[Bug 499319] New: Review Request: tcl-snmptools - TCL extension for SNMP support
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: tcl-snmptools - TCL extension for SNMP support https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=499319 Summary: Review Request: tcl-snmptools - TCL extension for SNMP support Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: bamab...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~blee/tcl-snmptools.spec SRPM URL: http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~blee/tcl-snmptools-1.0-1.fc10.src.rpm Description: Tcl SNMP Tools is a Tcl package that provides SNMP tools for managing remote Agents. It uses the NetSNMP library and supports all standard SNMP v1/v2/v3 operations and more: get, set, getnext, walk, bulkget, bulkwalk, trap, translate, and table. This is my first package for Fedora, and so I need a sponsor for this submission. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 499319] Review Request: tcl-snmptools - TCL extension for SNMP support
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=499319 Bryson Lee bamab...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 497251] Review Request: libstdc++-docs - Documentation in html for libstdc++
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=497251 Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #341662|application/octet-stream|text/plain mime type|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 499281] Review Request: xfce4-cellmodem-plugin - Cell Modem monitor plugin for the Xfce panel
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=499281 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 499279] Review Request: xfce4-cddrive-plugin - Xfce panel plugin to open or close a CD-ROM drive tray
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=499279 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 499282] Review Request: xfce4-notifyd - Simple notification daemon for Xfce
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=499282 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 499283] Review Request: xfce4-radio-plugin - V4l radio device control plugin for the Xfce panel
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=499283 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 453858] Review Request: globus-gsi-callback - Globus Toolkit - Globus GSI Callback 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=453858 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-05-06 02:32:15 EDT --- globus-gsi-callback-1.10-1.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/globus-gsi-callback-1.10-1.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 453858] Review Request: globus-gsi-callback - Globus Toolkit - Globus GSI Callback 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=453858 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-05-06 02:32:20 EDT --- globus-gsi-callback-1.10-1.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/globus-gsi-callback-1.10-1.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 499323] New: Review Request: jack_capture - Record sound files with JACK
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: jack_capture - Record sound files with JACK https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=499323 Summary: Review Request: jack_capture - Record sound files with JACK Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: oget.fed...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://oget.fedorapeople.org/review/jack_capture.spec SRPM URL: http://oget.fedorapeople.org/review/jack_capture-0.9.32-1.fc10.src.rpm Description: Jack_capture is a program for recording soundfiles with JACK. It's default operation is to capture whatever sound is going out to your speakers into a file, but it can do a number of other operations as well. rpmlint is 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 499316] Review Request: meterbridge - Meter Bridge for JACK
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=499316 Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||499323 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 499323] Review Request: jack_capture - Record sound files with JACK
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=499323 Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||499316 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 495564] Review Request: libguestfs - Access and modify virtual machine disk images
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=495564 --- Comment #10 from Jim Meyering meyer...@redhat.com 2009-05-06 02:40:05 EDT --- hi Rich, I just noticed this in output from a from-git build on F10: chmod 644 blib/arch/auto/Sys/Guestfs/Guestfs.bs cp lib/Sys/Guestfs.pm blib/lib/Sys/Guestfs.pm Please specify prototyping behavior for Guestfs.xs (see perlxs manual) Is it worth addressing the please specify... part? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 498849] Review Request: klatexformula - Application for easy image creating from a LaTeX equation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=498849 nucleo alekc...@googlemail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #9 from nucleo alekc...@googlemail.com 2009-05-06 02:45:51 EDT --- (In reply to comment #8) Very well, APPROVED Thank you for review. New Package CVS Request === Package Name: klatexformula Short Description: Application for easy image creating from a LaTeX equation Owners: nucleo Branches: F-9 F-10 F-11 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC 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 #8 from Mattias Ellert mattias.ell...@fysast.uu.se 2009-05-06 02:51:44 EDT --- Package fails to build: Error in loadNamespace(i[[1L]], c(lib.loc, .libPaths())) : there is no package called 'Biobase' ERROR: lazy loading failed for package 'Biostrings' Missing Requires and BuildRequires on R-Biobase? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 494148] Review Request: soci - The database access library for C++ programmers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=494148
--- Comment #32 from Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net 2009-05-06
03:01:31 EDT ---
RPM on EL5 cannot do noarch subpkgs. That's a new feature in RPM for Fedora =
10. To reuse the same spec file, you could do:
%if 0%{?fedora} = 10
BuildArch: noarch
%endif
Note that there are further macros like that. Mentioned on the DistTag
guidelines page in the Wiki.
