[Bug 492252] Review Request: libdwarf - Library to access the DWARF Debugging file format
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=492252 --- Comment #6 from Suravee Suthikulpanit suravee.suthikulpa...@amd.com 2009-04-01 02:17:49 EDT --- SPEC: http://suravee.fedorapeople.org/libdwarf-0.20090324-4/libdwarf.spec SRPM: http://suravee.fedorapeople.org/libdwarf-0.20090324-4/libdwarf-0.20090324-4.fc10.src.rpm Koji Build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1269499 NOTE: - rpmlint -iv is quiet on all 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 493232] Review Request: redir - Redirect TCP connections
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=493232 Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||oget.fed...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com 2009-04-01 02:24:48 EDT --- Not that you have to use any of them, but the Debian version of this package comes with quite a lot of fixes/patches. They have this packaged for quite a while and they have probably figured out what bugs it has. Did you have a look? Maybe you'll find something really useful. -- 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 481701] Review Request: python-TraitsGUI - Traits-capable windowing framework
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=481701
Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||oget.fed...@gmail.com
--- Comment #3 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com 2009-04-01
02:42:06 EDT ---
Hi Rakesh,
I had a quick look at your SPEC file. There are few things I would like you to
do before the full review.
* Please update to the latest version (3.0.4)
* %{version} should be dropped from URL.
* Please make the description span 80 columns.
* For macro consistency you should either convert X to %{__X}, where
X=(sed,mv,rm), or convert %{__python} to python
* Please preserve the timestamps of the .txt files.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 492252] Review Request: libdwarf - Library to access the DWARF Debugging file format
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=492252 Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #7 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com 2009-04-01 03:08:05 EDT --- Review: + package builds in mock (rawhide i386). koji build = http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1269499 + rpmlint is silent for SRPM and for RPM. + source files match upstream url 4e603955797a1d5d314a9489a4342c24 libdwarf-20090324.tar.gz + package meets naming and packaging guidelines. + specfile is properly named, is cleanly written + Spec file is written in American English. + Spec file is legible. + dist tag is present. + build root is correct. + license is open source-compatible. + License text is included in package. + BuildRequires are proper. + Compiler flags used correctly. + defattr usage is correct. + %clean is present. + package installed properly. + Macro use appears rather consistent. + Package contains code, not content. + no static libraries. + no .pc file present. + -devel subpackage exists. + no .la files. + no translations are available. + Does owns the directories it creates. + ldconfig scriptlets present. + no duplicates in %files. + file permissions are appropriate. + Package libdwarf-0.20090324-4.fc11.i586 = Provides: libdwarf.so.0.0 Requires: libc.so.6 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.0) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1.3) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4) libdwarf.so.0.0 rtld(GNU_HASH) + Package libdwarf-devel-0.20090324-4.fc11.i586 = Requires: libdwarf.so.0.0 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 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 --- Comment #32 from Till Maas opensou...@till.name 2009-04-01 02:59:20 EDT --- I will try to test it later today, but I already found some additional issues: - There are now tabs used after Source2 to Source4 - start-xmonad probably needs a exec xmonad at the end to make it actually start xmonad - start-xmonad will not find the config file, because there is a doc missing in the path: /usr/share/xmonad-0.8.1/xmonad.hs, nevertheless the sample config should probably copied to /usr/share/xmonad/xmonad.hs, too and not marked as %doc, otherwise the package will not work installed with --nodocs. -- 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 226197] Merge Review: nfs-utils-lib
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=226197 Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bugs.mich...@gmx.net, ||tcall...@redhat.com Depends on||483464 --- Comment #1 from Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net 2009-04-01 04:33:46 EDT --- * License: libnfsidmap is BSD. librpcseggss is BSD and Sun RPC, which is a bad license according to the Fedora Licensing Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#Bad_Licenses https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/SunRPC * Static libraries must be moved into a -static subpackage according to the guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Packaging_Static_Libraries Requires(postun): /sbin/ldconfig Requires(pre): /sbin/ldconfig These are automatically added by rpmbuild, because -p /sbin/ldconfig is specified for the scriptlets. Requires: libgssglue, openldap These ought to be removed in favour of the automatically added SONAME dependencies. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 492252] Review Request: libdwarf - Library to access the DWARF Debugging file format
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=492252 --- Comment #8 from Suravee Suthikulpanit suravee.suthikulpa...@amd.com 2009-04-01 04:43:28 EDT --- Thank you for your approval. -- 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 492252] Review Request: libdwarf - Library to access the DWARF Debugging file format
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=492252 Suravee Suthikulpanit suravee.suthikulpa...@amd.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #9 from Suravee Suthikulpanit suravee.suthikulpa...@amd.com 2009-04-01 04:47:34 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: libdwarf Short Descriptions: Library to access the DWARF Debugging file format Owners: suravee Branches: F-10 InitialCC: paragn -- 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 492612] Review Request: python-chardet - Character encoding auto-detection in Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=492612 Jason Friedland thesuperja...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||thesuperja...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Jason Friedland thesuperja...@gmail.com 2009-04-01 04:56:14 EDT --- Hi Andreas - I'm a new packager here but some changes I thought might be required: 1. You're packaging a library, not a language: Group: Development/Libraries 2. As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python BuildRequires: python Package built fine on F10 for me. Jason -- 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 490724] Review Request: R-RUnit - R Unit test framework
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=490724 --- Comment #7 from Pierre-YvesChibon pin...@pingoured.fr 2009-04-01 04:59:13 EDT --- Second mail sent to the R-devel mailing list -- 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 490725] Review Request: geanyvc - Version Controler plugin for geany
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=490725 --- Comment #6 from Pierre-YvesChibon pin...@pingoured.fr 2009-04-01 05:22:00 EDT --- What should we do ? -- 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 490722] Review Request: R-BSgenome - Infrastructure for Biostrings-based genome data packages
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=490722 --- Comment #3 from Pierre-YvesChibon pin...@pingoured.fr 2009-04-01 05:21:08 EDT --- Updated: Spec URL: http://pingou.fedorapeople.org/RPMs/R-BSgenome.spec SRPM URL: http://pingou.fedorapeople.org/RPMs/R-BSgenome-1.10.5-2.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 226301] Merge Review: planner
