share/icons/screenlets.svg
should be
Icon=screenlets
--
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.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485586] Review Request: perl-Test-Kwalitee - Test the Kwalitee of a distribution before you release it
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485586 Allisson Azevedo allis...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Allisson Azevedo allis...@gmail.com 2009-02-15 09:33:55 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: perl-Test-Kwalitee Short Description: Test the Kwalitee of a distribution before you release it Owners: allisson Branches: F-9 F-10 -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 480538] Review Request: iptux -- a tool for sharing and transporting files and directories in Lan
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480538 --- Comment #23 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-02-15 09:39:25 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=331971) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=331971) patch to compile 0.4.5 rc1 with ppc For 0.4.5-0.1.rc1: * Missing BuildRequires - This srpm does not build on dist-f10-updates-candidate without BR: dbus-devel due to packaging bug in *ORBit2-devel*. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1127627 * ppc build failure - 0.4.5 rc1 won't build at least on ppc, because of using x86 specific assembler codes (in src/utils.h). http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1127604 A patch to revert the use of these assembler codes (to what is used in 0.4.4) is attached. Would you submit both 2 patches to the upstream? (we won't have to wait for upstream's response for this review request, however it is desirable that these patches are applied in the upstream) * %changelog * Sun Feb 15 2009 Liang Suilong liangsuil...@gmail.com 0.4.5-1.rc1 - The last should be 0.4.5-0.1.rc1. Then I will wait for your pre-review or another review request. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485563] Review Request: fsarchiver - Safe and flexible file-system backup/deployment tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485563
Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net 2009-02-15
09:40:35 EDT ---
Package Review
==
Package:
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines
[?] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary RPMs on at least one
supported architecture.
Tested on: F10/i386
[x] Rpmlint output:
Source RPM:
[...@laptop24 SRPMS]$ rpmlint fsarchiver-0.4.1-1.fc10.src.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Binary RPM(s):
[...@laptop24 i386]$ rpmlint fsarchiver*
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[x] Package is not relocatable.
[x] Buildroot is correct
master : %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
spec file: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
[x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type: GPLv2
[x] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package is included in %doc.
[x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
Upstream source: f7546bbbe4d71fe600b5e93a90def948
Build source:f7546bbbe4d71fe600b5e93a90def948
[x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[-] The spec file handles locales properly. %find_lang used for locales.
[x] %{optflags} or RPM_OPT_FLAGS are honoured.
[-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x] %install starts with rm -rf %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT.
[x] Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x] Permissions on files are set properly. %defattr(-,root,root,-) is in every
%files section.
[x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT.
[x] Package consistently uses macros.
[x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackage, if present.
[-] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present.
[-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
[x] -debuginfo subpackage is present and looks complete.
[-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
[-] Timestamps preserved with cp and install.
[x] Uses parallel make (%{?_smp_mflags})
[x] Latest version is packaged.
[-] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[?] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
Tested on: F10/i386
[x] Package should compile and build into binary RPMs on all supported
architectures.
Tested: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1128367
[x] Package functions as described.
[-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct.
[-] File based requires are sane.
[x] Changelog in allowed format
The description needs some love from my point of view. Why not take the
description from the README file.
FSArchiver is a system tool that allows you to save the contents of a
file-system to a compressed archive file. The file-system can be restored
on a partition which has a different size and it can be restored on a
different file-system. Unlike tar/dar, FSArchiver also creates the
file-system when it extracts the data to partitions.
[Bug 480538] Review Request: iptux -- a tool for sharing and transporting files and directories in Lan
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480538 --- Comment #24 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-02-15 09:42:40 EDT --- (In reply to comment #23) * Missing BuildRequires - This srpm does not build on dist-f10-updates-candidate without BR: dbus-devel due to packaging bug in *ORBit2-devel*. due to packaging bug in *GConf2-devel*, sorry -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 484644] Review Request: screenlets - Fully themeable mini-apps
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=484644
--- Comment #6 from Edouard Bourguignon ma...@linuxed.net 2009-02-15
09:50:30 EDT ---
Ok, I'm on the way to fix the desktop file.
Sorry to ask again, it's not clear for me, the documentation here
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/UnownedDirectories says:
%{_datadir}/foo/*
This includes everything _in_ foo, but not foo itself. rpm -qlv pkgname
will show a missing drwxr-xr-x entry for foo. Correct would be:
%{_datadir}/foo/
to include the directory _and_ the entire tree below it.
And rpm -qplv screenlets-0.1.2-1.fc10.noarch.rpm already lists this directories
...
drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 févr. 15 15:38
/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/screenlets
...
drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 févr. 15 15:38
/usr/share/screenlets
drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 févr. 15 15:38
/usr/share/screenlets-manager
...
What am I missing? Can a directory be in the listing but still be unowned?
--
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.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 484644] Review Request: screenlets - Fully themeable mini-apps
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=484644
--- Comment #7 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-02-15
09:54:58 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #5)
%files -f %{name}.lang
%defattr(-,root,root,-)
%doc AUTHORS CHANGELOG COPYING DEVELOPERS LICENCE README TODO
%{_bindir}/screenlets
%{_bindir}/screenlets-daemon
%{_bindir}/screenlets-manager
%{_bindir}/screenlets-packager
%{_bindir}/screenletsd
%dir %{python_sitelib}/screenlets
%{python_sitelib}/screenlets/*
%{python_sitelib}/screenlets-%{version}-py2.5.egg-info
%{_datadir}/applications/screenlets-manager.desktop
%{_datadir}/icons/screenlets.svg
%dir %{_datadir}/screenlets-manager
%{_datadir}/screenlets-manager/*
%dir %{_datadir}/screenlets
%{_datadir}/screenlets/*
%files
%dir %{_datadir}/screenlets
%{_datadir}/screenlets/*
equals
%{_datadir}/screenlets/
The latter format contains the directory %{_datadir}/screenlets
and all files/directories/etc under %{_datadir}/screenlets.
Also for this package
%files
%dir %{python_sitelib}/screenlets
%{python_sitelib}/screenlets/*
%{python_sitelib}/screenlets-%{version}-py2.5.egg-info
can be unified to
%{python_sitelib}/*
--
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.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485417] Review Request: bochs-bios - bios implementation from the bochs project
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485417 --- Comment #8 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com 2009-02-15 09:56:23 EDT --- 404 while trying to download Source0 from SF. Please provide spec file with such obvious issues fixed. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 484644] Review Request: screenlets - Fully themeable mini-apps
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=484644 --- Comment #8 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-02-15 09:59:52 EDT --- (and also note that rawhide uses python 2.6) -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 484644] Review Request: screenlets - Fully themeable mini-apps
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=484644
--- Comment #9 from leigh scott leigh123li...@googlemail.com 2009-02-15
10:01:35 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #7)
(In reply to comment #5)
%files -f %{name}.lang
%defattr(-,root,root,-)
%doc AUTHORS CHANGELOG COPYING DEVELOPERS LICENCE README TODO
%{_bindir}/screenlets
%{_bindir}/screenlets-daemon
%{_bindir}/screenlets-manager
%{_bindir}/screenlets-packager
%{_bindir}/screenletsd
%dir %{python_sitelib}/screenlets
%{python_sitelib}/screenlets/*
%{python_sitelib}/screenlets-%{version}-py2.5.egg-info
%{_datadir}/applications/screenlets-manager.desktop
%{_datadir}/icons/screenlets.svg
%dir %{_datadir}/screenlets-manager
%{_datadir}/screenlets-manager/*
%dir %{_datadir}/screenlets
%{_datadir}/screenlets/*
%files
%dir %{_datadir}/screenlets
%{_datadir}/screenlets/*
equals
%{_datadir}/screenlets/
The latter format contains the directory %{_datadir}/screenlets
and all files/directories/etc under %{_datadir}/screenlets.