[...]
F-12 devel:
ppc also ran into an internal compiler error. If that will happen again, it may
need a bug report.
The ppc64/ppc build triggers automatic autotools reconfiguration, which then
fails just like a manual autoreconf -f. Could be related to how you've
created your fix-gnu-autotools-compatibility patch and what versions of the
autotools you've used.
A quick work-around was to run autoreconf ; libtoolize -c -f at the end of
%prep: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1338113
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 499169] Review Request: hunspell-cv - Chuvash hunspell dictionaries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=499169 Caolan McNamara caol...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Caolan McNamara caol...@redhat.com 2009-05-06 03:42:52 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: hunspell-cv Short Description: Chuvash hunspell dictionaries Owners: caolanm Branches: devel 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 491650] Review Request: libica - Library for accessing ICA hardware crypto on IBM zSeries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=491650 Dan Horák d...@danny.cz changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Comment #5 from Dan Horák d...@danny.cz 2009-05-06 03:51:03 EDT --- Imported and built. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 499279] Review Request: xfce4-cddrive-plugin - Xfce panel plugin to open or close a CD-ROM drive tray
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=499279
Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi 2009-05-06 03:54:41
EDT ---
- You're BRing xfce4-panel-devel and hal-devel, aren't dependencies of
xfce4-panel and hal automatically picked up? Note different versions in
xfce4-panel:
BuildRequires: xfce4-panel-devel = 4.3.99.2
Requires: xfce4-panel = 4.4.0
[OK, xfce4-panel requirement has to be explicit for dir ownership.]
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
- Add missing comma to second line of BRs.
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. OK
MUST: Packages containing shared library files must call ldconfig. N/A
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: Debuginfo package is complete. 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. N/A
MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. N/A
MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'. N/A
MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix then library files
ending in .so must go in a -devel package. N/A
MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency. N/A
MUST: Packages does not contain any .la libtool archives. N/A
MUST: Desktop files are installed properly. N/A
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 has been
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 499281] Review Request: xfce4-cellmodem-plugin - Cell Modem monitor plugin for the Xfce panel
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=499281
Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi 2009-05-06 04:00:03
EDT ---
- Same note here as well: your version requirements of xfce4-panel and
xfce4-panel-devel are different.
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. OK
MUST: Packages containing shared library files must call ldconfig. N/A
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: Debuginfo package is complete. 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. N/A
MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. N/A
MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'. N/A
MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix then library files
ending in .so must go in a -devel package. N/A
MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency. N/A
MUST: Packages does not contain any .la libtool archives. N/A
MUST: Desktop files are installed properly. N/A
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 has been
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 498324] Review Request: perl-JSON-RPC-Common - Perl module for handling JSON-RPC 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=498324 Christian Krause c...@plauener.de changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #10 from Christian Krause c...@plauener.de 2009-05-06 04:11:41 EDT --- Package Change Request == Package Name: perl-JSON-RPC-Common New Branches: F-9 Owners: chkr -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 499282] Review Request: xfce4-notifyd - Simple notification daemon for Xfce
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=499282
Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi 2009-05-06 04:13:44
EDT ---
rpmlint output:
xfce4-notifyd.src:25: W: unversioned-explicit-provides
desktop-notification-daemon
xfce4-notifyd.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided notification-daemon-xfce
xfce4-notifyd.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/bin/xfce4-notifyd-config
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
- First and last are not a problem, second one maybe should be provided? Up to
you.