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=226301 --- Comment #5 from Caolan McNamara caol...@redhat.com 2009-04-01 05:36:15 EDT --- Hmm, apparently I still own this, thought I handed it over, probably got mixed up with dia. Anyway (planner-0.14.3-11.fc11) removed the old obsoletes in line with current recommendations to get rid of them after X releases The planner.i386: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/gconf/schemas/planner.schemas warning is ok The planner-eds.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package warning is fixed The planner-eds.i386: W: and planner-devel.i386: W: no-documentation warnings aren't fixed. Can't see what we could put in for -eds documentation, there just isn't any -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226117] Merge Review: mailman
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=226117 --- Comment #6 from Daniel Novotny dnovo...@redhat.com 2009-04-01 05:39:02 EDT --- (In reply to comment #5) Ping again? hello, I am currently focusing a lot on fixing mailman bugs, so I will look into this right now. The last major thing in mailman was to uprade to 2.1.12. the config file mm_cfg.py is in /usr/lib/mailman/Mailman/ , since it's a part of Python package Mailman. The other warnings seem interesting, too... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 490722] Review Request: R-BSgenome - Infrastructure for Biostrings-based genome data packages
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=490722 --- Comment #2 from Pierre-YvesChibon pin...@pingoured.fr 2009-04-01 05:15:36 EDT --- arf there is a missing BR on R-Biostrings -- 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 492744] Review Request: python-grizzled - The Grizzled Utility Library is a general-purpose Python 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=492744 --- Comment #2 from Jason Friedland thesuperja...@gmail.com 2009-04-01 05:13:23 EDT --- Updated SPEC to conform to: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python New SRPM: http://jason.friedland.id.au/pkg/python-grizzled-0.9.1-2.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 490721] Review Request: R-Biostrings - String objects representing biological sequences
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=490721 --- Comment #2 from Pierre-YvesChibon pin...@pingoured.fr 2009-04-01 05:14:37 EDT --- Updated: Spec URL: http://pingou.fedorapeople.org/RPMs/R-Biostrings.spec SRPM URL: http://pingou.fedorapeople.org/RPMs/R-Biostrings-2.10.21-2.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 492091] Review Request: zikula-module-Content - Page editing module for Zikula
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=492091 --- Comment #7 from LukasHetzi l...@gmx.at 2009-04-01 06:01:05 EDT --- Hello, This is a post release. The link in the source is from Simon, who gave me the link from the tag in the SVN repository. But now it is also available here: http://code.zikula.org/content/downloads/3 I'll change the link in the next spec file. The module in the name is because I'll also package themes. And somebody pointed out that there could be conflicts between the names of modules and themes. Don't know what to do with pnincludes, but I'll look at it. -- 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 490725] Review Request: geanyvc - Version Controler plugin for geany
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=490725
Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #8 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com 2009-04-01 06:07:35
EDT ---
Review:
+ package builds in mock (rawhide i586).
koji Build = http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1269712
+ rpmlint is silent for SRPM and for RPM.
+ source files match upstream url
643b4b8ac313754e05c2e60db9c2713c geanyvc-0.5.tar.gz
+ package meets naming and packaging guidelines.
+ specfile is properly named, is cleanly written
+ Spec file is written in American English.
+ Spec file is legible.
+ dist tag is present.
+ build root is correct.
+ license is open source-compatible.
+ License text is included in package.
+ %doc is present.
+ BuildRequires are proper.
+ %clean is present.
+ package installed properly.
+ Macro use appears rather consistent.
+ Package contains code, not content.
+ no headers or static libraries.
+ no .pc file present.
+ no -devel subpackage
+ no .la files.
+ translations are available
+ Does owns the directories it creates.
+ no scriptlets present.
+ no duplicates in %files.
+ file permissions are appropriate.
+ Package geanyvc-0.5-2.fc11.i586 =
Provides: geanyvc.so
Requires: libatk-1.0.so.0 libc.so.6 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.0)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1.3) libcairo.so.2 libfontconfig.so.1 libfreetype.so.6
libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0 libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0 libgio-2.0.so.0 libglib-2.0.so.0
libgmodule-2.0.so.0 libgobject-2.0.so.0 libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0 libpango-1.0.so.0
libpangocairo-1.0.so.0 libpangoft2-1.0.so.0 rtld(GNU_HASH)
+ Not a GUI App
Suggestions:
1) package should not own /usr/lib/geany as its owned by geany
Change
%{_libdir}/geany/
to
%{_libdir}/geany/*
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 493299] New: Review Request: urlwatch - Tool for monitoring webpages for updates
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: urlwatch - Tool for monitoring webpages for updates https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=493299 Summary: Review Request: urlwatch - Tool for monitoring webpages for updates Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: cassmod...@fedoraproject.org QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://cassmodiah.fedorapeople.org/urlwatch-1.7/urlwatch.spec SRPM URL: http://cassmodiah.fedorapeople.org/urlwatch-1.7/urlwatch-1.7-1.fc10.src.rpm Description: This script is intended to help you watch URLs and get notified (via email or in your terminal) of any changes. The change notification will include the URL that has changed and a unified diff of what has changed. The script supports the use of a filtering hook function to strip trivially-varying elements of a webpage. Basic features * Simple configuration (text file, one URL per line) * Easily hackable (clean Python implementation) * Can run as a cronjob and mail changes to you * Always outputs only plaintext - no HTML mails :) * Supports removing noise (always-changing website parts) * Example hooks to filter content in Python RPMLINT: silent -- 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 492979] Review Request: python-cliutils - A collection of utilities easing the creation of command line 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=492979 --- Comment #1 from Jason Friedland thesuperja...@gmail.com 2009-04-01 05:13:19 EDT --- Updated SPEC to conform to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python New SRPM: http://jason.friedland.id.au/pkg/python-cliutils-0.1.3-2.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 458773] Review Request: geany-vc - Provide uniform access to different version-control systems
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=458773 Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED CC||panem...@gmail.com Resolution||DUPLICATE --- Comment #9 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com 2009-04-01 05:54:49 EDT --- Ok. I see Pierre is interested to package this and no progress made here since months. Therefore closing this and continuing review bug 490725 *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 490725 *** -- 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 458773] Review Request: geany-vc - Provide uniform access to different version-control systems
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=458773 --- Comment #8 from Pierre-YvesChibon pin...@pingoured.fr 2009-04-01 05:22:52 EDT --- I am willing to port geanyvc into Fedora, please step up if you still want (you were there the first ;-) ) We could also co-maintain it if you like -- 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 490725] Review Request: geanyvc - Version Controler plugin for geany
