[Bug 480279] Package Review for gnome-globalmenu
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=480279
--- Comment #11 from Alexey Torkhov atork...@gmail.com 2009-03-08 04:21:48
EDT ---
Do you need a sponsor? If so, FE-NEEDSPONSOR bug should be blocked.
- Package fails to build in mock. Need to add intltool, libwnck-devel,
libXres-devel to BuildRequires.
- Use %{?rhel} macro to check rhel version:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/DistTag#Conditionals
- rpmlint is saying enormous number of errors and warnings that should be
fixed:
gnome-globalmenu.src: W: no-version-in-last-changelog
gnome-globalmenu-common.x86_64: E: postin-without-ldconfig
/usr/lib64/libgnomenu-0.7.4.so.2.0.0
gnome-globalmenu-common.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postun
/usr/lib64/libgnomenu-0.7.4.so.2.0.0
gnome-globalmenu-common.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/pkgconfig/libgnomenu.pc
gnome-globalmenu-common.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc
/etc/gconf/schemas/gnome-globalmenu.schemas
gnome-globalmenu-common.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/libgnomenu.so
gnome-globalmenu-common.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long This package
contains shared data and libraries of various Global Menu packages.
gnome-globalmenu-common.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog
gnome-globalmenu-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog
gnome-globalmenu-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
gnome-globalmenu-devel.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog
gnome-globalmenu-gnome-panel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
gnome-globalmenu-gnome-panel.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency libnotify
gnome-globalmenu-gnome-panel.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency libwnck
gnome-globalmenu-gnome-panel.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog
gnome-globalmenu-gtkmodule.x86_64: W: no-documentation
gnome-globalmenu-gtkmodule.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog
gnome-globalmenu-xfce-panel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
gnome-globalmenu-xfce-panel.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency libwnck
gnome-globalmenu-xfce-panel.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog
7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 14 warnings.
In particular:
- All subpackages with shared libraries should have ldconfig calls:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Shared_Libraries
- Drop all explicit library dependencies in favour of rpm automatic dependency
finder.
- Description lines should be less 80 symbols.
- Add version to at least last changelog entry.
- Spec template gnome-globalmenu.spec.in will generate bad name for svn
snapshots like 0.7.4-1234-1.fc10. It should be like 0.7.4-0.1.1234svn.fc10
instead:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Snapshot_packages
--
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 489135] Review Request: tcpjunk - TCP protocols testing 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=489135 --- Comment #2 from Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net 2009-03-08 05:38:09 EDT --- Thanks for the review. Yes, you are right about the 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 478759] Review Request: perl-SystemPerl - SystemPerl Perl module
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=478759 Brennan Ashton bash...@brennanashton.com changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|bash...@brennanashton.com --- Comment #8 from Brennan Ashton bash...@brennanashton.com 2009-03-08 05:38:53 EDT --- rpmlint is showing this error: perl-SystemPerl.i386: E: useless-provides perl(SystemC::Netlist::Module) -- 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 489135] Review Request: tcpjunk - TCP protocols testing 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=489135 Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net 2009-03-08 05:38:53 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: tcpjunk Short Description: TCP protocols testing tool Owners: fab 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 482884] Review Request: clc-intercal - Compiler for the INTERCAL language
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=482884 Iain Arnell iarn...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |CLC-INTERCAL - Compiler for |clc-intercal - Compiler for |the INTERCAL language |the INTERCAL language --- Comment #4 from Iain Arnell iarn...@gmail.com 2009-03-08 05:48:51 EDT --- Thanks for the review. And I will start to reciprocate now that I've got a few under my belt. I agree with lowercasing - better aesthetically and consistent with debian. I've kept the group tag in the sub-package since at least on my setup, rpm is making it 'unspecified' if I don't (and I think rpm 4.4 requires it, so may still be necessary for F-9?). I'm happy with /usr/bin/sick - it certainly seems to be unique at the minute and should a possible conflict occur in future, I don't see too many problems if we do need to rename it later (anyone relying on intercal has more serious problems to worry about). You're absolutely right about the UI-X sub-package. I've added a sentence to its description to make this clearer. I'm not sure that a desktop file is necessary, though. New spec: http://iarnell.fedorapeople.org/rpms/clc-intercal.spec New SRPM: http://iarnell.fedorapeople.org/rpms/clc-intercal-0-0.1.1._94._2.fc11.src.rpm New koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1229460 -- 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 487098] Review Request: Djblets - A collection of useful classes and functions for Django
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=487098 Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net changed: What|Removed |Added CC||fab...@bernewireless.net Summary|Review Request: Djblets - |Review Request: Djblets - A ||collection of useful ||classes and functions for ||Django -- 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 487098] Review Request: Djblets - A collection of useful classes and functions for Django
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=487098 --- Comment #1 from Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net 2009-03-08 06:10:08 EDT --- Please take a look at the Naming Guidelines of alpha releases. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Pre-Release_packages -- 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 487098] Review Request: Djblets - A collection of useful classes and functions for Django
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=487098 --- Comment #2 from Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net 2009-03-08 06:13:53 EDT --- An other issue after a quick look at your spec file is that the changelog entry is not in a proper format. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Changelogs -- 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 470325] Review Request: qd - Double-Double and Quad-Double Arithmetic
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=470325 Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #13 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi 2009-03-08 07:02:59 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: qd Short Description: Double-Double and Quad-Double Arithmetic Owners: jussilehtola Branches: F-9 F-10 EL-5 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 483663] Review Request: tetgen - A tetrahedral mesh 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=483663 Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net changed: What|Removed |Added 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 483434] Review Request: argtable2 - A library for parsing GNU style command line arguments
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=483434
Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bugs.mich...@gmx.net
--- Comment #9 from Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net 2009-03-08
08:01:40 EDT ---
* It is good packaging-practice to add
%check
make check
after the %install section.
* The -devel subpackage refers to libargtable2 while the package is called
argtable2 and the main pkg description calls the software Argtable. This
inconsistency causes minor confusion. You could substitute libargtable2 with
the project name, package %{name} or even Argtable library.
* The %doc examples/Makefile.nmake is for MSVC.
* The %doc examples/Makefile contains a hardcoded '/lib', which won't work on
64-bit platforms. [As a side-note: Overriding -Iheader/-Llibrary search-paths
with default search-paths is a wide-spread mistake that causes unwanted
side-effects. Here it's just examples and therefore neglectable, but where you
see it in other software releases, try to get rid of it.]
* The %doc files are large enough to justify creating a -doc subpackage and
moving them there. If every -devel package included so much documentation,
creating buildroots and -devel spins would require a lot more resources.
argtable2-devel shrinks down to 6K from 3M (!).