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. OK
MUST: Packages containing shared library files must call ldconfig. N/A
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: Debuginfo package is complete. 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. N/A
MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. N/A
MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'. N/A
MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix then library files
ending in .so must go in a -devel package. N/A
MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency. N/A
MUST: Packages does not contain any .la libtool archives. N/A
MUST: Desktop files are installed properly. N/A
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 has been
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 475017] Review Request: l2fprod-common - In JavaSE missing Swing components, inspired from modern user interfaces
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475017 Sandro Mathys s...@sandro-mathys.ch 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 499283] Review Request: xfce4-radio-plugin - V4l radio device control plugin for the Xfce panel
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=499283
Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi 2009-05-06 04:18:12
EDT ---
- And here: requiring different version of xfce4-panel-devel than xfce4-panel.
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. 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. NEEDSFIX
- Must Requires: hicolor-icon-theme
MUST: Files only listed once in %files listings. OK
MUST: Debuginfo package is complete. 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. N/A
MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. N/A
MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'. N/A
MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix then library files
ending in .so must go in a -devel package. N/A
MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency. N/A
MUST: Packages does not contain any .la libtool archives. N/A
MUST: Desktop files are installed properly. N/A
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
I'll trust you to fix the missing requires before cvs import. The package has
been
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 497786] Review Request: perl-JSON-RPC - Perl implementation of JSON-RPC 1.1 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=497786 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-05-06 04:20:44 EDT --- perl-JSON-RPC-0.96-2.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-JSON-RPC-0.96-2.fc11 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 497786] Review Request: perl-JSON-RPC - Perl implementation of JSON-RPC 1.1 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=497786 --- Comment #9 from Emmanuel Seyman emmanuel.sey...@club-internet.fr 2009-05-06 04:28:39 EDT --- (In reply to comment #7) is this built? I uploaded and built the package for all branches but never got around to pushing out the updates. Thanks for pinging me. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 498805] Review Request: wavemon - Ncurses-based monitoring application for wireless network devices
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=498805 --- Comment #4 from Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net 2009-05-06 04:37:14 EDT --- Thanks for the review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 498805] Review Request: wavemon - Ncurses-based monitoring application for wireless network devices
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=498805 Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net 2009-05-06 04:38:10 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: wavemon Short Description: Ncurses-based monitoring application for wireless network devices Owners: fab Branches: F-9 F-10 F-11 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 499316] Review Request: meterbridge - Meter Bridge for JACK
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=499316 Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||panem...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|panem...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com 2009-05-06 04:37:51 EDT --- Review: + package builds in mock (rawhide i586). koji Build = http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1338073 + rpmlint is silent for SRPM and for RPM. + source files match upstream url cf683c623b12342a951f541c9e674cd162a9ad91 meterbridge-0.9.2.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. + no translations are available + Does owns the directories it creates. + no scriptlets present. + no duplicates in %files. + file permissions are appropriate. + Package meterbridge-0.9.2-3.fc12.i586 = Requires: libSDL-1.2.so.0 libSDL_image-1.2.so.0 libc.so.6 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.0) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4) libjack.so.0 libm.so.6 libm.so.6(GLIBC_2.0) libm.so.6(GLIBC_2.1) libpthread.so.0 librt.so.1 rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides: meterbridge = 0.9.2-3.fc10 + Not a GUI application suggestions: 1) should ask upstream to add contents to README. 2) License tag should be GPLv2+ 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 499336] New: Review Request: flickcurl - C library for the Flickr API