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=490725 Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||fed...@krishnan.cc --- Comment #7 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com 2009-04-01 05:54:50 EDT --- *** Bug 458773 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 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 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-04-01 05:22:43 EDT --- perl-CGI-Application-4.21-2.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-CGI-Application-4.21-2.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 493232] Review Request: redir - Redirect TCP connections
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=493232 --- Comment #2 from Itamar Reis Peixoto ita...@ispbrasil.com.br 2009-04-01 07:05:08 EDT --- for me there are no problems,I can apply all debian patches, I will include a new spec here soon, feel free to review it if you like. -- 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 492612] Review Request: python-chardet - Character encoding auto-detection in Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=492612 --- Comment #2 from Andreas Osowski th0...@mkdir.name 2009-04-01 07:39:41 EDT --- Hello Jason, I adapted python-chardet from python-feedparser (which is already in the repository). 1. As python-chardet is a *python* library, it is no system / c / whatever library Group: Development/Languages is the correct one. 2. Well, python-feedparser has BuildRequires: python-devel and as I said, I adapted from that srpm. python-chardet requires the /usr/lib/python2.5/config/ dir and thus needs BuildRequires: python-devel This obsoletes BuildRequires: python Andreas -- 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 226367] Merge Review: reiserfs-utils
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=226367 Xose Vazquez Perez xose.vazq...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||xose.vazq...@gmail.com --- Comment #9 from Xose Vazquez Perez xose.vazq...@gmail.com 2009-04-01 07:50:24 EDT --- (In reply to comment #8) please tell me what's need's to be fixed. Latest release is 3.6.21: This is first stable release since 2004-10-13, and it contains changes made by Jeff Mahoney (everything got testing as a part of latest SuSE distros). 2009-01-09 Patches from Jeff Mahoney: - reiserfsprogs-mkreiserfs-quiet.diff - reiserfsprogs-large-block-warning.diff - reiserfsprogs-fsck-mapid.diff - reiserfsprogs-external-journal-changes.diff - reiserfsprogs-remove-stupid-fsck_sleep.diff - reiserfsprogs-mkfs-use-o_excl.diff - reiserfsprogs-enforce-block-limit.diff - reiserfsprogs-large-fs.diff - reiserfsprogs-better-fsck-a-behavior.diff - reiserfsprogs-remove-dependency-on-asm_unaligned.h.diff - reiserfsprogs-progress.diff - reiserfsprogs-reorder-libs.diff Patches from Ludwig Nussel: - mkreiserfs-set-the-owner-of-the-root-directory-to-the-calling-user.diff Patches from Edward Shishkin: - reiserfsprogs-disable-small-block.diff - reiserfsprogs-new-version.diff The URL tag in the .spec file should be changed to the new $HOME at: http://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/utils/fs/reiserfs/ -thanks- -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225950] Merge Review: jpackage-utils
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=225950 Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #10 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2009-04-01 08:40:32 EDT --- Great, APPROVED. Thanks! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 493299] Review Request: urlwatch - Tool for monitoring webpages for updates
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=493299 Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||jussi.leht...@iki.fi AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jussi.leht...@iki.fi Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226426] Merge Review: spamassassin
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=226426 Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||ERRATA Flag|fedora-review?, |fedora-review+ |needinfo?(fedora-perl-devel | |-l...@redhat.com) | --- Comment #20 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2009-04-01 08:43:07 EDT --- It was, and I'm busy with $_DAYJOB and real life, as well as many other Fedora things, so I'll take Warren's suggestion. APPROVED. Thanks all for your help. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226367] Merge Review: reiserfs-utils
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=226367 --- Comment #10 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2009-04-01 08:46:18 EDT --- Itamar, basically correct the URL tag. I'd have liked to have had some explanation of the naming being different than upstream (reiserfs-utils/reiserfsprogs), but that would have come from Jeff, ideally, so I'll let that go. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226301] Merge Review: planner
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=226301 --- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2009-04-01 08:49:45 EDT --- All sounds reasonable. If the Obsoletes are gone, are the Provides needed? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458054] Review Request: arm4 - Application Response Measurement (ARM) agent
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=458054 --- Comment #30 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2009-04-01 08:55:54 EDT --- Those look solid, and demonstrate progress up the Packaging Guidlines learning curve. :) So you still need a sponsor? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 489929] Review request: libHBAAPI
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=489929 --- Comment #5 from Jan Zeleny jzel...@redhat.com 2009-04-01 09:09:11 EDT --- Updated SPEC: http://jzeleny.fedorapeople.org/packages/libhbaapi/libhbaapi.spec Updated SRPM: http://jzeleny.fedorapeople.org/packages/libhbaapi/libhbaapi-2.2-4.fc10.src.rpm I added one line to the description. It's not much, but hopefully it's enough for 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 251805] Review Request: postgresql-orafce - Implementation of some Oracle functions into PostgreSQL
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=251805 Miroslav Suchy msu...@redhat.com 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 251805] Review Request: postgresql-orafce - Implementation of some Oracle functions into PostgreSQL
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=251805
Miroslav Suchy msu...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks|201449(FE-DEADREVIEW) |
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|msu...@redhat.com
Alias||postgresql-orafce
Status Whiteboard|NotReady|
--- Comment #17 from Miroslav Suchy msu...@redhat.com 2009-04-01 09:11:05
EDT ---
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[!] 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.
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1269956
[x] Rpmlint output: 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.
[!] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[!] 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 package: 2a091014fe63e10dc4aa4661453f4b07
orafce-2.1.4.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 -fR $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.
[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.
[!] 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: koji scratch build
[x] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
Tested on:koji scratch build
[?] Package functions as described.
[-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct.
[-] File based requires are sane.
[-] %check is present and the tests pass
ToDo:
So do you plan to name the package postgresql-orafce or just orafce. In first
case you should rename your spec file and Name, in second you should change
summary of this BZ. I like the first option as we can have in feature something
like mysql-orafce, firebird-orafce...