--
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 486584] Review Request: perl-CGI-Application - Framework for building reusable web-applications
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=486584 Xavier Lamien lxt...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|lxt...@gmail.com -- 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 486584] Review Request: perl-CGI-Application - Framework for building reusable web-applications
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=486584 Xavier Lamien lxt...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Blocks|177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #4 from Xavier Lamien lxt...@gmail.com 2009-03-08 08:31:52 EDT --- k, taking the review and removing sponsor request block, i take care of that one. -- 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 481333] Review Request: sugar-update-control - Activity update control panel for Sugar
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=481333 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-03-08 10:14:03 EDT --- sugar-update-control-0.20-3.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/sugar-update-control-0.20-3.fc10 -- 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 488185] Review Request: php-pecl-selinux - SELinux binding for PHP scripts
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=488185 KaiGai Kohei kai...@kaigai.gr.jp changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #10 from KaiGai Kohei kai...@kaigai.gr.jp 2009-03-08 11:04:43 EDT --- Thanks for your reviewing! New Package CVS Request === Package Name: php-pecl-selinux Short Description: SELinux binding for PHP scripting language Owners: kaigai Branches: F-9 F-10 InitialCC: kai...@ak.jp.nec.com -- 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 487097] Review Request: ReviewBoard - web based code review 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=487097 Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net changed: What|Removed |Added CC||fab...@bernewireless.net --- Comment #3 from Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net 2009-03-08 11:28:37 EDT --- Can you please open Review request for django-evolution? This is the one for ReviewBoard ;-) -- 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 487737] Review Request: slock - Simple X display locker
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=487737 Alexey Torkhov atork...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||atork...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Alexey Torkhov atork...@gmail.com 2009-03-08 11:24:56 EDT --- This package does not use standard rpm compiler flags when building: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Compiler_flags -- 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 458826] Review Request: s390utils - Linux/390 specific utilities
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=458826 Dan Horák d...@danny.cz changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|needinfo?(d...@danny.cz) | --- Comment #6 from Dan Horák d...@danny.cz 2009-03-08 11:47:20 EDT --- There was done quite a lot of work during the time, but the koji hub was broken for few months so there was no way to publicly check whether the package builds. You can find a preliminary package at https://s390.koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=42 and I will post next official review candidate during the next days. -- 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 483403] Review Request: gdesklet-citation - A collection of quotes in French for gdesklets
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=483403
--- Comment #18 from MERCIER bioinfornat...@gmail.com 2009-03-08 11:58:14
EDT ---
%changelog
* Sun Mar 8 2009 Jonathan MERCIER bioinfornatics-at-gmail.com - 1.3-7
- change license GPLv2 to GPL+
- change name gdesklet-citation to gdesklets-citation
- remove requires python
- use %%global instead of %%define
- directory %%{_datadir}/gdesklets/Displays/%%{_appname}/ is owned by this
package.
i wait my new version of this desklets (tomorrow) for put here .spec src.rpm
files
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 487737] Review Request: slock - Simple X display locker
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=487737 --- Comment #2 from Pavel Shevchuk stl...@gmail.com 2009-03-08 12:08:45 EDT --- Now it does. * Sun Mar 08 2009 Pavel Stalwart Shevchuk stl...@gmail.com - 0.9-2 - Set fedora generic compiler flags Spec URL: http://rpm.scwlab.com/fedora/slock/slock.spec SRPM URL: http://rpm.scwlab.com/fedora/slock/slock-0.9-2.fc10.src.rpm Built RPMs for F10 i386 and x86_64: http://rpm.scwlab.com/fedora/slock/ -- 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 467408] Review Request: mingw32-jasper - MinGW Windows Jasper 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=467408 Erik van Pienbroek erik-fed...@vanpienbroek.nl changed: What|Removed |Added CC||erik-fed...@vanpienbroek.nl AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|erik-fed...@vanpienbroek.nl Flag||fedora-review? Bug 467408 depends on bug 467401, which changed state. Bug 467401 Summary: Review Request: mingw32-libjpeg - MinGW Windows Libjpeg library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467401 What|Old Value |New Value Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED --- Comment #3 from Erik van Pienbroek erik-fed...@vanpienbroek.nl 2009-03-08 12:11:35 EDT --- This review is done for the -7 release which is on the annexia.org webserver. - The %defattr line must be %defattr(-,root,root,-) - The purpose of the patches (or upstream bugreport) should be mentioned in the .spec file - The patch 'jasper-1.701.0-GL.patch' has no effect as OpenGL support is disabled using a ./configure flag - According to http://www.nondot.org/sabre/Mirrored/libtool-2.1a/libtool_5.html, the AM_DISABLE_SHARED macro is used for setting the default behaviour for building shared libraries. The user may still override this default by specifying `--enable-shared'. So it should be sufficient to drop the 'jasper-1.900.1-mingw32.patch' patch and use '--enable shared' as ./configure flag. - The patch 'jasper-1.900.1-mingw32.patch' can be simplified by only adjusting the Makefile.in. This prevents having to use autoconf while still archieving the same effect -- 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 483727] Review Request: touchcal - Calibration utility for touch screens
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=483727
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+
--- Comment #1 from Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net 2009-03-08
12:16:05 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 touchcal-0.31-1.fc11.src.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Binary RPM(s):
[...@laptop24 i386]$ rpmlint -i touchcal*
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: 253032b585254056e19c56827ed9f539
Build source:253032b585254056e19c56827ed9f539
[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.
[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=1229748
[x] Package functions as described.
Only tested if the app started. I have no hardware to test.
[-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct.
[-] File based requires are sane.
[x] Changelog in allowed format
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
[Bug 487737] Review Request: slock - Simple X display locker
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=487737 --- Comment #3 from Alexey Torkhov atork...@gmail.com 2009-03-08 12:21:01 EDT --- Generated debuginfo is empty. It happens because it have -s flag when running ld: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Debuginfo I'm also suggesting to use patch, not sed. -- 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 483726] Review Request: smp_utils - Utilities for SAS management protocol (SMP)
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=483726
--- Comment #4 from Dan Horák d...@danny.cz 2009-03-08 12:17:08 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #1)
Builds fine and rpmlint is silent.
I won't ask you about the upstream status of the patch since you seem to be
upstream.
No, I am only providing part of my web space to Douglas Gilbert who is the
upstream. But the patch was already accepted by him.
Please use a proper build root. At minimum it needs to reference %{release}.
Oh, that's my omission when I was adapting the upstream spec file.
Really, that's the only issue I see, and I'm happy to just let you fix it up
when you import the package.
Yes, I will update it before importing.
The package review process needs reviewers! If you haven't done any package
reviews recently, please consider doing one.