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: flickcurl - C library for the Flickr API https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=499336 Summary: Review Request: flickcurl - C library for the Flickr API Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rpan...@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://rakesh.fedorapeople.org/spec/flickcurl.spec SRPM URL: http://rakesh.fedorapeople.org/srpm/flickcurl-1.10-1.fc10.src.rpm Description: Flickcurl is a C library for the Flickr API, handling creating the requests, signing, token management, calling the API, marshalling request parameters and decoding responses. It uses libcurl to call the REST web service and libxml2 to manipulate the XML responses. Flickcurl supports 100% of the 2009-04-04 version of the API (see Flickcurl API coverage) including the functions for photo/video uploading, browsing, searching, adding and editing comments, groups, notes, photosets, categories, activity, blogs, favorites, places, tags, machine tags, institutions, pandas and photo/video metadata. It also includes a program flickrdf to turn photo metadata, tags, machine tags and places into an RDF triples description. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 476527] Review Request: python-zdaemon - Python Daemon Process Control 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=476527 Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|fab...@bernewireless.net Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #3 from Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net 2009-05-06 04:40:24 EDT --- Sorry, I will do the review in the next 12 hours. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC 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 #9 from Pierre-YvesChibon pin...@pingoured.fr 2009-05-06 04:47:32 EDT --- Depends : R , methods , IRanges Imports : methods , utils , IRanges , Biobase -_- I love Bioconductor's dependencies... SPEC: http://pingou.fedorapeople.org/RPMs/R-Biostrings.spec SRPM: http://pingou.fedorapeople.org/RPMs/R-Biostrings-2.12.1-2.fc10.src.rpm Does not build on koji since R-IRanges does not have the right version available yet. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 492397] Review Request: websvn - Online subversion repository 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=492397 --- Comment #6 from Xavier Bachelot xav...@bachelot.org 2009-05-06 05:06:34 EDT --- Additional note: websvn 2.2.0 now uses a php pear module to do the diff between files, rather than the system command diff. I've packaged it now, I will file a review request asap. I'll fix websvn Requires: 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 492397] Review Request: websvn - Online subversion repository 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=492397 Xavier Bachelot xav...@bachelot.org changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||499341 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 499341] Review Request: php-pear-Text-Diff - Engine for performing and rendering text diffs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=499341 Xavier Bachelot xav...@bachelot.org changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||492397 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 499341] New: Review Request: php-pear-Text-Diff - Engine for performing and rendering text diffs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: php-pear-Text-Diff - Engine for performing and rendering text diffs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=499341 Summary: Review Request: php-pear-Text-Diff - Engine for performing and rendering text diffs 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/php-pear-Text-Diff.spec SRPM URL: http://www.bachelot.org/fedora/SRPMS/php-pear-Text-Diff-1.1.0-1.fc10.src.rpm Description: This package provides a text-based diff engine and renderers for multiple diff output formats. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226341] Merge Review: python-docs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226341
--- Comment #6 from Roman Rakus rra...@redhat.com 2009-05-06 05:53:09 EDT ---
diff -u -p -r1.18 python-docs.spec
--- python-docs.spec 26 Feb 2009 21:14:56 - 1.18
+++ python-docs.spec 6 May 2009 09:47:22 -
@@ -10,7 +10,7 @@
%define pybasever 2.6
-Summary: Documentation for the Python programming language.
+Summary: Documentation for the Python programming language
Name: %{python}-docs
Version: %{pybasever}
Release: 2%{?dist}
@@ -20,7 +20,6 @@ Source: http://www.python.org/ftp/python
BuildArch: noarch
Patch4: python-2.6-nowhatsnew.patch
-#Patch17: python-2.4-tex-fix.patch
Patch18: python-2.6-extdocmodules.patch
Requires: %{python} = %{version}
@@ -29,7 +28,8 @@ Obsoletes: python2-docs
Provides: python2-docs = %{version}
%endif
-BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-root
+BuildRoot: %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XX)
+
BuildRequires: %{python} python-sphinx python-docutils python-jinja
BuildRequires: python-pygments
URL: http://www.python.org/
@@ -46,19 +46,16 @@ for the Python language.