The license is stated BSD, but the text in COPYRIGHT.orafunc differ from BSD
licence as I know it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_license). Can you
clarify it?
%{_docdir}/pgsql/contrib/*.orafunc
That should be
%doc COPYRIGHT.orafunc INSTALL.orafunc README.orafunc
Do you really want to requires postgresql, I suppose that correct should be be
postgresql-server, but IMHO.
--
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 493335] New: Review Request: perl-RTx-Calendar - Calendar for RT due tasks
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-RTx-Calendar - Calendar for RT due tasks https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=493335 Summary: Review Request: perl-RTx-Calendar - Calendar for RT due tasks Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: xav...@bachelot.org QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://www.bachelot.org/fedora/SPECS/perl-RTx-Calendar.spec SRPM URL: http://www.bachelot.org/fedora/SRPMS/perl-RTx-Calendar-0.07-1.fc10.src.rpm Description: This RT extension provides a calendar view for your tickets and your reminders so you see when is your next due ticket. You can find it in the menu Search-Calendar. There's a portlet to put on your home page (see Prefs/MyRT.html). You can also enable ics (ICal) feeds for your default calendar and all your private searches in Prefs/Calendar.html. Authentication is magic number based so that you can give those feeds to other people. -- 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 462923] Review Request: jibx - Framework for binding XML data to Java objects
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=462923 Bug 462923 depends on bug 462580, which changed state. Bug 462580 Summary: Review Request: wstx - Woodstox Stax Implementation https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=462580 What|Old Value |New Value Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED Resolution|NOTABUG | -- 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 462580] Review Request: wstx - Woodstox Stax Implementation
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=462580 John Guthrie guth...@counterexample.org changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||Reopened Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED Blocks|201449(FE-DEADREVIEW) | Resolution|NOTABUG | --- Comment #4 from John Guthrie guth...@counterexample.org 2009-04-01 09:47:52 EDT --- I apologize for the non-response. I've been looking on a search results page for someone to actually assign this review request to themselves. (It would be nice if there was some way to get last time modified into search results on bugzilla.) Anyway, I am re-opening this bug and I will have a response to the issues brought up soon. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 492398] Review Request: slv2 - LV2 host 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=492398 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-04-01 09:57:16 EDT --- slv2-0.6.2-2.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/slv2-0.6.2-2.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 226367] Merge Review: reiserfs-utils
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=226367 --- Comment #11 from Itamar Reis Peixoto ita...@ispbrasil.com.br 2009-04-01 10:09:20 EDT --- (In reply to comment #10) Itamar, basically correct the URL tag. I'd have liked to have had some explanation of the naming being different than upstream (reiserfs-utils/reiserfsprogs), but that would have come from Jeff, ideally, so I'll let that go. the future of reiserfs is still obscure [1], about the name , I recommend to let the current name, this package will probably removed in next merge review [1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reiser4 http://ispbrasil.com.br/reiserfs-utils/reiserfs-utils.spec http://ispbrasil.com.br/reiserfs-utils/reiserfs-utils-3.6.21-1.fc11.src.rpm koji scratch build dist-f11 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1270246 Can I go ahead and commit to cvs ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 489929] Review request: libHBAAPI
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=489929 Dan Horák d...@danny.cz changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Dan Horák d...@danny.cz 2009-04-01 10:15:39 EDT --- All issues are fixed, this package is 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 475661] Review Request: google-droid-fonts - General-purpose fonts released by Google as part of Android
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=475661 Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu changed: What|Removed |Added CC||feng.sh...@gmail.com --- Comment #5 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu 2009-04-01 10:17:37 EDT --- *** Bug 493240 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 493240] Review Request: Droid-fonts - Google Android fonts
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=493240 Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||DUPLICATE --- Comment #1 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu 2009-04-01 10:17:37 EDT --- seems already in fedora, google-droid-fonts bug #475661 *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 475661 *** -- 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 493299] Review Request: urlwatch - Tool for monitoring webpages for updates
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=493299
Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi 2009-04-01 10:18:44
EDT ---
rpmlint output is clean.
MUST: The spec file for the package is legible and macros are used
consistently. OK
MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. OK
MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}. OK
MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines. OK
MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
OK
MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL. OK
MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms. OK
MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. OK
MUST: Optflags are used and time stamps preserved. Python bytecode, OK
MUST: Packages containing shared library files must call ldconfig. OK
MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates or require the package
that owns the directory. OK
MUST: Files only listed once in %files listings. OK
MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. OK
MUST: Clean section exists. OK
MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. OK
MUST: All relevant items are included in %doc. Items in %doc do not affect
runtime of application. OK
MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. OK
MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. OK
MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'. OK
MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix then library files
ending in .so must go in a -devel package. OK
MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency. OK
MUST: Packages does not contain any .la libtool archives. OK
MUST: Desktop files are installed properly. OK
MUST: No file conflicts with other packages and no general names. OK
MUST: Buildroot cleaned before install. OK
SHOULD: %{?dist} tag is used in release. OK
SHOULD: If the package does not include license text(s) as separate files from
upstream, the packager should query upstream to include it. OK
SHOULD: The package builds in mock. OK
The package is 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 490723] Review Request: R-IRanges - Low-level containers for storing sets of integer ranges
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=490723 --- Comment #9 from Pierre-YvesChibon pin...@pingoured.fr 2009-04-01 10:21:28 EDT --- Updated: Spec URL: http://pingou.fedorapeople.org/RPMs/R-IRanges.spec SRPM URL: http://pingou.fedorapeople.org/RPMs/R-IRanges-1.1.55-1.fc10.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 490725] Review Request: geanyvc - Version Controler plugin for geany
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=490725 Pierre-YvesChibon pin...@pingoured.fr changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #9 from Pierre-YvesChibon pin...@pingoured.fr 2009-04-01 10:33:40 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: geanyvc Short Description: Version controler plugin for geany Owners: pingou 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 226367] Merge Review: reiserfs-utils