Well, I have fulfilled my quota for this week with 5 finished reviews :-)
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 483726] Review Request: smp_utils - Utilities for SAS management protocol (SMP)
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=483726 --- Comment #5 from Dan Horák d...@danny.cz 2009-03-08 12:30:53 EDT --- (In reply to comment #3) Just wondering: any idea why a ppc64 package is not built in koji/EL4 ? http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1229077 ppc64 variant of EL (both 4 and 5) wasn't released, ppc machines defaults to 32-bit userspace I tried to test the EL4/i386 package, but none of the tested programs worked for me. However, as I am using a very very non standard kernel on the only box equipped with SAS, this is not an indication of failure of the program, could be just an incompatibility with my kernel. Or my lack of understanding the correct usage... I can only suggest http://sg.danny.cz/sg/smp_utils.html for more information. -- 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 483726] Review Request: smp_utils - Utilities for SAS management protocol (SMP)
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=483726 --- Comment #6 from Dan Horák d...@danny.cz 2009-03-08 12:33:08 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: smp_utils Short Description: Utilities for SAS management protocol (SMP) Owners: sharkcz Branches: F-9 F-10 EL-4 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 483726] Review Request: smp_utils - Utilities for SAS management protocol (SMP)
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=483726 Dan Horák d...@danny.cz 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 483727] Review Request: touchcal - Calibration utility for touch screens
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=483727 --- Comment #2 from Dan Horák d...@danny.cz 2009-03-08 12:34:54 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: touchcal Short Description: Calibration utility for touch screens Owners: sharkcz Branches: F-9 F-10 EL-4 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 483727] Review Request: touchcal - Calibration utility for touch screens
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=483727 Dan Horák d...@danny.cz 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 483727] Review Request: touchcal - Calibration utility for touch screens
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=483727 --- Comment #3 from Dan Horák d...@danny.cz 2009-03-08 12:46:24 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1) Package Review == I see no further blocker, package APPROVED 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 488100] Firebird SQL database management 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=488100
--- Comment #12 from MERCIER bioinfornat...@gmail.com 2009-03-08 13:20:46
EDT ---
this file is not in UTF-8 and iconv, piconv, sed do'nt work !!
%{buildroot}%{fbroot}/doc/sql.extensions/README.global_temporary_tables
%{buildroot}%{fbroot}/doc/sql.extensions/README.expression_indices
%{buildroot}%{fbroot}/doc/sql.extensions/README.common_table_expressions
%{buildroot}%{fbroot}/doc/README.intl
--
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 480279] Package Review for gnome-globalmenu
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=480279 Feng Yu rainwood...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841(FE-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 485159] Review Request: anki - Flashcard program for using space repetition learning
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=485159 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-03-08 13:26:59 EDT --- anki-0.9.9.6-4.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/anki-0.9.9.6-4.fc9 -- 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 488908] Review Request: cpptest - A portable and powerful and simple unit testing framework for C++
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=488908 Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||bugs.mich...@gmx.net AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|bugs.mich...@gmx.net Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net 2009-03-08 13:35:05 EDT --- $ rpmlint cpptest-1.1.0-1.fc10.src.rpm cpptest.src: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 19) * The pkg-config template file contains a hardcoded /lib in libdir. This won't work on 64-bit multi-arch platforms. Use libd...@libdir@ instead. * The -devel package ought to Requires: pkgconfig since it places a file in %_libdir/pkgconfig/ (and there is no automatic dependency on all platforms). * Installation of documentation is messed up (upstream dist bug). All files in /usr/share/doc/cpptest-devel-1.1.0/images/ are included in ../html/ already. In images/ they are misplaced and incomplete. * The %check section runs make check, which is a no-op. The test target is built already during %build. If you run cd test make check, the tests fail: FailTestSuite: 2/2, 50% correct in 0.17 seconds CompareTestSuite: 3/3, 33% correct in 0.09 seconds ThrowTestSuite: 2/2, 50% correct in 0.000226 seconds Total: 7 tests, 42% correct in 0.000252 seconds -- 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 480279] Package Review for gnome-globalmenu
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=480279 --- Comment #12 from Feng Yu rainwood...@gmail.com 2009-03-08 13:47:09 EDT --- gnome-globalmenu-common.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/gconf/schemas/gnome-globalmenu.schemas How is the schema file supposed to be installed? What does this mean? gnome-globalmenu-gtkmodule.x86_64: W: no-documentation New file has been uploaded to the same location. How did you invoke rpmlint? -- [rainwood...@localhost gnomenu]$ !rpmlint rpmlint gnome-globalmenu.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 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 480279] Package Review for gnome-globalmenu
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=480279 --- Comment #13 from Alexey Torkhov atork...@gmail.com 2009-03-08 14:15:14 EDT --- (In reply to comment #12) gnome-globalmenu-common.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/gconf/schemas/gnome-globalmenu.schemas How is the schema file supposed to be installed? It should be marked as %config(noreplace) - that is what warning says. What does this mean? gnome-globalmenu-gtkmodule.x86_64: W: no-documentation Add %doc line with AUTHORS and COPYING to -common subpackage. After that, this warning on other packages will be safe to ignore You can also get brief explanations for rpmlint errors with rpmlint -I no-documentation. How did you invoke rpmlint? It is invoked on built rpms like rpmlint gnome-globalmenu*.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 480279] Review Request: gnome-globalmenu - centralized menu bar
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=480279 Alexey Torkhov atork...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Package Review for |Review Request: |gnome-globalmenu|gnome-globalmenu - ||centralized menu bar -- 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 480851] Review Request: ccrypt - Secure encryption and decryption of files and streams
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=480851 Dan Horák d...@danny.cz changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|d...@danny.cz Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #4 from Dan Horák d...@danny.cz 2009-03-08 14:44:35 EDT --- I will do the formal review, it looks good as already found during the pre-review, but I have found 2 issues there: - a test-suite is included in the sources in the check directory, you should add a %check section containing make check into the spec file - the failure on ppc64 is a result of buggy code in maketables or a bug in GCC in combination with our security related compiler flags and you can ask for access to ppc654 system on fedora-devel for further investigation -- 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 488913] Review Request: perl-IPC-System-Simple - Run commands simply, with detailed diagnostics
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=488913 Chris Weyl cw...@alumni.drew.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Comment #4 from Chris Weyl cw...@alumni.drew.edu 2009-03-08 14:58:19 EDT --- 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 488919] Review Request: perl-App-Cache - Easy application-level caching
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=488919 Chris Weyl cw...@alumni.drew.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Comment #4 from Chris Weyl cw...@alumni.drew.edu 2009-03-08 14:58:24 EDT --- 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 488911] Review Request: perl-Hash-Merge-Simple - Recursively merge two or more hashes, simply
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=488911 Chris Weyl cw...@alumni.drew.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Comment #4 from Chris Weyl cw...@alumni.drew.edu 2009-03-08 14:58:15 EDT --- 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 480279] Review Request: gnome-globalmenu - centralized menu bar
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=480279
--- Comment #14 from Christoph Wickert fed...@christoph-wickert.de
2009-03-08 14:59:19 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #13)
It should be marked as %config(noreplace) - that is what warning says.
No it shouldn't, as gconf files are no config files and not supposed to be
edited by users. Just ignore the warning.