Also for this package
%files
%dir %{python_sitelib}/screenlets
%{python_sitelib}/screenlets/*
%{python_sitelib}/screenlets-%{version}-py2.5.egg-info
can be unified to
%{python_sitelib}/*
Thanks for the info.
--
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.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485417] Review Request: bochs-bios - bios implementation from the bochs project
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485417 Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485563] Review Request: fsarchiver - Safe and flexible file-system backup/deployment tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485563 --- Comment #2 from Adel Gadllah adel.gadl...@gmail.com 2009-02-15 10:00:12 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1) The description needs some love from my point of view. Why not take the description from the README file. FSArchiver is a system tool that allows you to save the contents of a file-system to a compressed archive file. The file-system can be restored on a partition which has a different size and it can be restored on a different file-system. Unlike tar/dar, FSArchiver also creates the file-system when it extracts the data to partitions. Everything is checksummed in the archive in order to protect the data. If the archive is corrupt, you just loose the current file, not the whole archive. I see no further blocker, package APPROVED. Please fix the description before you import the package into the cvs. Agreed, fixed in 0.4.1-2. Thanks for the 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 484644] Review Request: screenlets - Fully themeable mini-apps
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=484644 --- Comment #10 from Edouard Bourguignon ma...@linuxed.net 2009-02-15 10:06:56 EDT --- So here are the new files. SPEC: http://www.linuxed.net/~madko/fedora/screenlets.spec SRPM: http://www.linuxed.net/~madko/fedora/screenlets-0.1.2-2.fc10.src.rpm RPM: http://www.linuxed.net/~madko/fedora/screenlets-0.1.2-2.fc10.noarch.rpm btw, I use desktop-file-validate instead of desktop-file-install because the desktop file is already installed in the good place. Is it ok? I also add some french translation in the desktop file, do I have the right to do that? -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485563] Review Request: fsarchiver - Safe and flexible file-system backup/deployment tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485563 Adel Gadllah adel.gadl...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Adel Gadllah adel.gadl...@gmail.com 2009-02-15 10:02:06 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: fsarchiver Short Description: Safe and flexible file-system backup/deployment tool Owners: drago01 Branches: F-9 F-10 InitialCC: -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485496] Review request of geglmm - the C++ Binding to the GEGL library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485496 --- Comment #3 from Dodji Seketeli do...@redhat.com 2009-02-15 10:26:55 EDT --- I forgot to say that a new srpm and spec are available at: SRPM: http://people.redhat.com/~dseketel/rpms/geglmm/geglmm-0.0.22-2.fc10.src.rpm SPEC: http://people.redhat.com/~dseketel/rpms/geglmm/geglmm.spec-0.0.22-2 -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485496] Review request of geglmm - the C++ Binding to the GEGL library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485496
--- Comment #2 from Dodji Seketeli do...@redhat.com 2009-02-15 10:23:02 EDT
---
{?dist} macro:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/DistTag
Done.
- Source0 must be given with full URL:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL
Done.
- gegl-devel Requires babl-devel, so BuildRequires: babl-devel
is redundant.
I Removed babl-devel.
- Usually the dependencies between binary rpms rebuilt from
a srpm must be EVR (not just version) specific.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package
Done.
- This srpm won't build on dist-f11:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1126647
Ah. It builds on f10 that's why I didn't notice that. I will now use mock.
So I did a patch to fix this issue. The patch has been submitted upstream.
While at it, I produced another patchlet to kill some warnings. That patch has
been submitted upstream as well.
- We recommend %defattr(-,root,root,-)
Done.
- Please consider to add the following files
AUTHORS
COPYING
COPYING.LESSER
to main package and
ChangeLog
to -devel package.
Done.
Thanks for the quick 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.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 484644] Review Request: screenlets - Fully themeable mini-apps
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=484644
--- Comment #11 from leigh scott leigh123li...@googlemail.com 2009-02-15
10:57:22 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #10)
So here are the new files.
SPEC: http://www.linuxed.net/~madko/fedora/screenlets.spec
SRPM: http://www.linuxed.net/~madko/fedora/screenlets-0.1.2-2.fc10.src.rpm
RPM: http://www.linuxed.net/~madko/fedora/screenlets-0.1.2-2.fc10.noarch.rpm
btw, I use desktop-file-validate instead of desktop-file-install because the
desktop file is already installed in the good place. Is it ok?
I believe it is acceptable to use desktop-file-validate.
I also add some french translation in the desktop file, do I have the right to
do that?
I not sure.
The summary is better, but still needs to be shorter.
[le...@localhost Download]$ rpmlint -vi
'/home/leigh/Download/screenlets-0.1.2-2.fc10.noarch.rpm'
screenlets.noarch: I: checking
screenlets.noarch: E: summary-too-long Screenlets are fully themeable mini-apps
that improve the usability and eye-candy of the modern composited Linux-desktop
The Summary: must not exceed 79 characters.
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings.
[le...@localhost Download]$ rpmlint -vi
'/home/leigh/Download/screenlets-0.1.2-2.fc10.src.rpm'
screenlets.src: I: checking
screenlets.src: E: summary-too-long Screenlets are fully themeable mini-apps
that improve the usability and eye-candy of the modern composited Linux-desktop
The Summary: must not exceed 79 characters.
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings.
[le...@localhost Download]$
This bit is wrong
Source0:%{name}-%{version}.tar.bz2
You must use a full URL to the package in the SourceX: line.
i.e
Source0:
http://code.launchpad.net/screenlets/trunk/0.1.2/+download/%{name}-%{version}.tar.bz2
--
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.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 484644] Review Request: screenlets - Fully themeable mini-apps
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=484644 --- Comment #12 from leigh scott leigh123li...@googlemail.com 2009-02-15 10:58:57 EDT --- https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485496] Review request of geglmm - the C++ Binding to the GEGL library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485496
Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on|177841 |
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-02-15
11:11:22 EDT ---
Okay.
- I recommend to use %{version} in Source0
ref:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL#Using_.25.7Bversion.7D
If you want to change, please fix this when importing into
Fedora CVS.
---
This package (geglmm) is APPROVED by mtasaka
---
Please follow the procedure written on:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join
from Install the Client Tools (Koji).
Now I am sponsoring you.
If you want to import this package into Fedora 9/10, you also have
to look at
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/UpdatesSystem/Bodhi-info-DRAFT
(after once you rebuilt this package on koji Fedora rebuilding system).
If you have questions, please ask me.
Removing NEEDSPONSOR.