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=226367 Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||ERRATA Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #12 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2009-04-01 10:45:18 EDT --- Looks great. APPROVED. Commit and build. Thanks for finishing this, and taking over the package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 489014] Review Request: gnome-do-plugins - Plugins for Gnome Do
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=489014 --- Comment #7 from Sindre Pedersen Bjørdal sindr...@fedoraproject.org 2009-04-01 10:45:07 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=337547) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=337547) Adds DESTDIR to BundledLibraries Makefiles, fixes build issue with 0.8.0.1 This simple patch is required to make 0.8.0.1 build successfully. -- 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 490724] Review Request: R-RUnit - R Unit test framework
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=490724 --- Comment #8 from Pierre-YvesChibon pin...@pingoured.fr 2009-04-01 11:09:55 EDT --- Answer from the maintainer: Hello Pierre, I must have missed your original email. GPL-2 is the intended license specification as given in the DESCRIPTION file. I'll check and update the code headers as soon as I have time for. Thanks for pointing this out. Best regards, Matthias Update: Spec URL: http://pingou.fedorapeople.org/RPMs/R-RUnit.spec SRPM URL: http://pingou.fedorapeople.org/RPMs/R-RUnit-0.4.21-2.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 483543] Review Request: systemtapguiserver
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=483543 --- Comment #15 from Anithra anit...@linux.vnet.ibm.com 2009-04-01 11:20:58 EDT --- (In reply to comment #14) It would be much better if people could run it as normal user for the case where the eclipse and the server are run by the same user. I agree that users could be apprehensive about running the app as root and this is one of the issues that we are looking to fix soon. eclipse and the server in most cases may not be run by the same user as the server could be on a different machine. The server minimally needs to be run as root or users of group stapdev/stapusr to be able to run systemtap scripts, although the current code mandates that the server is run as root. There are a couple questionable cases in datamanager.cpp:DataManager::execStap(): case (SHELL): allows executing arbitary script (as root this seems like a bad idea). what would prevent someone from using this to just connect and run arbitrary commands. cases (BLUEDYE): mentions a package (Bluedye) that doesn't appear to be available in fedora The server was designed to be able to run any script(not just systemtap) and hence the above cases. This part of the code is there for future expansion. Currently these cases are never true and so there is no chance of arbitrary commands being run. Why scp the file to the server machine? why not send it to the stapgui-server with the command and run with stap -e 'script...'? Currently, the plugin stores I had some problems with protocol management due to the variable length of the script. It might be better to transfer as part of the command through the socket connection and remove one step from the setup. Will redesign in subsequent releases. the password in plantext in a possibly world readable file. Also the current checks in the plugin do not seem to notice if the transfer failed (due to missing password). You should have got an error message saying File transferred failed. Will look into it The compile server does compile code, but it doesn't perform the other aspects of systemtapgui server such as execute the script and collect stdout/stderr. Could systemtapgui be stripped down just to use staprun to run a compiled script? Make it possible to run systemtap scripts on stripped down machines. This would be useful for cases of running code on compute nodes in a cluster. This is one feature we are looking at in future releases of the client. Possibly by the end of the year. We are exploring the option of using the compile-server for compilation, and systemtapguiserver for execution. Thanks for the review. Can we treat the code changes/bug fixes as upstream issues so that this review is not blocked?. -- 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 226301] Merge Review: planner
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=226301 --- Comment #7 from Caolan McNamara caol...@redhat.com 2009-04-01 11:38:11 EDT --- Should be no need for them either -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 475141] Review Request: python-imdb - Retrieve and manage the data of the IMDb movie database
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=475141 Sindre Pedersen Bjørdal sindr...@fedoraproject.org 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 490724] Review Request: R-RUnit - R Unit test framework
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=490724 Conrad Meyer kon...@tylerc.org changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #9 from Conrad Meyer kon...@tylerc.org 2009-04-01 11:56:38 EDT --- Thanks for getting that resolved. 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 226301] Merge Review: planner
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=226301 --- Comment #8 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2009-04-01 11:55:29 EDT --- Ok, drop them and I'll be happy. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458054] Review Request: arm4 - Application Response Measurement (ARM) agent
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=458054 --- Comment #31 from David Carter dcar...@entertain-me.com 2009-04-01 11:59:08 EDT --- I'm willing to commit (figuratively and literally) if you're willing to sponsor :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 491545] Review Request: pynac - A modified version of GiNaC using Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=491545 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 #1 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2009-04-01 12:00:07 EDT --- Note that I see 89 additional rpmlint complaints of the type: pynac.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libpynac-0.1.so.2.0.1 PyTuple_Type It looks like libpynac isn't linked properly against... something. Maybe libpython? I guess they assume that everything which will use this library will link against libpython itself, as the .pc file indicates. I've always thought that to be bad form, but such things aren't review blockers. Still, do note that you get more rpmlint output if you run it against the installed packages. It would be nice if %description had some indication of what GiNaC is. Maybe: A modified version of the GiNaC symbolic computation library which uses python as its numerical library. or something. Shouldn't the resulting package have some dependency on python or some python library? I guess that's due to the same issue as the undefined-non-weak-symbol rpmlint complaints; since nothing here is actually linked against libpython, rpm won't find a dependency. I guess anything built with this package will end up having the proper dependency (if it's built correctly, that is), so I'm really not sure what the proper dependencies are. * source files match upstream. sha256sum: c7c7538c6dc0da801bb7af6fbbeb1b65800f1a410842416882d02b7bc2381566 pynac-0.1.3.spkg * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. x description is a bit confusing. * 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: pynac-0.1.3-1.fc11.x86_64.rpm libpynac-0.1.so.2()(64bit) pynac = 0.1.3-1.fc11 pynac(x86-64) = 0.1.3-1.fc11 = /sbin/ldconfig libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libpynac-0.1.so.2()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.1)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.11)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.5)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.9)(64bit) (no python dependency) pynac-devel-0.1.3-1.fc11.x86_64.rpm pynac-devel = 0.1.3-1.fc11 pynac-devel(x86-64) = 0.1.3-1.fc11 = /usr/bin/pkg-config libpynac-0.1.so.2()(64bit) pkgconfig pynac = 0.1.3-1.fc11 pynac-static-0.1.3-1.fc11.x86_64.rpm pynac-static = 0.1.3-1.fc11 pynac-static(x86-64) = 0.1.3-1.fc11 = pynac-devel = 0.1.3-1.fc11 * shared libraries installed: ldconfig is called properly. unversioned .so link is in the -devel package. * 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 (ldconfig). * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * headers are in the -devel package. * pkgconfig files are in the -devel package; pkgconfig dependency is there. * static libraries present in a separate -static package. * no libtool .la files. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 476398] Review Request: eclib - A Library for Doing Computations on Elliptic Curves