Some more comments:
- please add a blank line between new changelog entries for legibility
- devel package needs Requires: pkgconfig because it puts files into
%{_libdir}/pkgconfig which is owned by pkgconfig
- the files section of the devel package could be stripped down with wildcards:
%{_includedir}/libgnomenu/*.h instead of listing all files one by one
- %{_includedir}/libgnomenu/ is unowned and will be left behind after
uninstalling the devel package. So in addition to the above you need
%dir %{_includedir}/libgnomenu/
- %{_libdir}/libgnomenu.so belongs into the devel package and not into common,
see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DevelPackages
- %{_libdir}/gtk-2.0/modules/libglobalmenu-gnome.so is an exception from this
rule, so it's ok
- requirements for subpackages should be fuly versioned, see
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#RequiringBasePackage
so the gnome-panel package needs: Requires: gnome-globalmenu-common =
%{version}-%{release}
- Requires: gtk2 is not necessary as rpm will pick up dependencies on libs
automatically and other packages (xfce4-panel/gnome-panel) already requires it.
- Requires: gnome-menus is not necessary ether, because it is already required
be gnome-panel
- You are running ldconfig in %post and %postun of the common package, so it
also needs
Requires(post): ldconfig
Requires(postun): ldconfig
- Requires(pre): GConf2
Requires(post): GConf2
Requires(preun): GConf2
also belong to the common package and not to the empty base package
- Does it really make sense to package the gtkmodule separately?
- I wonder it the gnome-globalmenu-gnome-panel should be named
gnome-applet-globalmenu instead, because this would follow the naming
guidelines for panel applets.
- Same for gnome-globalmenu-xfce4-panel: Call it xfce4-globalmenu-plugin
instead?
--
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 480851] Review Request: ccrypt - Secure encryption and decryption of files and streams
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=480851 --- Comment #5 from Dan Horák d...@danny.cz 2009-03-08 15:11:31 EDT --- (In reply to comment #4) - the failure on ppc64 is a result of buggy code in maketables or a bug in GCC in combination with our security related compiler flags and you can ask for access to ppc654 system on fedora-devel for further investigation so it's buggy code - the r array on line 133 (maketables.c) consists of too small members (word8) for storing word32 values as returned by function multrot2113 -- 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
Terje Røsten terje...@phys.ntnu.no changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||terje...@phys.ntnu.no
--- Comment #15 from Terje Røsten terje...@phys.ntnu.no 2009-03-08 15:43:35
EDT ---
Some comments (some of these are not new, see comment #3 and #6)
add smp flags to make (the build is slow anyway), use optflags -
replace with:
make %{?_smp_mflags}
with
make %{?_smp_mflags} OPTFLAGS=%{optflags}
A build in koji in rawhide (F11) fails with:
/etc/profile.d/qt.sh: No such file or directory
I guess this is because qt is now qt4 while /etc/profile.d/qt.sh is
in the qt3-devel package.
A F10 koji was successfull, however ppc64 failed for some reason:
(that was with the make changes).
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1230019
--
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 478617] Review Request: zsync - Partial/differential file transfer client over HTTP
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=478617 Christoph Wickert fed...@christoph-wickert.de changed: What|Removed |Added 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 478617] Review Request: zsync - Partial/differential file transfer client over HTTP
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=478617 Christoph Wickert fed...@christoph-wickert.de changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||Reopened Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED CC||fed...@christoph-wickert.de Resolution|DUPLICATE | AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|fed...@christoph-wickert.de -- 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 273701] Review Request: gnome-main-menu - Gnome Main 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=273701
Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski r...@greysector.net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||r...@greysector.net
--- Comment #67 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski r...@greysector.net
2009-03-08 15:46:16 EDT ---
Some small issues with the spec file:
Packager: Lightspeed Technologies
Vendor: Lightspeed Technologies
These fields will be overwritten by Fedora build system, hence they can be
dropped.
For readability's sake I'd ask you to reformat BuildRequires, i.e. put each in
its own line and sort them alphabetically. This will also make diffs smaller if
there are any updates to them.
Additionally, I'm pretty certain that some of the BuildRequires are redundant.
I'll try to provide a list later.
The -devel subpackage is missing Requires: pkgconfig, which is mandatory for
all packages that ship .pc files.
%{_datadir}/applications/*
For just one file you could simply spell it out:
%{_datadir}/applications/application-browser.desktop
%{_datadir}/gnome-main-menu/*
%{_includedir}/slab/*
makes %{_datadir}/gnome-main-menu and %{_includedir}/slab directories unowned,
so just drop the /*.
--
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 478617] Review Request: zsync - Partial/differential file transfer client over HTTP
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=478617 Christoph Wickert fed...@christoph-wickert.de changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ianburr...@gmail.com --- Comment #3 from Christoph Wickert fed...@christoph-wickert.de 2009-03-08 15:47:18 EDT --- *** Bug 461429 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 461429] Review Request: zsync - Incremental file-transfer program without special server
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=461429 Christoph Wickert fed...@christoph-wickert.de changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||DUPLICATE Flag|needinfo?(ianburr...@gmail. | |com)| --- Comment #8 from Christoph Wickert fed...@christoph-wickert.de 2009-03-08 15:47:18 EDT --- Closing this bug now in favor of bug # 478617 because Fabian still wants to maintain the package. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 478617 *** -- 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 481759] Review Request: python-Apptools - Enthough Tool Suite Application 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=481759 --- Comment #8 from Jochen Schmitt joc...@herr-schmitt.de 2009-03-08 15:53:47 EDT --- Soory, but when I try to install python-TraitsGUI I will get an error message about a missing package with the name python-TraitsGUIBackendQt. -- 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 466147] Review Request:fedora-ksplice - Script Collection for Using KSplice on Fedora 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=466147 Jochen Schmitt joc...@herr-schmitt.de 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
[Bug 489223] New: Review Request: perl-Parse-BACKPAN-Packages - Provide an index of BACKPAN
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-Parse-BACKPAN-Packages - Provide an index of BACKPAN https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=489223 Summary: Review Request: perl-Parse-BACKPAN-Packages - Provide an index of BACKPAN Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All URL: http://search.cpan.org/dist/Parse-BACKPAN-Packages 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-Parse-BACKPAN-Packages.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~cweyl/review/perl-Parse-BACKPAN-Packages-0.34-1.fc10.src.rpm Description: The Comprehensive Perl Archive Network (CPAN) is a very useful collection of Perl code. However, in order to keep CPAN relatively small, authors of modules can delete older versions of modules to only let CPAN have the latest version of a module. BACKPAN is where these deleted modules are backed up. It's more like a full CPAN mirror, only without the deletions. This module provides an index of BACKPAN and some handy functions. The data is fetched from the net and cached for an hour. Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1230091 *rt-0.05 -- 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 482884] Review Request: clc-intercal - Compiler for the INTERCAL language
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=482884 Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2009-03-08 16:00:20 EDT --- You're right about the group tag; it seems that newer rpm versions handle this better, but older ones don't. I think we've touched on any potential issues, and everything significant has been addressed, so I think we're done. 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 478806] Review Request: simh - A highly portable, multi-system emulator
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=478806 --- Comment #2 from Lucian Langa co...@gnome.eu.org 2009-03-08 16:27:36 EDT --- VAX emulation contained firmware named ka655.bin which I removed from the package. I also removed emulation for Ibm1130 because license was somewhat vague. The other files from this package are licensed under MIT, no other ROM images or firmware are provided by this 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 487296] Review Request: sssd - System Security Services Daemon
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=487296 --- Comment #11 from Jakub Hrozek jhro...@redhat.com 2009-03-08 16:41:28 EDT --- Here you are: http://jhrozek.fedorapeople.org/sssd/sssd-0.1.0-5.20090308git6b20fac.fc10.src.rpm http://jhrozek.fedorapeople.org/sssd/sssd.spec Changes: * split into client and server * package git snapshot, mention that in SRPM -- 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 433187] Review Request: boinc-client - A platform for distributed 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=433187 Milos Jakubicek xja...@fi.muni.cz changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #27 from Milos Jakubicek xja...@fi.muni.cz 2009-03-08 17:21:11 EDT --- Package Change Request == Package Name: boinc-client New Branches: EL-5 Owners: mjakubicek -- 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
manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|wo...@nobugconsulting.ro
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Comment #3 from manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro 2009-03-08
17:27:50 EDT ---
Package Review
==
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 including the Perl specific items
[x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture.