--
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.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 463767] Review Request: cloog - The Chunky Loop Generator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=463767 Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|177841 | Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #29 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-02-15 11:12:20 EDT --- Now approving. This package (cloog) is APPROVED by mtasaka -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 468223] Review Request: python-repoze-tm2 - Zope-like transaction manager via WSGI middleware
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468223 --- Comment #8 from Brian Pepple bdpep...@gmail.com 2009-02-15 11:21:27 EDT --- If this has been built, and pushed to stable this bug can be closed. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 468222] Review Request: python-transaction - Transaction management for Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468222 --- Comment #11 from Brian Pepple bdpep...@gmail.com 2009-02-15 11:21:10 EDT --- If this has been built, and pushed to stable this bug can be closed. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 476536] Review Request: zapplet - Zenoss monitoring tray applet
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476536 --- Comment #12 from Brian Pepple bdpep...@gmail.com 2009-02-15 11:22:04 EDT --- If this has been built, and pushed to stable this bug can be closed. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485496] Review request of geglmm - the C++ Binding to the GEGL library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485496 Dodji Seketeli do...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 463767] Review Request: cloog - The Chunky Loop Generator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=463767 Dodji Seketeli do...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 463767] Review Request: cloog - The Chunky Loop Generator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=463767 --- Comment #30 from Dodji Seketeli do...@redhat.com 2009-02-15 12:18:03 EDT --- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485496] Review request of geglmm - the C++ Binding to the GEGL library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485496 --- Comment #5 from Dodji Seketeli do...@redhat.com 2009-02-15 12:21:56 EDT --- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 463767] Review Request: cloog - The Chunky Loop Generator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=463767 --- Comment #31 from Dodji Seketeli do...@redhat.com 2009-02-15 12:21:20 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: cloog Short Description: The Chunky Loop Generator Owners: dodji Branches: F-10 InitialCC: dodji -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485496] Review request of geglmm - the C++ Binding to the GEGL library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485496 --- Comment #6 from Dodji Seketeli do...@redhat.com 2009-02-15 12:23:16 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: geglmm Short Description: A graphic processing library, C++ bindings Owners: dodji Branches: F-10 InitialCC: dodji -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 480857] Review Request: pdumpfs - Daily backup system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480857 --- Comment #4 from Henrique LonelySpooky Junior henrique...@gmail.com 2009-02-15 13:09:52 EDT --- You're right, noarch solved it. I have noticed that Fedora's RPMs looks much better built than CentOS's. Do you think so? SPEC: http://lspooky.fedorapeople.org/pdumpfs/1.3-3/pdumpfs.spec SRPM: http://lspooky.fedorapeople.org/pdumpfs/1.3-3/pdumpfs-1.3-3.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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 478470] Review Request: mrpt - The Mobile Robot Programming Toolkit (MRPT)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478470 --- Comment #23 from Jose Luis joseluisblan...@gmail.com 2009-02-15 13:24:28 EDT --- My other submission, cutecom: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485636 -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 478470] Review Request: mrpt - The Mobile Robot Programming Toolkit (MRPT)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478470 --- Comment #24 from Jose Luis joseluisblan...@gmail.com 2009-02-15 13:26:31 EDT --- And this is the new review of MRPT: SPEC: http://babel.isa.uma.es/mrpt/src-repo/rpm/mrpt.spec SRPM: http://babel.isa.uma.es/mrpt/src-repo/rpm/mrpt-0.6.5-0.1.20090213.fc10.src.rpm Apart from the issues you detected, these are the additional changes: * Sat Feb 13 2009 - Jose Luis Blanco joseluisblan...@gmail.com 0.6.5-0.1.20090213 - New upstream sources. - Individual packages created for each MRPT application. - Removed unneeded dependencies from -devel package. - Fixed doc package should own the mrpt-doc directory. - Mime types moved to mrpt-core 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485636] New: Review Request: cutecom - A GUI application for serial port communications
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: cutecom - A GUI application for serial port communications https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485636 Summary: Review Request: cutecom - A GUI application for serial port communications Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: joseluisblan...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora SPEC URL: http://babel.isa.uma.es/mrpt/src-repo/rpm/cutecom.spec SRPM URL: http://babel.isa.uma.es/mrpt/src-repo/rpm/cutecom-0.20.0-1.fc10.src.rpm Description: CuteCom is a graphical serial terminal, like minicom or Hyperterminal on Windows. It is aimed mainly at hardware developers or other people who need a terminal to talk to their devices. It is free software and distributed under the GNU General Public License Version 2, which can find in the file COPYING. It is written using the Qt library by Trolltech. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485638] New: Review Request: dmenu - Dynamic X menu
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: dmenu - Dynamic X menu https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485638 Summary: Review Request: dmenu - Dynamic X menu Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: appoli...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://www.stud.fit.vutbr.cz/~xblaze17/packages/dmenu/dmenu.spec SRPM URL: http://www.stud.fit.vutbr.cz/~xblaze17/packages/dmenu/dmenu-3.9-1.src.rpm Description: Dynamic menu is a generic menu for X, originally designed for dwm. It manages huge amounts (up to 10.000 and more) of user defined menu items efficiently. rpmlint output: 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. mock build log: http://www.stud.fit.vutbr.cz/~xblaze17/packages/dmenu/build.log Please note that this is my first fedora package and I am seeking a sponsor. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485638] Review Request: dmenu - Dynamic X menu
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485638 Jan Blazek appoli...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841 -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485607] Review Request: SciTools - A Python library for scientific computing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485607
--- Comment #4 from Joseph Smidt josephsm...@gmail.com 2009-02-15 14:03:27
EDT ---
Thank you for taking the time to review this package. I have made the changes
you have requested. The new package is found here:
Spec URL: http://jsmidt.fedorapeople.org/scitools.spec
SRPM URL: http://jsmidt.fedorapeople.org/scitools-0.4-0.1.fc10.src.rpm
By your last comment, are you saying scitools is a lost cause?
Did you want me to remove all files from %{_bindir} which are not executables?
Should I move all the files in %{_bindir} to %{_bindir}/scitools?
Should I try to rename the files?
Is there anything you would suggest?
Also, there was a directory full of examples I put in /usr/share/scitools.
--
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.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 484644] Review Request: screenlets - Fully themeable mini-apps
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=484644 --- Comment #13 from Edouard Bourguignon ma...@linuxed.net 2009-02-15 14:16:09 EDT --- Ok, summary has been shorten (again) and source url fixed in this -3 release. Here are the new files. SPEC: http://www.linuxed.net/~madko/fedora/screenlets.spec SRPM: http://www.linuxed.net/~madko/fedora/screenlets-0.1.2-3.fc10.src.rpm RPM: http://www.linuxed.net/~madko/fedora/screenlets-0.1.2-3.fc10.noarch.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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485641] New: Review Request: pdftk - The PDF Toolkit
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: pdftk - The PDF Toolkit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485641 Summary: Review Request: pdftk - The PDF Toolkit Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: joc...@herr-schmitt.de QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://www.herr-schmitt.de/pub/pdftk/pdftk.spec SRPM URL: http://www.herr-schmitt.de/pub/pdftk/pdftk-1.41-7.fc10.src.rpm Description: If PDF is electronic paper, then pdftk is an electronic staple-remover, hole-punch, binder, secret-decoder-ring, and X-Ray-glasses. Pdftk is a simple tool for doing everyday things with PDF documents. Keep one in the top drawer of your desktop and use it to: * Merge PDF Documents * Split PDF Pages into a New Document * Decrypt Input as Necessary (Password Required) * Encrypt Output as Desired * Burst a PDF Document into Single Pages * Report on PDF Metrics, including Metadata and Bookmarks * Uncompress and Re-Compress Page Streams * Repair Corrupted PDF (Where Possible) Pdftk is also an example of how to use a library of Java classes in a stand-alone C++ program. Specifically, it demonstrates how GCJ and CNI allow C++ code to use iText's (itext-paulo) Java classes. Additional Information: This package was retiered from Fredora caused by licensing issues from the bundled iText library. Now we have a new iText library in the Fedora collection which doewn't has this licensing issues. So I have to wipe out the bundled iText library from pdftk and apply the patach provided by Andrew.Haley. Unfortunately, I will get the following issue during installing the package: $ export LANG=C; rpm -i pdftk-1.41-6.fc10.x86_64.rpm error: Failed dependencies: /usr/lib64/gcj/itext/itext-2.1.4.jar.so()(64bit) is needed by pdftk-1.41-6.fc10.x86_64 But the /usr/lib64/gcj/itext/ directory contains the following files: -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 40960 Feb 12 21:29 itext-2.1.4.jar.db -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 7122584 Feb 12 21:29 itext-2.1.4.jar.so It will be nice, if you have a hint to solve this issue. Perhaps someone has a hint to solve this issue. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485580] Review Request: netactview - Graphical network connections viewer for Linux