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=476398 --- Comment #40 from Conrad Meyer kon...@tylerc.org 2009-04-01 12:00:36 EDT --- (In reply to comment #38) can you investigate 1) the shared-lib-calls-exit warning and if we can ignore, please justify and 2) the binaryinfo-readelf-failed for the -static subpackage 1) Shared-lib-calls-exit means that somewhere in the library a piece of code calls exit(). This is a poor practice for a library but it's not our fault and we can ignore it. 2) I don't know why this happens, it should be resolved before this is approved. (In reply to comment #39) Btw, this fails on F-10: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1269432 because ntl-static doesn't yet exist: No Package Found for ntl-static Is there a pending update for ntl? No, AFAIK the maintainer only fixed ntl-devel to provide ntl-static in Rawhide. -- 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 490724] Review Request: R-RUnit - R Unit test framework
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=490724 --- Comment #10 from Pierre-YvesChibon pin...@pingoured.fr 2009-04-01 12:11:40 EDT --- Thanks for the review :) New Package CVS Request === Package Name: R-RUnit Short Description: R Unit test framework Owners: pingou 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 490724] Review Request: R-RUnit - R Unit test framework
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=490724 Pierre-YvesChibon pin...@pingoured.fr 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 491545] Review Request: pynac - A modified version of GiNaC using Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=491545 --- Comment #2 from Conrad Meyer kon...@tylerc.org 2009-04-01 12:16:07 EDT --- Yes, this should link against libpython, and then rpm will autogenerate the correct Requires. I will fix the description and try to fix the build process to link against libpython. -- 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 458054] Review Request: arm4 - Application Response Measurement (ARM) agent
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=458054 --- Comment #32 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2009-04-01 12:19:42 EDT --- I am, just wanted to make sure you'd not found another in the interim. APPROVED. I've also marked your FAS account sponsored, so once that all propagates, do you CVS request, import, build, and close this bug. Welcome aboard, and feel free to bug me with questions, etc. -- 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 206487] Review Request: jd - A 2ch browser
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=206487 Dennis Gilmore den...@ausil.us changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #16 from Dennis Gilmore den...@ausil.us 2009-04-01 12:26:29 EDT --- CVS Done -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 220443] Review Request: gnome-commander - A nice and fast file manager for the GNOME desktop
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=220443 Dennis Gilmore den...@ausil.us changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #7 from Dennis Gilmore den...@ausil.us 2009-04-01 12:28:24 EDT --- CVS Done -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 173111] Review Request: 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=173111 Dennis Gilmore den...@ausil.us changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? | --- Comment #45 from Dennis Gilmore den...@ausil.us 2009-04-01 12:27:35 EDT --- unsetting cvs request, Please reset with an actual request -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 211718] Review Request: thewidgetfactory - A tool for previewing widgets
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=211718 Dennis Gilmore den...@ausil.us changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? | --- Comment #11 from Dennis Gilmore den...@ausil.us 2009-04-01 12:29:24 EDT --- unsetting cvs flag. please reset with a cvs request if you have one. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 490724] Review Request: R-RUnit - R Unit test framework
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=490724 Dennis Gilmore den...@ausil.us changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #11 from Dennis Gilmore den...@ausil.us 2009-04-01 12:31:33 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 490317] Review Request: rumor - Really Unintelligent Music transcriptOR
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=490317 Dennis Gilmore den...@ausil.us changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #5 from Dennis Gilmore den...@ausil.us 2009-04-01 12:32:30 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 247482] Review Request: pwsafe - A unix command line utility that manages encrypted password databases
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=247482 Dennis Gilmore den...@ausil.us changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs- --- Comment #14 from Dennis Gilmore den...@ausil.us 2009-04-01 12:35:48 EDT --- CVS request denied. The package maintainer for fedora should be making the request. if the maintainer doesnt wish to do EPEL then we need some indication that is the case and then you need a full request as you would be the maintainer for the EPEL branches. -- 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 491875] Review Request: unzoo - ZOO archive extractor
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=491875 Dennis Gilmore den...@ausil.us changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #14 from Dennis Gilmore den...@ausil.us 2009-04-01 12:36:30 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 476346] Review Request: python-polybori - Framework for Boolean Rings
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=476346 Dennis Gilmore den...@ausil.us changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #23 from Dennis Gilmore den...@ausil.us 2009-04-01 12:38:43 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 491570] Review Request: sahana - Disaster 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=491570 Dennis Gilmore den...@ausil.us changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #8 from Dennis Gilmore den...@ausil.us 2009-04-01 12:37:51 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 490725] Review Request: geanyvc - Version Controler plugin for geany
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=490725 Dennis Gilmore den...@ausil.us changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #10 from Dennis Gilmore den...@ausil.us 2009-04-01 12:39:27 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 492252] Review Request: libdwarf - Library to access the DWARF Debugging file format
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=492252 Dennis Gilmore den...@ausil.us changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #10 from Dennis Gilmore den...@ausil.us 2009-04-01 12:40:32 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 247482] Review Request: pwsafe - A unix command line utility that manages encrypted password databases
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=247482 --- Comment #15 from Ralf Ertzinger redhat-bugzi...@camperquake.de 2009-04-01 12:53:38 EDT --- I have no interest in maintaining an EPEL branch. Are there some formalities to observe, or is this statement sufficient? -- 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 490317] Review Request: rumor - Really Unintelligent Music transcriptOR
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=490317 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-04-01 13:05:40 EDT --- rumor-1.0.3b-2.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rumor-1.0.3b-2.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 492252] Review Request: libdwarf - Library to access the DWARF Debugging file format
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=492252 Suravee Suthikulpanit suravee.suthikulpa...@amd.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 492946] Review Request: eclipse-dltk - Dynamic Languages Toolkit (DLTK) Eclipse 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=492946 Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #4 from Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com 2009-04-01 13:10:31 EDT --- I'll take this 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 454010] Review Request: iaxclient - Library for creating telephony solutions that interoperate with Asterisk