Tested on: devel/x86_64
[x] Rpmlint output:
source RPM: empty
binary RPM:empty
[x] Package is not relocatable.
[x] Buildroot is correct
(%{_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 according to spec: BSD
[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.
SHA1SUM of : b4677999e200acbb373bdd00195b1b95a10b0cbc
Sendmail-PMilter-0.96.tar.gz
= see also Note 1
[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.
[-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x] Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x] Permissions on files are set properly.
[x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}.
[!] Package consistently uses macros.
= see note 2
[x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[-] Header files in -devel 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.
[-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
[-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
[x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
[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.
[!] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
Tested on: devel/x86_64
= see issue 1
[?] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
Tested on: not tested due to missing BR; works OK after adding it. See
issue 1 for details
[?] Package functions as described.
[-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct.
[-] File based requires are sane.
[x] Make test is OK
==
Notes
==
1. Soon after your review request was filed, version 0.97 was published. Could
you please upgrade your package, too ?
2. For consistency sake, I suggest to replace the /usr/bin/ from sed (in %prep)
with the %bindir macro. I will not block review if you prefer to leave it as it
is
=
Issues
=
1. There is a missing BR for perl(Test::More) which causes mock build to fail.
Please submit a corrected package and I'll gladly approve it if it's OK.
--
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 489226] New: Review Request: perl-local-lib - Create and use a local lib/ for perl modules
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-local-lib - Create and use a local lib/ for perl modules Alias: perl-local-lib https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=489226 Summary: Review Request: perl-local-lib - Create and use a local lib/ for perl modules Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All URL: http://search.cpan.org/dist/local-lib 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-local-lib.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~cweyl/review/perl-local-lib-1.003002-1.fc10.src.rpm Description: This module provides a quick, convenient way of bootstrapping a user- local Perl module library located within the user's home directory. It also constructs and prints out for the user the list of environment variables using the syntax appropriate for the user's current shell (as specified by the 'SHELL' environment variable), suitable for directly adding to one's shell configuration file. More generally, local::lib allows for the bootstrapping and usage of a directory containing Perl modules outside of Perl's '@INC'. This makes it easier to ship an application with an app-specific copy of a Perl module, or collection of modules. Useful in cases like when an upstream maintainer hasn't applied a patch to a module of theirs that you need for your application. Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1230274 *rt-0.05 -- 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 487901] Review Request: zikula - web-based CMS
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=487901 --- Comment #7 from David Nalley da...@gnsa.us 2009-03-08 17:35:47 EDT --- Done Please find: Spec URL: http://ke4qqq.fedorapeople.org/zikula.spec SRPM URL: http://ke4qqq.fedorapeople.org/zikula-1.1.1-10.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 478806] Review Request: simh - A highly portable, multi-system emulator
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=478806 --- Comment #3 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2009-03-08 17:35:13 EDT --- Right, but does what remains actually do anything without ROMs, OS images or anything else that you'd have to go elsewhere to get? -- 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 478291] Review Request: shtool - Portable shell 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=478291 --- Comment #2 from Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net 2009-03-08 17:34:19 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1) Any reason for not running the included test suite? It seems to work fine for me with just %check make check Added, thanks. Does this really depend on Perl? It seems that it will call Perl if it is present in various cases, but that it doesn't actually depend on it. rpm of course doesn't know that and generates a /usr/bin/perl dependency anyway. 'shtoolize' has a perl shebang. Updated files: Spec URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/shtool.spec SRPM URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/shtool-2.0.8-2.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 458643] Review Request: dansguardian - Content filtering web proxy
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=458643 --- Comment #20 from Felix Kaechele fe...@fetzig.org 2009-03-08 17:47:51 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=334451) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=334451) GCC 4.4 Fix I have the review 90% done but there is one thing I'd like you to do before I can approve the package: Please update to the last upstream version and apply the patch (with -p1) I attached. It fixes the source to build with gcc 4.4. Please also do not forget to send this patch upstream. -- 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 480851] Review Request: ccrypt - Secure encryption and decryption of files and streams
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=480851 --- Comment #6 from Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net 2009-03-08 17:56:10 EDT --- Thanks for your help. (In reply to comment #4) - a test-suite is included in the sources in the check directory, you should add a %check section containing make check into the spec file At the moment there is an issue with the 'check' ---%- BC=8, KC=8, Inverse difference a0[i][j]=232, a1[j*4+i]=-30 BC=8, KC=8, Inverse difference a0[i][j]=8, a1[j*4+i]=109 Inverse: 32 differences Total: 647 differences The optimized Rijndael implementation does not agree with the reference implementation. FAIL: rijndael-check ccrypt: key does not match ./length-check.sh: test failed for file length 0. FAIL: length-check.sh ./ccrypt-check.sh:57: Action returned 4 instead of 0. ./ccrypt-check.sh: test failed. FAIL: ccrypt-check.sh Random seed: 1236549206 Passed. PASS: crypt3-check === 3 of 4 tests failed === make[2]: *** [check-TESTS] Fehler 1 make[2]: Leaving directory `/home/fab/rpmbuild/BUILD/ccrypt-1.7/check' make[1]: *** [check-am] Fehler 2 make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/fab/rpmbuild/BUILD/ccrypt-1.7/check' ---%- (In reply to comment #5) (In reply to comment #4) - the failure on ppc64 is a result of buggy code in maketables or a bug in GCC in combination with our security related compiler flags and you can ask for access to ppc654 system on fedora-devel for further investigation so it's buggy code - the r array on line 133 (maketables.c) consists of too small members (word8) for storing word32 values as returned by function multrot2113 Added a patch for this. Now it works on ppc64. -- 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 484547] Review Request: pyfacebook - Python wrapper for Facebook's API
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=484547 --- Comment #4 from Ian Weller ianwel...@gmail.com 2009-03-08 18:08:41 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 489226] Review Request: perl-local-lib - Create and use a local lib/ for perl modules
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=489226
manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|wo...@nobugconsulting.ro
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro 2009-03-08
18:11:06 EDT ---
Package Review
==
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 including the Perl specific items
[x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture.