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485580 --- Comment #5 from leigh scott leigh123li...@googlemail.com 2009-02-15 14:51:11 EDT --- Is there any need to add %post %postun to update the icon cache ? https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets#desktop-database -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 484931] Renaming Review Request: hosts3d - 3D real-time network visualiser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=484931 --- Comment #9 from Jochen Schmitt joc...@herr-schmitt.de 2009-02-15 14:50:03 EDT --- An additional change: It may be nice, if you can add the autoreconf command before the %configure statemant. The task of the autoreconf command is to make sure, that the configure.in file may be generated on the base of the configure.ac file, which will be patched by my suggested patch. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485642] New: Review Request: perl-FCGI-ProcManager - A FastCGI process manager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: perl-FCGI-ProcManager - A FastCGI process manager https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485642 Summary: Review Request: perl-FCGI-ProcManager - A FastCGI process manager Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All URL: http://search.cpan.org/dist/FCGI-ProcManager OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: cw...@alumni.drew.edu QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~cweyl/review/perl-FCGI-ProcManager.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~cweyl/review/perl-FCGI-ProcManager-0.18-1.fc10.src.rpm Description: FCGI::ProcManager is used to serve as a FastCGI process manager. By reimplementing it in perl, developers can more finely tune performance in their web applications, and can take advantage of copy-on-write semantics prevalent in UNIX kernel process management. Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1128549 -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 480373] Review Request: cilk - Language for multithreaded parallel programming.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480373 --- Comment #8 from Ian Weller ianwel...@gmail.com 2009-02-15 14:56:21 EDT --- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485643] New: Review Request: django-authopenid - Django application to integrate Django authentication system with OpenID
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: django-authopenid - Django application to integrate Django authentication system with OpenID https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485643 Summary: Review Request: django-authopenid - Django application to integrate Django authentication system with OpenID Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: ianwel...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://ianweller.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/django-authopenid/0.9.6-1/django-authopenid.spec SRPM URL: http://ianweller.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/django-authopenid/0.9.6-1/django-authopenid-0.9.6-1.fc10.src.rpm Description: Django authentication application with OpenID using django.contrib.auth. This application allow a user to connect to you website with: * legacy account (username/password) * OpenID url If the user connects with an OpenID they could associate it with their legacy account or just create a new Django account. When the user is connected administrators can manage them like usual with django.contrib.auth. This application also provide views to: * change password * change account email * change associated openid * delete account * send a new password Source produced By Benoît Chesneau for Enki Multimedia for the Friendsnippets project. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 467384] Review Request: mingw32-nsis - Nullsoft Scriptable Install System
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467384 Levente Farkas lfar...@lfarkas.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||lfar...@lfarkas.org AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|lfar...@lfarkas.org Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #6 from Levente Farkas lfar...@lfarkas.org 2009-02-15 14:58:18 EDT --- for #4 i try your patch: http://svn.calcforge.org/viewvc/fedora/nsis/nsis-2.34-RPM_OPT_FLAGS.diff?revision=2root=repo-specfiles but for me it's not working ie it's also gives stack protector option for crosscompiler:-( -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 484726] Review Request: impressive - The stylish way of giving presentations
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=484726 --- Comment #5 from Jochen Schmitt joc...@herr-schmitt.de 2009-02-15 15:05:23 EDT --- Good: + Package use opengl-wrapper Bad: - The fonts Requires should be: devel dejavu-sans-fonts F-10: dejavu-fonts-sans F-9:dejavu-fonts -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 469291] Review Request: uml_utilities - Utilities for user-mode linux kernel
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=469291 --- Comment #10 from Christian Krause c...@plauener.de 2009-02-15 15:06:21 EDT --- Based on Pauls work I've created an updated package which addresses all mentioned issues: - build problem - RPM_OPT_FLAGS not honored Spec URL: http://www-user.tu-chemnitz.de/~tiwi/uml_utilities-20070815-3.fc10.src.rpm SRPM URL: http://www-user.tu-chemnitz.de/~tiwi/uml_utilities.spec The package builds successfully in F10 and F11 on the 4 default architectures: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1128542 https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1128537 I'm looking forward to the next review cycle. It would be great if the package could be included into Fedora soon. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 484934] Review Request: vidalia - QT-GUI for tor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=484934 --- Comment #6 from Simon Wesp cassmod...@fedoraproject.org 2009-02-15 15:11:09 EDT --- I'd expand the summary somewhat mh, if you don't know what tor is, you won't understand vidalia. so i think this is not necessary okay %cmake will make it easy :-) hope i got the trick Also, the .desktop file mentions QT which you have to change to Qt. And the .desktop file does not have different translations (I'm being really picky here, but don't worry about it!). I added a German Translation, thats the only language I know Spec URL: http://cassmodiah.fedorapeople.org/vidalia-0.1.10/vidalia.spec SRPM URL: http://cassmodiah.fedorapeople.org/vidalia-0.1.10/vidalia-0.1.10-2.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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 451744] Review Request: root - The CERN analyzer for high to medium energy physics
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=451744 --- Comment #11 from Joseph Smidt josephsm...@gmail.com 2009-02-15 15:09:01 EDT --- Hello, Just as an update, I have been trying to package 5.22.00. since that is the latest stable version. The problem has been I can't get it to build. I have borrowed from Juan's .spec above. I will be borrowing more once I see what new files, etc... are installed with the new release. If anyone has a suggestion how I can get this to build, I will be grateful: Spec: http://jsmidt.fedorapeople.org/ROOT.spec Source: http://jsmidt.fedorapeople.org/root_v5.22.00.source.tar.gz -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 467384] Review Request: mingw32-nsis - Nullsoft Scriptable Install System
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467384
Levente Farkas lfar...@lfarkas.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #7 from Levente Farkas lfar...@lfarkas.org 2009-02-15 15:10:52
EDT ---
# rpmlint mingw32-nsis.spec
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
+ OK
- Needs to be looked into
/ Not applicable
* Overridden by MinGW guidelines
[+] rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the
review.
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
[+] MUST: 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
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines .
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[+] MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package must be included in %doc.
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL.
[+] MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one supported architecture.
[+] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch.
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for
any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional.
[/] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
[/] MUST: Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files (not just
symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in
%post and %postun.
[/] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package.
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates.
[+] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
[+] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} ( or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT ).
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros
section of Packaging Guidelines .
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[/] MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage.
[/] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application.
[*] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[/] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[/] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'
(for directory ownership and usability).
[/] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g.
libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in
a -devel package.
[/] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release}
[/] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be
removed in the spec.
[/] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file, and that file must be properly installed with
desktop-file-install in the %install section.
[+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
[+] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf
%{buildroot} ( or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT ). See Prepping BuildRoot For %i install for
details.
[+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
[+] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[/] SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file
should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. See
MockTricks for details on how to do this.
[+] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all
supported architectures.