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=454010 Bug 454010 depends on bug 454008, which changed state. Bug 454008 Summary: Review Request: iax - Implementation of Inter-Asterisk eXchange protocol https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=454008 What|Old Value |New Value Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Comment #10 from Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com 2009-04-01 13:26:21 EDT --- Ping? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 491992] Review Request: mod_falcon - An embedded Falcon interpreter for the Apache HTTP 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=491992 Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tcall...@redhat.com Blocks|182235(FE-Legal)| --- Comment #3 from Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com 2009-04-01 13:31:54 EDT --- Lifting FE-Legal, assuming that this code is dual-licensed like the Falcon language interpreter is. -- 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 492252] Review Request: libdwarf - Library to access the DWARF Debugging file format
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=492252 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-04-01 13:36:23 EDT --- libdwarf-0.20090324-4.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libdwarf-0.20090324-4.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 492946] Review Request: eclipse-dltk - Dynamic Languages Toolkit (DLTK) Eclipse 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=492946 --- Comment #5 from Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com 2009-04-01 13:37:08 EDT --- Mat, What do you think about dropping the gcj_support? It is giving us nothing as eclipse itself is compiled without it. And benefits for us will be a lot simpler spec file, faster compilation, noarch packages and etc. Also there are 65 errors in the debuginfo which I don't think we should care for but they will be gone also if we remove gcj_support. Sample: eclipse-dltk-debuginfo.i386: E: script-without-shebang /usr/src/debug/dltk-1.0.0/org.eclipse.dltk.testing/src/org/eclipse/dltk/internal/testing/util/Resources.java -- 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 490318] Review Request: frescobaldi - Edit LilyPond sheet music with ease!
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=490318 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-04-01 13:48:07 EDT --- frescobaldi-0.7.8-1.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/frescobaldi-0.7.8-1.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 491875] Review Request: unzoo - ZOO archive extractor
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=491875 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-04-01 13:48:35 EDT --- unzoo-4.4-4.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/unzoo-4.4-4.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 490318] Review Request: frescobaldi - Edit LilyPond sheet music with ease!
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=490318 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-04-01 13:49:03 EDT --- frescobaldi-0.7.8-1.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/frescobaldi-0.7.8-1.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 492810] Review Request: RabbIT - proxy for a faster web
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=492810 --- Comment #2 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) pa...@hubbitus.info 2009-04-01 13:54:01 EDT --- http://hubbitus.net.ru/rpm/Fedora9/RabbIT/RabbIT-3.18-5.fc9.src.rpm new upstream release. One serious bug fixed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 491875] Review Request: unzoo - ZOO archive extractor
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=491875 John W. Linville linvi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 481159] Review Request: ocaml-autoconf - Autoconf macros for OCaml
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=481159 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 #4 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2009-04-01 13:55:11 EDT --- There's not really all that much to this package. I've no idea how to test it, of course, but packaging-wise it's fine. I would generally advise against using https links for Source URLs when the upstream sites have unverifiable certificates; it breaks spectool. Maybe one day cacert will pull its head out with regards to the licensing of its root certificates and we can include them in Fedora by default. Luckily my spectool is patched to pass --no-check-certificate. * source files match upstream. sha256sum: 67e85520f65c033c86e99e5438e51657e777579034570527c1b2c62096ecb004 ocaml-autoconf-1.0.tar.gz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text included in package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly. * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: ocaml-autoconf = 1.0-1.fc11 = automake * 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 * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 493432] Review Request: libgdata - Library for the GData 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=493432 --- Comment #1 from Bastien Nocera bnoc...@redhat.com 2009-04-01 14:10:23 EDT --- Scratch build at: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1271012 This package will replace the python-gdata dependency for Totem, as the YouTube plugin is being replaced by a C version. -- 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 493432] New: Review Request: libgdata - Library for the GData protocol
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: libgdata - Library for the GData protocol https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=493432 Summary: Review Request: libgdata - Library for the GData protocol Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: bnoc...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Target Release: --- Spec URL: http://people.fedoraproject.org/~hadess/libgdata/libgdata.spec SRPM URL: http://people.fedoraproject.org/~hadess/libgdata/libgdata-0.1.0-1.fc10.src.rpm Description: libgdata is a GLib-based library for accessing online service APIs using the GData protocol --- most notably, Google's services. It provides APIs to access the common Google services, and has full asynchronous support. -- 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 474992] Review Request: libirman - Library for IRMAN hardware
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=474992 --- Comment #12 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2009-04-01 14:24:22 EDT --- Sorry for taking so long; I had too many reviews in flight and somehow this one slipped through the cracks. Please feel free to ping me if I've let something go idle for too long. You seem to have clarified the license situation well enough, and the static stuff is gone, which is good. However, it's kind of weird to patch up to a CVS snapshot by including a patch thats larger than the source tarball. It's OK to pick patches out of the upstream SCM if that's what you want, but if you want to ship a snapshot, it's better to simply do a checkout and include that as your tarball. See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL for information on how we do this. Basically, you make the tarball but include instructions for generating it so that someone else who comes along will know where it came from. Currently you just have this big patch with no information on duplicating it. -- 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 476404] Review Request: bullet - 3D Collision Detection and Rigid Body Dynamics Library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476404 Bruno Mahe br...@gnoll.org changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|needinfo?(br...@gnoll.org) | --- Comment #30 from Bruno Mahe br...@gnoll.org 2009-04-01 14:31:06 EDT --- Still there and still busy. -- 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 493250] Review Request: perl-Goo-Canvas -- Goo::Canvas Perl interface to the GooCanvas
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=493250
Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp
--- Comment #1 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-04-01
14:34:35 EDT ---
Well,
! You can base your spec file on what is created from
cpanspec (in cpanspec rpm):
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Perl/cpanspec
Then some notes:
- The license tag GPL is invalid
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#GPL_and_LGPL
(looks like GPL+ or Artistic for this package)
- Your package does not build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1270974
At least BR: perl(ExtUtils::Depends) is needed
- I doubt explicit Requires: gtk2, glib, cairo are needed.