Tested on: devel/x86_64
[x] Rpmlint output:
source RPM: empty
binary RPM:empty
[x] Package is not relocatable.
[x] Buildroot is correct
(%{_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: GPL+ or Artistic (same as perl)
[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.
SHA1SUM of source file: b2ac54ea63951e90bbfe7cdcab590ec1626883ab
local-lib-1.003002.tar.gz
[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.
[-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x] Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x] Permissions on files are set properly.
[x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}.
[x] Package consistently uses macros.
[x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[-] Header files in -devel 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.
[-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
[-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
[x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
[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-Engl
ish languages, if available.
[x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
Tested on: devel/x86_64
[?] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
Tested on: noarch, perl module
[?] Package functions as described.
[-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct.
[-] File based requires are sane.
[x] %check exists and the tests pass.
*** 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 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 #4 from manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro 2009-03-08 18:09:47 EDT --- Obviously the [x] Latest version is packaged. should be read [!] Latest version is packaged. see Note 1 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 484547] Review Request: pyfacebook - Python wrapper for Facebook's API
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=484547 --- Comment #5 from Conrad Meyer kon...@tylerc.org 2009-03-08 18:14:31 EDT --- Have you updated your spec to follow the pre-release naming guidelines (or has upstream released a stable version)? If so, please post URLs to the updated spec. -- 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 489233] New: Review Request: rmol - C++ Revenue Management Optimisation Library (RMOL)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: rmol - C++ Revenue Management Optimisation Library (RMOL) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=489233 Summary: Review Request: rmol - C++ Revenue Management Optimisation Library (RMOL) Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: denis.arnaud_fed...@m4x.org QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/rmol/rmol.spec?use_mirror=ovh SRPM URL: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/rmol/rmol-0.18.0-0.dev.1.src.rpm?use_mirror=ovh Description: [FE-NEEDSPONSOR] That is my first package for Fedora, and I thus do need a sponsor. RMOL is a C++ library of Revenue Management and Optimisation classes and functions. Typically, that library may be used by service providers (e.g., airlines offering flight seats, hotels offering rooms, rental car companies offering rental days, broadcasting company offering advertisement slots, theaters offering seats, etc.) to help in optimising their revenues from seat capacities. Most of the algorithms implemented are public and documented in the following book: The Theory and practice of Revenue Management, by Kalyan T. Talluri and Garrett J. van Ryzin, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2004, ISBN 1-4020-7701-7 Install the rmol package if you need a library for high-level revenue management functionality. --- -- 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 489233] Review Request: rmol - C++ Revenue Management Optimisation Library (RMOL)
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=489233 Denis Arnaud denis.arnaud_fed...@m4x.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||denis.arnaud_fed...@m4x.org Version|rawhide |10 Blocks||177841(FE-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 484547] Review Request: pyfacebook - Python wrapper for Facebook's API
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=484547 --- Comment #6 from Ian Weller ianwel...@gmail.com 2009-03-08 18:30:56 EDT --- spec and SRPM in http://ianweller.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/pyfacebook/0.1-0.1.20090208svn173/ -- 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 481333] Review Request: sugar-update-control - Activity update control panel for Sugar
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=481333 Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||462625(FedoraOLPCDelta) Depends on|462625(FedoraOLPCDelta) | -- 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 484547] Review Request: pyfacebook - Python wrapper for Facebook's API
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=484547 Conrad Meyer kon...@tylerc.org changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #7 from Conrad Meyer kon...@tylerc.org 2009-03-08 18:42:20 EDT --- Looks good, APPROVED. Thanks for packaging this :). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 489233] Review Request: rmol - C++ Revenue Management Optimisation Library (RMOL)
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=489233
--- Comment #1 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2009-03-08 18:45:41 EDT
---
I haven't done a full review, but here are a couple of comments:
Please don't define %version and %release like that; if you have
Version: 0.18.0
then %version is automatically defined for you to 0.18.0.
LGPL is not a valid license tag in Fedora. Please see
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing. I did not look at the source to see
the license in use, but if it's LGPL version 2 or later, use LGPLv2+.
Please do not use the Vendor or Distribution tags.
0.dev.1 is not a valid value for the Release tag. If the package is a released
tarball with version 0.18.0, use a positive integer for the release tag with
%{?dist} appended. (Use of the dist tag is not mandatory but is recommended
unless you are experienced with Fedora packaging and understand how to manage
proper upgrade paths.) If 0.18.0 has not been released and you're a using some
sort of snapshot leading up to that release then other formats are allowable.
Please see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines for the
full details.
--
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 462311] Review Request: raidutils - Utilities to manage Adaptec I2O compliant RAID controllers
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=462311 Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ti...@math.uh.edu Flag||fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2009-03-08 19:11:32 EDT --- rpmlint says: raidutils.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libraidutil.so.0.0.0 Argv raidutils.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libraidutil.so.0.0.0 osdSwap2 raidutils.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libraidutil.so.0.0.0 osdSwap4 I guess the executables are expected to provide these. Since this isn't a library you'd expect to be used by other problems, I don't see a problem here. raidutils.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libraidutil.so.0.0.0 /lib64/libm.so.6 This is a minor artifact of autoconf; you can fix it if you like with a quick call to sed but it's probably not worth it. I do wish the package had a somewhat less generic name, but it's been around for over a decade and I don't see any point in trying to change it now. I don't see any problems with the upstream being inactive; there's little or no security exposure here, the hardware is no longer sold and the software works. At least, I'm taking your word that it does; I don't have the hardware. There's no reason for BuildRequires: gcc-c++; it's in the default buildroot. That's really a minor issue; you can take it out when you import the package. * source files match upstream. sha256sum: ac350f60b9635d952a7a5664effa59e418ada9ad3deba66d46e6e0a094966d65 raidutils-0.0.6.tar.bz2 * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text included in package. * latest version is being packaged. X BuildRequires (gcc-c++ unneeded). * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly. * debuginfo package looks complete. * rpmlint has acceptable complaints. * final provides and requires are sane: libraidutil.so.0()(64bit) raidutils = 0.0.6-2.fc11 raidutils(x86-64) = 0.0.6-2.fc11 = /bin/sh /sbin/ldconfig libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libraidutil.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4)(64bit) * shared libraries are installed; ldconfig called properly. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no scriptlets present. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. * no static libraries. * no libtool .la files. APPROVED; just remove the errant gcc-c++ build dependency when you check in. The package review process needs reviewers! If you haven't done any package reviews recently, please consider doing one. -- 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 488010] Review Request: ibus-table-cangjie - Cang Jie input method for ibus-table.