[/] SHOULD: The reviewer should test
[Bug 455226] Review Request: php-pecl-runkit - PHP Opcode Analyser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=455226 --- Comment #8 from Pavel Alexeev pa...@hubbitus.spb.su 2009-02-15 15:21:07 EDT --- Please, excuse me for long delay. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 484933] Review Request: libwps - Library for reading and converting Microsoft Works word processor documents
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=484933
--- Comment #6 from Simon Wesp cassmod...@fedoraproject.org 2009-02-15
15:18:34 EDT ---
Spec URL:
http://cassmodiah.fedorapeople.org/libwps-0.1.2/libwps.spec
SRPM URL:
http://cassmodiah.fedorapeople.org/libwps-0.1.2/libwps-0.1.2-2.fc10.src.rpm
i hope this will do the trick :-)
without
%check
make check
it doesn't work for me
http://fpaste.org/paste/3724
line 803-841
#
Fehler:
#
cppunit/CompilerOutputter.h: Datei oder Verzeichnis nicht gefunden
#
test.cpp:38: Fehler: »CPPUNIT_NS« wurde nicht deklariert
#
test.cpp:38: Fehler: expected `{' before »TestFixture«
#
test.cpp:38: Fehler: Funktionsdefinition deklariert keine Parameter
#
test.cpp:53: Fehler: invalid use of incomplete type »class Test«
#
test.cpp:38: Fehler: forward declaration of »class Test«
#
test.cpp:61: Fehler: invalid use of incomplete type »class Test«
#
test.cpp:38: Fehler: forward declaration of »class Test«
#
test.cpp:66: Fehler: invalid use of incomplete type »class Test«
#
test.cpp:38: Fehler: forward declaration of »class Test«
#
test.cpp:207: Fehler: expected constructor, destructor, or type conversion
before »;« token
#
test.cpp: In function »int main(int, char**)«:
#
test.cpp:212: Fehler: »CPPUNIT_NS« wurde nicht deklariert
#
test.cpp:212: Fehler: expected `;' before »controller«
#
test.cpp:215: Fehler: »CPPUNIT_NS« wurde nicht deklariert
#
test.cpp:215: Fehler: expected `;' before »result«
#
test.cpp:216: Fehler: »controller« wurde in diesem Gültigkeitsbereich nicht
definiert
#
test.cpp:216: Fehler: »result« wurde in diesem Gültigkeitsbereich nicht
definiert
#
test.cpp:219: Fehler: »CPPUNIT_NS« wurde nicht deklariert
#
test.cpp:219: Fehler: expected `;' before »progress«
#
test.cpp:220: Fehler: »progress« wurde in diesem Gültigkeitsbereich nicht
definiert
#
test.cpp:223: Fehler: »CPPUNIT_NS« wurde nicht deklariert
#
test.cpp:223: Fehler: expected `;' before »runner«
#
test.cpp:224: Fehler: »runner« wurde in diesem Gültigkeitsbereich nicht
definiert
#
test.cpp:224: Fehler: »CPPUNIT_NS« wurde nicht deklariert
#
test.cpp:228: Fehler: »CPPUNIT_NS« wurde nicht deklariert
#
test.cpp:228: Fehler: expected `;' before »outputter«
#
test.cpp:229: Fehler: »outputter« wurde in diesem Gültigkeitsbereich nicht
definiert
#
make[1]:
#
*** [test.o] Fehler 1
#
make[1]: Leaving directory `/builddir/build/BUILD/libwps-0.1.2/src/test'
#
make:
#
*** [check] Fehler 2
#
Fehler:
#
Fehler beim Bauen des RPM:
#
Fehler-Status beim Beenden von /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.YL5rL9 (%check)
#
Fehler-Status beim Beenden von /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.YL5rL9 (%check)
#
Child returncode was: 1
can we leave %check out? it looks like very optional
--
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.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 455226] Review Request: php-pecl-runkit - PHP Opcode Analyser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=455226
--- Comment #7 from Pavel Alexeev pa...@hubbitus.spb.su 2009-02-15 15:20:24
EDT ---
(In reply to comment #6)
How I should number its versions
0.9-1.1.CVS20080512 seems ok.
No, duedlines say what CVS, not released versions must start from 0.
I change it to 0.9-0.1.CVS20080512 enumeration.
I'd like to see the exact commands use to build the tarball, just above the
%source., p.e. (export greater than checkout) :
# cvs -d :pserver:cvsr...@cvs.php.net/repository export -D 2009-01-22
pecl/runkit
# tar cjf runkit-CVS20090122.tar.bz2 -C pecl runkit
%Source0: %{peclName}-CVS%{CVS}.tar.bz2
Thank you, its done.
I have well understood than patches are for PHP ABI.
Even if this package is unmaintained, please report the bug and post your
patch(es), it will be usefull for everyone, and probably commited (last commit
is only 5 weeks old on runkit.c).
Ok - http://pecl.php.net/bugs/bug.php?id=15969
I don't think restarting apache for each extension is a good idea. This should
probably be removed (Have to search about this in the Guidelines).
I agree. This comes as legacy. Restart is removed.
Please :
- clean release (remove .Hu... and probably not usefull #*Hu comments)
Done in release. In comments i think it is not necessary?
- update to a recent CVS snapshot
Done.
- register the extension (package2.xml is included)
Done.
- add PHP ABI check (see PHP Guidelines)
Done.
- add upstream bug reference above %patch
Done - http://pecl.php.net/bugs/bug.php?id=15969
- use Fedora macros %pecl_xmldir, %php_extdir, %pecl_install, ...
Done.
- clean $Revision and $Log cvs status lines (spec is quite obfuscated)
Done.
- clean changelog (mainly % not acceptable)
Done.
http://hubbitus.net.ru/rpm/Fedora9/php-pecl-runkit/php-pecl-runkit-0.9-0.6.CVS20090215.fc9.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.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 467384] Review Request: mingw32-nsis - Nullsoft Scriptable Install System
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467384 --- Comment #8 from Levente Farkas lfar...@lfarkas.org 2009-02-15 15:25:18 EDT --- opps i forget to add the koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1128551 -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 467385] Review Request: mingw32-nsiswrapper - Helper program for making NSIS Windows installers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467385
Levente Farkas lfar...@lfarkas.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lfar...@lfarkas.org
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|lfar...@lfarkas.org
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Levente Farkas lfar...@lfarkas.org 2009-02-15 15:25:10
EDT ---
rpmlint /home/lfarkas/rpm/SRPMS/mingw32-nsiswrapper-3-2.fc10.src.rpm
mingw32-nsiswrapper.src: W: strange-permission nsiswrapper.pl 0775
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
so please change the permission to 0775.
koji build ok:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1128554
+ OK
- Needs to be looked into
/ Not applicable
* Overridden by MinGW guidelines
[+] rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the
review.
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
[+] MUST: 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
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines .
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[+] MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package must be included in %doc.
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[/] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL.
[+] MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one supported architecture.
[/] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch.
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for
any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional.
[/] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
[/] MUST: Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files (not just
symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in
%post and %postun.
[/] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package.
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates.
[+] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
[+] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} ( or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT ).
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros
section of Packaging Guidelines .
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[/] MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage.
[/] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application.
[*] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[/] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[/] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'
(for directory ownership and usability).
[/] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g.
libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in
a -devel package.
[/] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release}
[/] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be
removed in the spec.
[/] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file, and that file must be properly installed with
desktop-file-install in the %install section.
[+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
[+] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf
%{buildroot} ( or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT ). See Prepping BuildRoot For %i install for
details.