Such library related dependencies are automatically checked
by rpmbuild itself and automatically added to binary rpms.
Also I guess Requires: perl-Gtk2 is also automatically checked
by rpmbuild.
- Please make the sentence in %description devided into several
lines. Fedora suggests one line should not contain more than
79 characters.
- Please add dome documents as %doc.
- The directory %{perl_vendorarch}/auto/ should not be owned
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 493250] Review Request: perl-Goo-Canvas -- Goo::Canvas Perl interface to the GooCanvas
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=493250 --- Comment #2 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-04-01 14:45:26 EDT --- By the way please also upload the spec file so that we can browse it on the browser. -- 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 493247] Review Request: perl-Gnome2-Wnck -- Perl interface to the Window Navigator Construction Kit
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=493247 Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp --- Comment #1 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-04-01 14:52:53 EDT --- Also see my comment on bug 493250 (By the way I doubt your package builds on your machine...) Then: - Please use canonical cpan site URL for Source0. - @foo@ in BuildRequires is invalid. Also please consider if such explicit version-specific (Build)Requires are really needed. - For perl modules please don't write the rpm name directory as (Build)Requires but write virtual Provides names the rpms provide (BuildRequires: perl(ExtUtils::Depends) or so) https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Perl#Perl_Requires_and_Provides - These explicit Requires: --- Requires: libwnck = %(pkg-config --modversion libwnck-1.0) Requires: perl-Glib = @PERL_GLIB@ Requires: perl-Gtk2 = @PERL_GTK@ Requires: gtk2, glib perl-Gtk2, cairo should not be needed. Also Requires: %(perl -MConfig -le 'if (de. is not needed, I guess. rpmbuild itself should handle these. - Please make %description divided into several lines. - Please add some documents -- 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 493432] Review Request: libgdata - Library for the GData 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=493432 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 #2 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2009-04-01 15:11:17 EDT --- Is there really no upstream URL? You probably want to remove the commented URL tag as it seems unrelated.Unfortunately without an upstream site I don't have a clue as to how you find new version of the source. You also get a few rpmlint complaints: libgdata.x86_64: W: no-url-tag libgdata-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-url-tag libgdata-devel.x86_64: W: no-url-tag which are OK as long as there really isn't some upstream site to point to. Also: libgdata.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libgdata.so.2.0.0 /lib64/libgthread-2.0.so.0 libgdata.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libgdata.so.2.0.0 /lib64/librt.so.1 libgdata.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libgdata.so.2.0.0 /lib64/libgmodule-2.0.so.0 libgdata.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libgdata.so.2.0.0 /lib64/libpthread.so.0 The library is linked against a few things that are not really necessary. This should cause any real problems as those will always be loaded anyway. I don't see where the license is LGPLv2+. The source looks to me as if it's GPLv3+, which might have implications for your planned usage. Unpack the source and grep for 'of the License'. It's true that for whatever bizarre reason, upstream included version 2 of the actual LGPL text, but that has no bearing on the actual license that's on the code. Can you query upstream about this? As far as I can tell, there is a test suite but it makes calls out to network services which must already be set up, so there's no way it could be run during the build process. So really the only must-fix blocker issue I see is the license tag. * source files match upstream. sha256sum: bb19c90e8bb2f1ead0d7f407ba15e2f6b6d8a2a355b263ca9338bf68846a5b72 libgdata-0.1.0.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. X license field does not match the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text not included upstream. ? 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: libgdata-0.1.0-1.fc11.x86_64.rpm libgdata.so.2()(64bit) libgdata = 0.1.0-1.fc11 libgdata(x86-64) = 0.1.0-1.fc11 = /sbin/ldconfig libgdata.so.2()(64bit) libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgmodule-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgthread-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libsoup-2.4.so.1()(64bit) libxml2.so.2()(64bit) libgdata-devel-0.1.0-1.fc11.x86_64.rpm pkgconfig(libgdata) = 0.1.0 libgdata-devel = 0.1.0-1.fc11 libgdata-devel(x86-64) = 0.1.0-1.fc11 = /usr/bin/pkg-config gtk-doc libgdata = 0.1.0-1.fc11 libgdata.so.2()(64bit) pkgconfig pkgconfig(libsoup-2.4) pkgconfig(libxml-2.0) * %check is not present; included test suite can't be run at build time. * shared libraries installed: ldconfig is called properly. unversioned .so link is in the -devel package. * 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 (ldconfig). * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * headers are in the -devel package. * pkgconfig files are in the -devel package, with pkgconfig dependency. * no static libraries. * no libtool .la files. 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 493236] Review Request: xmlfy - Convert text/UTF-8 based output into XML format
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=493236 --- Comment #1 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2009-04-01 15:22:31 EDT --- Is this your first package for Fedora? Have you read http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join? Your package does not build for me on my x86_64 machine. You really should not use BuildArch unless you're specifying BuildArch: noarch. If your code really does not work on anything other than i386, you want ExclusiveArch: i386, although in the modern world it's hard to imagine anyone writing C code that works only on i386. It is rather odd to put the license file for the program directly into the spec file. It's permissible for you to license the spec file if you want, as long as it's still sufficiently free (which yours is) but honestly it's legally questionable as to whether there's anything significant in a spec file which is eligible for copyright anyway. Really what it does is clutter the spec with a bunch of junk you have to ignore before you get to the useful part. You might consider using the dist tag to make maintaing the package across multiple Fedora versions easier. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/DistTag -- 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 493299] Review Request: urlwatch - Tool for monitoring webpages for updates
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=493299 Simon Wesp cassmod...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #2 from Simon Wesp cassmod...@fedoraproject.org 2009-04-01 15:38:57 EDT --- Thank you for your very fast review! :-) New Package CVS Request === Package Name: urlwatch Short Description: Tool for monitoring webpages for updates Owners: casssmodiah Branches: 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 493299] Review Request: urlwatch - Tool for monitoring webpages for updates
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=493299 Simon Wesp cassmod...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Simon Wesp cassmod...@fedoraproject.org 2009-04-01 15:43:59 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: urlwatch Short Description: Tool for monitoring webpages for updates Owners: cassmodiah Branches: 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