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=488010 Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|peter...@redhat.com 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 484547] Review Request: pyfacebook - Python wrapper for Facebook's API
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=484547 --- Comment #9 from Ian Weller ianwel...@gmail.com 2009-03-08 19:38:36 EDT --- oh and of course -- thanks, conrad :) -- 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 484547] Review Request: pyfacebook - Python wrapper for Facebook's API
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=484547 Ian Weller ianwel...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #8 from Ian Weller ianwel...@gmail.com 2009-03-08 19:38:03 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: pyfacebook Short Description: Python wrapper for Facebook's API Owners: ianweller Branches: F-10 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 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 #62 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com 2009-03-08 19:42:07 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=334452) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=334452) ghc-X11.spec-4.patch My bad for not checking more carefully, but these hunks got dropped from ghc-X11.spec-3.patch. The only crucial one is the second one: base should not provide devel and fixing the arch list. You already commented on the Summary change, but just to explain one of the reasons for changing it is that Summary should be kept simple for PkgKit, but I leave it to your final discretion. Please close this bug NEXTRELEASE once the final package has been built also for i586. -- 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 489226] Review Request: perl-local-lib - Create and use a local lib/ for perl modules
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=489226 --- Comment #2 from Chris Weyl cw...@alumni.drew.edu 2009-03-08 19:51:15 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: perl-local-lib Short Description: Create and use a local lib/ for perl modules Owners: cweyl Branches: F-9 F-10 devel InitialCC: perl-sig -- 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 489226] Review Request: perl-local-lib - Create and use a local lib/ for perl modules
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=489226 Chris Weyl cw...@alumni.drew.edu 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 489233] Review Request: rmol - C++ Revenue Management Optimisation Library (RMOL)
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=489233 --- Comment #2 from Denis Arnaud denis.arnaud_fed...@m4x.org 2009-03-08 19:53:47 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1) The corrected files (RPM specification file and the corresponding source RPM) are available as per the following: Spec URL: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/rmol/rmol.spec?use_mirror=ovh SRPM URL: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/rmol/rmol-0.18.0-0.dev.1.src.rpm?use_mirror=ovh -- 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 489233] Review Request: rmol - C++ Revenue Management Optimisation Library (RMOL)
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=489233 --- Comment #3 from Denis Arnaud denis.arnaud_fed...@m4x.org 2009-03-08 19:59:42 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1) The corrected files (RPM specification file and the corresponding source RPM) are available as per the following: Spec URL: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/rmol/rmol.spec?use_mirror=ovh SRPM URL: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/rmol/rmol-0.18.0-1.fc10.src.rpm?use_mirror=ovh -- 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 478759] Review Request: perl-SystemPerl - SystemPerl Perl module
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=478759 Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu changed: What|Removed |Added 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 476406] Review Request: sympow - Special Values of Symmetric Power Elliptic Curve L-Functions
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=476406 Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||182235(FE-Legal) --- Comment #3 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2009-03-08 21:07:30 EDT --- I don't believe the license of this package is actually BSD; at least, it's not a BSD variant I've seen before. The third clause is different to me: Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: * Redistribution of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. * Redistribution in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. * If redistribution is done as a part of a compilation that has a more restrictive license (such as the GPL), then the fact that SYMPOW has a less restrictive license must be made clear to the recipient. For example, a line like (include bracketed text if SYMPOW is modified): This compilation includes [a modification of] SYMPOW whose [original] code has a less-restrictive license than the entire compilation. should appear in a suitable place in the COPYING and/or LICENSE file. Blocking FE-Legal for an opinion. I wonder if the third clause might actually render the software GPL-incompatible. And even then, I'd have to leave it to a lawyer to determine what more restrictive really means. -- 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 457160] Review Request: Zorba - General purpose XQuery processor implemented in C++
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=457160 Kevin Kofler ke...@tigcc.ticalc.org changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo?(ti...@math.uh.edu ||) --- Comment #28 from Kevin Kofler ke...@tigcc.ticalc.org 2009-03-08 21:51:36 EDT --- Any chance we can get a log from running cmake in Valgrind, if possible with cmake-debuginfo installed? -- 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 488010] Review Request: ibus-table-cangjie - Cang Jie input method for ibus-table.
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=488010 --- Comment #18 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com 2009-03-08 21:55:30 EDT --- If the cangjie tables are from the public domain, then the license should reflect that. I think we need a new upstream package with the correct 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 472150] Review Request: coot - crystallographic macromolecular building toolkit
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=472150 --- Comment #12 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2009-03-08 21:58:26 EDT --- This failed to build for me in rawhide; it looks like it will need some fixes in order to build with gcc 4.4: coot-utils.cc: In function 'std::string coot::util::int_to_string(int)': coot-utils.cc:307: error: 'snprintf' was not declared in this scope coot-utils.cc: In function 'std::string coot::util::long_int_to_string(long int)': coot-utils.cc:314: error: 'snprintf' was not declared in this scope coot-utils.cc: In function 'std::string coot::util::float_to_string(float)': coot-utils.cc:321: error: 'snprintf' was not declared in this scope coot-utils.cc: In function 'std::string coot::util::float_to_string_using_dec_pl(float, short unsigned int)': coot-utils.cc:332: error: 'snprintf' was not declared in this scope make[1]: *** [coot-utils.lo] Error 1 About the rpmlint complaints, the unused-direct-shlib-dependency ones just indicate that a library is linked against libm but doesn't actually call any functions in it. It's not really a problem. All of the undefined-non-weak symbol complaints come from the fact that one library calls functions in another without being linked against it. Things still work because the the final executables link against all of the libraries. It's really bad form, but unless the libraries are expected to be used by other packages it's not really a huge problem. It's something I would complain to upstream about and perhaps try to work out a fix (after all, it is a lot of rpmlint warnings and it shouldn't be all that hard to make them go away) but I don't think it would block this review. Also, you probably don't want to pass --vendor=fedora to desktop-file-install. -- 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 489223] Review Request: perl-Parse-BACKPAN-Packages - Provide an index of BACKPAN
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=489223 Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||panem...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|panem...@gmail.com 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 488858] Review Request: davfs2 - A filesystem driver for WebDAV
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=488858 Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ti...@math.uh.edu 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 476483] Review Request: ghc-paths - library for information about ghc paths (renamed to ghc-ghc-paths)
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=476483 Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: ghc-paths - |Review Request: ghc-paths - |library for information |library for information |about ghc paths |about ghc paths (renamed to ||ghc-ghc-paths) --- Comment #5 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com 2009-03-08 22:59:28 EDT --- My bad but this package should be renamed to ghc-ghc-paths since the Haskell library itself is called ghc-paths. Renaming will keep cabal2spec-diff happy and make it easier to keep the package in sync with the templates. New Package CVS Request === Package Name: ghc-ghc-paths Short Description: Interface to ghc's install directories Owners: petersen Branches: F-10 InitialCC: haskell-sig -- 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 476483] Review Request: ghc-paths - library for information about ghc paths (renamed to ghc-ghc-paths)