[+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
[+] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[/] SHOULD: The description and summary
[Bug 478506] Review Request: trac-customfieldsadmin-plugin - expose ticket custom fields via web admin interface
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478506 Ian Weller ianwel...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #8 from Ian Weller ianwel...@gmail.com 2009-02-15 15:26:51 EDT --- == FULL REVIEW == [ OK ] specfiles match: fcb61fc7a2957865ab2b3e0f135eb732 trac-customfieldadmin-plugin.spec fcb61fc7a2957865ab2b3e0f135eb732 trac-customfieldadmin-plugin.spec.1 [FAILED] source files match upstream: I can't tell. The instructions included in the specfile to generate the tarball don't work. svn: '/svn/!svn/bc/5267/customfieldsadminplugin/0.10' path not found [ OK ] package meets naming and versioning guidelines. [ OK ] spec is properly named, cleanly written, and uses macros consistently. [ OK ] dist tag is present. [ OK ] build root is correct. [ OK ] license field matches the actual license. [ OK ] license is open source-compatible. [ OK ] license text included in package. [ OK ] latest version is being packaged. [ OK ] BuildRequires are proper. [ N/A ] compiler flags are appropriate. [ OK ] %clean is present. [ OK ] package builds in mock. [ OK ] package installs properly. [ ] debuginfo package looks complete. [ OK ] rpmlint is silent. It did return: trac-customfieldadmin-plugin.noarch: W: no-documentation trac-customfieldadmin-plugin.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/customfieldadmin/htdocs/js/CustomFieldAdminPage_actions.js but seeing how it didn't come with documentation and that Javascript files don't have shebangs, I'd ignore it. [ OK ] final provides and requires are sane [ N/A ] %check is present and all tests pass: [ N/A ] no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. [ OK ] owns the directories it creates. [ OK ] doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. [ OK ] no duplicates in %files. [ OK ] file permissions are appropriate. [ N/A ] scriptlets match those on ScriptletSnippets page. [ OK ] code, not content. [ OK ] documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. [ OK ] %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. [ OK ] no headers. [ OK ] no pkgconfig files. [ OK ] no libtool .la droppings. [ OK ] desktop files valid and installed properly. --- I approve this package (trac-customfieldadmin-plugin) --- (just be sure to check on the SVN instructions) -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 484931] Renaming Review Request: hosts3d - 3D real-time network visualiser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=484931 --- Comment #10 from Simon Wesp cassmod...@fedoraproject.org 2009-02-15 15:28:16 EDT --- Spec URL: http://cassmodiah.fedorapeople.org/hosts3d-0.97/hosts3d.spec SRPM URL: http://cassmodiah.fedorapeople.org/hosts3d-0.97/hosts3d-0.97-2.fc10.src.rpm done! -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 478767] Review Request: spring - Realtime strategy game
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478767 Ian Weller ianwel...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|needinfo?(ianwel...@gmail.c | |om) | --- Comment #28 from Ian Weller ianwel...@gmail.com 2009-02-15 15:38:21 EDT --- I'm going to do a full rereview in about an hour. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 460786] Review Request: mediawiki-Cite - An extension to provide Citation tools for Mediawiki
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=460786 Ian Weller ianwel...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||CURRENTRELEASE --- Comment #9 from Ian Weller ianwel...@gmail.com 2009-02-15 15:40:07 EDT --- I'm going to close this since it's available in F-10, devel, and EL-5. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 484931] Renaming Review Request: hosts3d - 3D real-time network visualiser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=484931 --- Comment #11 from Jochen Schmitt joc...@herr-schmitt.de 2009-02-15 15:44:51 EDT --- Good: + autoconf was added as an BR. + autoreconf was called before %configure + Local build works fine + Local install works fine + Local uninstall works fine + Start of the application works without a crash Bad: - Build fails on koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1128556 -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 484933] Review Request: libwps - Library for reading and converting Microsoft Works word processor documents
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=484933 --- Comment #7 from Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net 2009-02-15 15:43:39 EDT --- You're missing BuildRequires: cppunit-devel check is a top-level target in the Makefile. Among packagers, it's common practise to run such a testsuite, if available, and only ignore it if it's known to be out-of-date/broken. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485607] Review Request: SciTools - A Python library for scientific computing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485607
--- Comment #5 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi 2009-02-15 16:23:48
EDT ---
(In reply to comment #4)
By your last comment, are you saying scitools is a lost cause?
Did you want me to remove all files from %{_bindir} which are not
executables?
Should I move all the files in %{_bindir} to %{_bindir}/scitools?
Should I try to rename the files?
Is there anything you would suggest?
Also, there was a directory full of examples I put in /usr/share/scitools.
No, I suggest you contact upstream and ask them to correct the problem. Moving
and/or renaming files should be done only after consultation, since this breaks
compatibility with upstream.
I'm not very familiar with Python, and so I don't know if the files need to be
in %{_bindir}. My guess is, though, that they should be in the package's
sitelib directory instead.
I'd put the examples in the documentation, since people normally look there for
documentation :)
--
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.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 484933] Review Request: libwps - Library for reading and converting Microsoft Works word processor documents
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=484933 --- Comment #8 from Simon Wesp cassmod...@fedoraproject.org 2009-02-15 16:22:01 EDT --- http://rafb.net/p/WgG5M476.html my local build log line 1416-1431 (in english this time, sorry for this german post above) cd src/test make check make[1]: Entering directory `/builddir/build/BUILD/libwps-0.1.2/src/test' if g++ -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -I../..-I../../src/lib/ -I/usr/include/libwpd-0.8 -DNDEBUG -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m32 -march=i386 -mtune=generic -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -MT test.o -MD -MP -MF .deps/test.Tpo -c -o test.o test.cpp; \ then mv -f .deps/test.Tpo .deps/test.Po; else rm -f .deps/test.Tpo; exit 1; fi /bin/sh ../../libtool --tag=CXX --mode=link g++ -I../../src/lib/ -I/usr/include/libwpd-0.8 -DNDEBUG -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m32 -march=i386 -mtune=generic -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -o test -L../lib/ `cppunit-config --libs` test.o ../lib/libwps-0.1.la ../lib/libwps-stream-0.1.la -lwpd-0.8 mkdir .libs g++ -I../../src/lib/ -I/usr/include/libwpd-0.8 -DNDEBUG -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m32 -march=i386 -mtune=generic -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -o .libs/test test.o -L/builddir/build/BUILD/libwps-0.1.2/src/lib -lcppunit -ldl ../lib/.libs/libwps-0.1.so ../lib/.libs/libwps-stream-0.1.so -lwpd-0.8 creating test ./test /builddir/build/BUILD/libwps-0.1.2/src/test/.libs/lt-test: error while loading shared libraries: libwps-0.1.so.1: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory make[1]: *** [check] Error 127 make[1]: Leaving directory `/builddir/build/BUILD/libwps-0.1.2/src/test' make: *** [check] Error 2 RPM build errors: looks like make check will need the libwps 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485617] Review Request: pygrace - Python bindings for grace
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485617 --- Comment #1 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi 2009-02-15 16:27:27 EDT --- The website refers to ARCS software homepage for license information. The tarfile contains no license, I asked upstream to add it in and clarify the license the software is under. The reply: The license is here: http://dev.danse.us/trac/common/wiki/license and it's basically a BSD license, with a clause at the end that _encourages_ those who use packages developed in the DANSE project to credit us in their work. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 475110] Review Request: monkeystudio - Free crossplatform Qt 4 IDE
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475110 --- Comment #9 from Nicoleau Fabien nicoleau.fab...@gmail.com 2009-02-15 16:40:55 EDT --- Update for 1.8.3.2 : Spec URL: http://nicoleau.fabien.free.fr/rpms/SPECS/monkeystudio.spec SRPM URL: http://nicoleau.fabien.free.fr/rpms/srpms.fc10/monkeystudio-1.8.3.2-1.fc10.src.rpm rpmlint output : monkeystudio.i386: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/monkeystudio/templates/Python/Qt Form/template.ini monkeystudio.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/monkeystudio/templates/C++/Class/$Base File Name$.h monkeystudio.i386: E: zero-length /usr/share/monkeystudio/templates/All/Empty file/$File Name$ monkeystudio.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/monkeystudio/templates/C++/Herited Class/$Base File Name$.h monkeystudio.i386: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/monkeystudio/templates/Python/Qt Form/$Class Name$.ui monkeystudio.i386: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/monkeystudio/templates/Python/QObject Herited Class/template.ini monkeystudio.i386: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/monkeystudio/templates/Python/PyQt Console/template.ini monkeystudio.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/monkeystudio/templates/C++/QWidget Herited Class/$Base File Name$.h monkeystudio.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/monkeystudio/templates/Objective-C++/Class/$Base File Name$.h monkeystudio.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/monkeystudio/templates/C++/Qt Form/$Class Name$.h monkeystudio.i386: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/monkeystudio/templates/Python/PyQt Console/$Project Name$.xpyqt monkeystudio.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/monkeystudio/templates/C++/Qt Form/$Class Name$.cpp monkeystudio.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/monkeystudio/templates/C++/Namespace/$Base File Name$.h monkeystudio.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/monkeystudio/templates/C++/QObject Herited Class/$Base File Name$.cpp monkeystudio.i386: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/monkeystudio/templates/Python/PyQt Gui/$Form File Name$.ui monkeystudio.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/monkeystudio/templates/Objective-C++/Herited Class/$Base File Name$.h monkeystudio.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/monkeystudio/templates/C++/QObject Herited Class/$Base File Name$.h monkeystudio.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/monkeystudio/templates/C++/Herited Class/$Base File Name$.cpp monkeystudio.i386: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/monkeystudio/templates/Python/PyQt Gui/template.ini monkeystudio.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/monkeystudio/templates/C++/Class/$Base File Name$.cpp monkeystudio.i386: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/monkeystudio/templates/Python/PyQt Gui/$Project Name$.xpyqt monkeystudio.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/monkeystudio/templates/C++/Namespace/$Base File Name$.cpp monkeystudio.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/monkeystudio/templates/C++/QWidget Herited Class/$Base File Name$.cpp 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 9 errors, 14 warnings. All this warnings can be inored has they concerned template files. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 484933] Review Request: libwps - Library for reading and converting Microsoft Works word processor documents
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=484933 --- Comment #9 from Simon Wesp cassmod...@fedoraproject.org 2009-02-15 17:16:22 EDT --- mh, he can't build it, because Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil detects a rpath and send me these to lines to fix that. sed -i 's|^hardcode_libdir_flag_spec=.*|hardcode_libdir_flag_spec=|g' libtool sed -i 's|^runpath_var=LD_RUN_PATH|runpath_var=DIE_RPATH_DIE|g' libtool so I have to patch the makefile to handle %check? should i do that? -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 480857] Review Request: pdumpfs - Daily backup system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480857
Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net 2009-02-15
17:57:46 EDT ---
Package Review
==
Package:
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines
[x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary RPMs on at least one
supported architecture.
Tested on: F10/i386
[x] Rpmlint output:
Source RPM:
[...@laptop24 SRPMS]$ rpmlint pdumpfs-1.3-3.fc10.src.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Binary RPM(s):
[...@laptop24 noarch]$ rpmlint pdumpfs-1.3-3.fc10.noarch.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[x] Package is not relocatable.
[x] Buildroot is correct
master : %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
spec file: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
[x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type: GPLv2
[x] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package is included in %doc.
[x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
Upstream source: c1bb6514b3136854ca265913fd3765c9
Build source:c1bb6514b3136854ca265913fd3765c9
[x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[-] The spec file handles locales properly. %find_lang used for locales.
[-] %{optflags} or RPM_OPT_FLAGS are honoured.
[-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x] %install starts with rm -rf %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT.
[x] Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x] Permissions on files are set properly. %defattr(-,root,root,-) is in every
%files section.
[x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT.
[x] Package consistently uses macros.
[x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackage, if present.
[-] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present.
[-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
[-] -debuginfo subpackage is present and looks complete.
[-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
[x] Timestamps preserved with cp and install.
[x] Uses parallel make (%{?_smp_mflags})
[x] Latest version is packaged.
[-] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
Tested on: F10/i386
[x] Package should compile and build into binary RPMs on all supported
architectures.
Tested: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1128910
[x] Package functions as described.
[-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct.
[-] File based requires are sane.
[x] Changelog in allowed format
There is a translated man page (ja). Is there a reason why you didn't add
this? If no, add the japanese man page before importing into the cvs.
Beside that I see no further blocker, package 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.
___
Fedora-package-review
[Bug 476404] Review Request: bullet - 3D Collision Detection and Rigid Body Dynamics Library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476404 Bruno Mahe br...@gnoll.org changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|needinfo?(br...@gnoll.org) | --- Comment #18 from Bruno Mahe br...@gnoll.org 2009-02-15 18:15:56 EDT --- The Extras directory is not really needed. It just provides some extras libraries. They are not required. I already have successfully compiled and linked some demos apps against the bullet libraries from the built rpm. I removed the Demos/, Extras/ and Glut/ directories from the source archive. But then it's not a pristine source anymore. Is it ok ? I added -DBUILD_DEMOS=OFF -DBUILD_EXTRAS=OFF to the %cmake command. I can successfully build packages locally and through koji (see http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1128897 for instance) See http://www.gnoll.org/download/bullet-2.73-3.fc10.src.rpm and http://www.gnoll.org/download/bullet.spec Could someone review it ? This is my first package and I am looking for a sponsor. Thanks, Bruno -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485652] Review Request: navit - Car navigation system with routing engine
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485652 Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kvo...@redhat.com Status Whiteboard||NotReady -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485652] New: Review Request: navit - Car navigation system with routing engine
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: navit - Car navigation system with routing engine https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485652 Summary: Review Request: navit - Car navigation system with routing engine Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: fab...@bernewireless.net QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/navit.spec SRPM URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/navit-0.1.0-1.fc10.src.rpm Project URL: http://navit.sourceforge.net/ Description: Navit is modular design is capable of using vector maps of various formats for routing and rendering of the displayed map. It's even possible to use multiple maps at a time. The GTK+ or SDL user interfaces are designed to work well with touch screen displays. Points of Interest of various formats are displayed on the map. The current vehicle position is either read from gpsd or directly from NMEA GPS sensors. The routing engine not only calculates an optimal route to your destination, but also generates directions and even speaks to you using speechd. rpmlint output (just to post some more information): [...@laptop24 SRPMS]$ rpmlint navit-0.1.0-1.fc10.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. This package is not ready for a review because there are still some issues. Some persons offers their help and with a bug report we can better track the way to make navit work. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 484331] Review Request: perl-Sendmail-PMilter - Perl binding of Sendmail Milter protocol
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=484331 --- Comment #2 from John Guthrie guth...@counterexample.org 2009-02-15 18:46:43 EDT --- There was a small error in the POD code for one of the perl module files. I have patched that and here is the new SRPM: http://www.guthrie.info/RPMS/f10/perl-Sendmail-PMilter-0.96-5.fc10.src.rpm The new Spec file is still at the same URL. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 464781] Review Request: flexdock - Java docking UI element. First package.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=464781
--- Comment #30 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski r...@greysector.net
2009-02-15 19:19:09 EDT ---
Created an attachment (id=331996)
-- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=331996)
Suggested specfile fixes
Full review:
rpmlint is clean
$ rpmlint .