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=476483 --- Comment #6 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com 2009-03-08 23:12:47 EDT --- cvs 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 480279] Review Request: gnome-globalmenu - centralized menu bar
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=480279 --- Comment #15 from Feng Yu rainwood...@gmail.com 2009-03-08 23:20:14 EDT --- All changes done. I also merged the -common backage to the base package. New files were uploaded to http://rainwoodman.dreamhosters.com/fedora-review/gnome-globalmenu-0.7.4-4.fc10.src.rpm http://rainwoodman.dreamhosters.com/fedora-review/gnome-globalmenu.spec [rainwood...@localhost gnomenu]$ rpmlint ~/rpmbuild/RPMS/i386/*0.7.4-4* gnome-applet-globalmenu.i386: W: no-documentation gnome-globalmenu.i386: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/gconf/schemas/gnome-globalmenu.schemas gnome-globalmenu-devel.i386: W: no-documentation xfce4-globalmenu-plugin.i386: W: no-documentation 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Does it build with mock? -- 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 488858] Review Request: davfs2 - A filesystem driver for WebDAV
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=488858 Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2009-03-09 00:00:35 EDT --- Indeed, the only rpmlint complaints are those you mention, and they're all OK. I tried to test this but without a server to connect to there's not all that much you can do. This package leaves /etc/davfs2 and /etc/davfs2/certs unowned. A couple of extra %dir statements should fix this up. Really that's the only I see that needs fixing, so I'll go ahead and approve this and you can fix it up when you import. * source files match upstream. sha256sum: bb71b46dfd6b24885c263243cdf15de57d4798b6cee0b479324ea387f3694775 davfs2-1.3.3.tar.gz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text included in package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly. * debuginfo package looks complete. * rpmlint has acceptable complaints. * final provides and requires are sane: config(davfs2) = 1.3.3-1.fc11 davfs2 = 1.3.3-1.fc11 davfs2(x86-64) = 1.3.3-1.fc11 = /bin/sh config(davfs2) = 1.3.3-1.fc11 libneon.so.27()(64bit) shadow-utils * no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. X owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no generically named files * scriptlets are OK (user/group creation). * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. * no static libraries. * no libtool .la files. APPROVED, just fix up the directory ownership issues. The package review process needs reviewers! If you haven't done any package reviews recently, please consider doing one. -- 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 426753] Review Request: xmonad - A tiling window manager
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=426753 Bug 426753 depends on bug 426751, which changed state. Bug 426751 Summary: Review Request: ghc-X11 - A Haskell binding to the X11 graphics library. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=426751 What|Old Value |New Value 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
[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 Yaakov Nemoy loupgaroubl...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Comment #63 from Yaakov Nemoy loupgaroubl...@gmail.com 2009-03-09 00:02:25 EDT --- re: base and devel, should be fixed re: summary - i wasn't aware of the use case, fixed re: archs, somehow missed applying that in patch-3, applied now and built closing bug now. -- 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 482884] Review Request: clc-intercal - Compiler for the INTERCAL language
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=482884 Iain Arnell iarn...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Iain Arnell iarn...@gmail.com 2009-03-09 00:38:27 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: clc-intercal Short Description: Compiler for the INTERCAL language Owners: iarnell 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 479020] Review Request: python-repoze-who-plugins-sa - The repoze.who SQLAlchemy plugin
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=479020 --- Comment #1 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2009-03-09 00:40:58 EDT --- This failed to build for me: Executing(%check): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.dtBuvs + umask 022 + cd /builddir/build/BUILD + cd repoze.who.plugins.sa-1.0b2-r2909 + unset DISPLAY ++ pwd + PYTHONPATH=/builddir/build/BUILD/repoze.who.plugins.sa-1.0b2-r2909 + nosetests /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.dtBuvs: line 27: nosetests: command not found I think it's missing python-nose as a build dependency, but when I add it, I get various additional failures. -- 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 488010] Review Request: ibus-table-cangjie - Cang Jie input method for ibus-table.
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=488010 --- Comment #19 from Caius kaio Chance ccha...@redhat.com 2009-03-09 00:39:36 EDT --- http://cchance.fedorapeople.org/packaging/ibus-table-cangjie.spec http://cchance.fedorapeople.org/packaging/ibus-table-cangjie-1.1.0.20090220-4.fc11.src.rpm Updated rpm proposal. Cloning to upstream now. -- 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 483615] Review Request: CodeAnalyst - Performance Analysis Suite for AMD-based System (based on Oprofile)
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=483615 --- Comment #25 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com 2009-03-09 00:44:50 EDT --- I will test functionality by installing this now. -- 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 488665] Review Request: hscolour - Haskell source code highlighter
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=488665
Yaakov Nemoy loupgaroubl...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||loupgaroubl...@gmail.com
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Yaakov Nemoy loupgaroubl...@gmail.com 2009-03-09
00:44:41 EDT ---
Here begins the review
After eyeballing it, of note, the actual url is:
http://www.cs.york.ac.uk/fp/darcs/hscolour/
This begs the question, do we want to put the onus on the packager to go to the
hackage page and see if there is an alternate link given? Since that link is
given in the cabal file anyways, should cabal2spec pull it out automatically?
Or rather, do we want to have some sort of OCD everything must link to hackage
if it's available there so we can be sure it's a hackage package?
IMO the upstream maintains a nice website.
# MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
the review.[1]
ghc-hscolour-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
ghc-hscolour-prof.x86_64: W: no-documentation
ghc-hscolour-prof.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/ghc-6.10.1/hscolour-1.12/libHShscolour-1.12_p.a
ghc-hscolour-prof.x86_64: E: devel-dependency ghc-hscolour-devel
hscolour.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/HsColour 0775
hscolour.x86_64: W: executable-stack /usr/bin/HsColour
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 4 warnings.
# MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
Check
# MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [2] .
Check
# MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
FAIL: see rpmlint error about file permissions
# MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines .
Check
# MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license. [3]
Check
# 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.[4]
Check
# MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [5]
To the supposed chagrin of the author, Check :)
# MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [6]
Check, but please use block instead of cursive next time.
# 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.
Check - 4328a84b87b245693bcf10b49c608e43
# MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture. [7]
Check - x86_64
# 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. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line. [8]
Currently excludes ppc64 in conformance with ghc issues. Check.
# 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. Apply common sense.
Check.
# MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.[9]
N/A
# MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library
files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must
call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [10]
N/A
# 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. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker. [11]
N/A
# MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not
create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
create that directory. [12]
Check
# MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
[13]
Check
# MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
%defattr(...) line. [14]
Fail: See above rpmlint
# MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm