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
* MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
%define _jdkdir %{_jvmdir}/java-1.6.0-openjdk-1.6.0.0
I suggest using simply
%{_jvmdir}/java-1.6.0
instead, which will allow you to drop the
JDK_DIR=`echo %{_jdkdir} | sed 's!/$!!'`.`uname -m`
hack later (see attached patch). Is java-1.6 (not older and not newer) strictly
required?
Patch0: flexdock-jni-patch.patch
+File file = new File(%{_libdir}/%{name}/);^
That '/' at the end is not necessary. Also the patch file name has a redundant
'patch' in it, same for
others.
BuildRequires: jpackage-utils
is listed twice.
#Override the build file's default hard-coded paths
if [ x$JAVACMD != x ] ; then
echo using RPM jnidir tmpLog
echo sdk.home=%{_jnidir}-`$JAVACMD -version` workingcopy.properties
else
if [ x$JAVA_HOME != x ] ; then
echo Using JAVA_HOME env. var. : $JAVA_HOME tmpLog
echo sdk.home=$JAVA_HOME workingcopy.properties
else
JDK_DIR=%{_jdkdir}
echo Relying on spec file buildpath: $JDK_DIR tmpLog
echo sdk.home=$JDK_DIR workingcopy.properties
fi
fi
Why is the above necessary instead of:
echo sdk.home=%{_jvmdir}/java-1.6.0 workingcopy.properties
You could lose the %define _jdkdir at the beginning of the specfile then, too.
Also see the attached patch for more cosmetic fixes.
* MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and
meet the Licensing Guidelines.
Most files have no licencing information while others are licenced under MIT
licence. Given the presence
of LICENSE.txt, this is OK, but please ask upstream to include licencing
information at the top of each
source file
* MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
#Licence is MIT on their website, Apache in their LICENSE.txt
License: MIT and ASL 2.0
Wrong. LICENSE.txt is actually word-for-word MIT:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/MIT#Modern_Style_with_sublicense
* MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream
source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task.
If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL
Guidelines for how to deal with this.
88fd43d7d8db92e9480200c316e55056 flexdock-0.5.1-src.zip
* SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
* SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all
supported architectures.
Doesn't build on F-9/x86_64 and F-9/i386 (java 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.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483025] Review Request: imms - Adaptive playlist framework tracking and adapting to your listening patterns
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483025 --- Comment #5 from Milos Jakubicek xja...@fi.muni.cz 2009-02-15 19:45:48 EDT --- OK, upstream is very responsive, hence there is a new (pre)release with all the necessary licensing info: New SPEC: http://mjakubicek.fedorapeople.org/imms/imms.spec New SRPM: http://mjakubicek.fedorapeople.org/imms/imms-3.1.0-0.4.rc8.fc10.src.rpm Moreover, the GCC 4.3 patch has been merged upstream and the rpmlint issue with executable stack has been also clarified, it is caused by a objdump call (details in specfile) and has been simply fixed by removing the flag using execstack. I've also split the plugins into a xmms-imms and audacious-plugins-imms subpackage. So this is now definitely ready for a 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485607] Review Request: SciTools - A Python library for scientific computing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485607 --- Comment #6 from Joseph Smidt josephsm...@gmail.com 2009-02-15 20:16:56 EDT --- Okay, I have contacted upstream. In the meantime I have added the -extras package and moved examples to the doc section. I took the dependencies for the extras package from your suggestions plus the packages mentioned on the website: http://code.google.com/p/scitools/wiki/Installation Spec URL: http://jsmidt.fedorapeople.org/scitools.spec SRPM URL: http://jsmidt.fedorapeople.org/scitools-0.4-0.2.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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 484042] Review Request: vlgothic-fonts - Japanese TrueType fonts
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=484042 Akira TAGOH ta...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Akira TAGOH ta...@redhat.com 2009-02-15 21:21:09 EDT --- BTW I don't see lowercase name in bugzilla though, is it intentional or? -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485604] Review Request: gigolo - GIO/GVFS management application
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485604 --- Comment #3 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2009-02-15 22:22:02 EDT --- I guess I don't have time to review this, however Thank you for your comments anyhow. * Please make the build log more verbose so we can check if Fedora specific compiler flags are correctly honored. ...snip... so Fedora specific compilation flags are not correctly honored. I have done so in the new version. Thank you for spotting this issue. CFLAGS are now correctly using fedoras flags. - Would you explain why this package does not Provide sion despite that this Obsoletes sion? Well, I could do so, but this package has only been available for a short time in fedora. I don't think anyone would look for it under that name. I can do so, but not sure it would be worthwhile. - --vendor=fedora should not be used anymore. Removed. - By the way how we can check if the binary part in waf script file are under FOSS license? Well, it is a free build system, but now it appears it builds with the fedora version (at least in rawhide). Sion didn't. I have converted it to use Fedora's waf version and BuildRequire it. You can see the waf license in the 'waf' file. Sadly, the version in F9/F10 is too old, so there I will need to keep building with the local copy or get an update from the maintainer. New version that fixes above: Spec URL: http://www.scrye.com/~kevin/fedora/gigolo/gigolo.spec SRPM URL: http://www.scrye.com/~kevin/fedora/gigolo/gigolo-0.2.0-2.fc11.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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485668] New: Review Request: irc-otr - Off-The-Record Messaging plugin for various irc clients
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: irc-otr - Off-The-Record Messaging plugin for various irc clients https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485668 Summary: Review Request: irc-otr - Off-The-Record Messaging plugin for various irc clients Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: kon...@tylerc.org QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://konradm.fedorapeople.org/fedora/SPECS/irc-otr.spec SRPM URL: http://konradm.fedorapeople.org/fedora/SRPMS/irc-otr-0.3-1.fc10.src.rpm Description: This provides modules which implement Off-The-Record (OTR) Messaging for a number of popular IRC clients. Builds in Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1129261 -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 457916] Review Request: lmbench - lmbench benchmark tools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=457916 Conrad Meyer kon...@tylerc.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kon...@tylerc.org Blocks||182235 -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485668] Review Request: irc-otr - Off-The-Record Messaging plugin for various irc clients
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485668 --- Comment #1 from Conrad Meyer kon...@tylerc.org 2009-02-16 00:58:53 EDT --- (Rpmlint output is clean.) -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 476471] Review Request: fedora-security-guide - A security guide for Linux
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476471 --- Comment #47 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com 2009-02-16 00:57:24 EDT --- I don't want to say but the version number is back in the file names 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485668] Review Request: irc-otr - Off-The-Record Messaging plugin for various irc clients
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485668 --- Comment #2 from Conrad Meyer kon...@tylerc.org 2009-02-16 01:27:15 EDT --- *** Bug 480872 has been marked as a duplicate of this 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 480872] Review Request: irssi-otr - Off-The-Record Messaging plugin for irssi
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480872 Conrad Meyer kon...@tylerc.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||DUPLICATE --- Comment #2 from Conrad Meyer kon...@tylerc.org 2009-02-16 01:27:15 EDT --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 485668 *** -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485607] Review Request: SciTools - A Python library for scientific computing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485607 --- Comment #7 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi 2009-02-16 01:59:58 EDT --- Okay, so I didn't get everything on the list :P You are missing python-pmw (goes together with blt). Remove %doc from extras. Requires: grace should be requires: pygrace (which pulls in grace). pygrace does not exist in Fedora yet, but it seemed so simple that I made a package (see review request below). https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485617 -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 480944] Review Request: perl-Test-Harness-Straps - Detailed analysis of test results
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480944 Marcela Maslanova mmasl...@redhat.com 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