%setup -q -n Python-%{version}
%patch4 -p1 -b .nowhatsnew
-#%%patch17 -p1 -b .tex-fix
%patch18 -p1 -b .extdocmodules
%build
topdir=`pwd`
-pushd Doc
-make html
+make -C Doc html
#rm html/index.html.in Makefile* info/Makefile tools/sgmlconv/Makefile
-popd
%install
-[ -d $RPM_BUILD_ROOT ] rm -fr $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
+rm -fr $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
mkdir $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
@@ -66,7 +63,7 @@ mkdir $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
rm -fr $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
%files
-%defattr(-,root,root,755)
+%defattr(-,root,root,-)
%doc Misc/NEWS Misc/README Misc/cheatsheet
%doc Misc/HISTORY Doc/build/html
- What is the stuff at the beginning needed for?
I don't know. The same is in python spec file
- You can use
%{!?pyver: %global pyver %(%{__python} -c import sys ; print
sys.version[:3])}
to get the Python base version.
I don't change it. I think the better is to set version by hand.
- Patches are not documented.
Patches are from previous package - python. I don't know what they were
solving...
- Commented patches should be removed.
Commented lines removed. Patches aren't in cvs.
All else should be fixed.
--
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 498906] Review Request: gnome-format - GNOME tool to easily format USB sticks or SD/MMC flash cards
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=498906 --- Comment #3 from Felix Kaechele fe...@fetzig.org 2009-05-06 06:01:30 EDT --- Weird. Seems to work for me: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1338225 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226341] Merge Review: python-docs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226341 --- Comment #7 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi 2009-05-06 06:22:23 EDT --- OK, please commit the new spec to CVS so I can approve. -- 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 491497] Review Request: dmapd - A server that provides DAAP and DPAP shares
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=491497
Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fab...@bernewireless.net
--- Comment #1 from Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net 2009-05-06
06:25:37 EDT ---
Just some quick comments on your spec file
- Don't mix '$RPM_BUILD_ROOT' and '%{buildroot}'
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Using_.25.7Bbuildroot.7D_and_.25.7Boptflags.7D_vs_.24RPM_BUILD_ROOT_and_.24RPM_OPT_FLAGS
- There are two '%defattr(-, root, root, -)' entries
- You are working with users/group. Aren't 'Requires(pre): /usr/sbin/useradd
/usr/sbin/groupadd' and 'Requires(postun): /usr/sbin/userdel
/usr/sbin/groupdel' missing?
- Same with the service. 'Requires(post): chkconfig' and 'Requires(preun):
chkconfig'
- disttag is not needed in changelog, you can remove '.fc10' there
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 499214] Review Request: gcolor2 - A simple color selector for GTK+2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=499214 Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||fab...@bernewireless.net AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|fab...@bernewireless.net Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226341] Merge Review: python-docs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226341 --- Comment #8 from Roman Rakus rra...@redhat.com 2009-05-06 06:50:58 EDT --- 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 499336] Review Request: flickcurl - C library for the Flickr API
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=499336 --- Comment #1 from Rakesh Pandit rpan...@redhat.com 2009-05-06 07:16:34 EDT --- http://rakesh.fedorapeople.org/spec/flickcurl.spec http://rakesh.fedorapeople.org/srpm/flickcurl-1.10-2.fc10.src.rpm Updated with rapdor added. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226341] Merge Review: python-docs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226341 Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #9 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi 2009-05-06 07:40:14 EDT --- - You might want to add -p to mkdir $RPM_BUILD_ROOT in install phase. - Also, you can remove the unnecessary topdir=`pwd` from the build phase. The package has been APPROVED -- 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 226341] Merge Review: python-docs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226341 Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE -- 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 226331] Merge Review: pydict
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226331 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 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 226299] Merge Review: pkgconfig
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226299 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 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 498363] Review Request: wordpress-plugin-add-to-any-subscribe - Add to Any Subscribe Button plugin for WordPress
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=498363
David Nalley da...@gnsa.us changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from David Nalley da...@gnsa.us 2009-05-06 07:47:30 EDT ---
OK: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the
review.
[ke4...@nalleyt61 rpmbuild]$ rpmlint
SPECS/wordpress-plugin-add-to-any-subscribe.spec
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[ke4...@nalleyt61 rpmbuild]$ rpmlint
SRPMS/wordpress-plugin-add-to-any-subscribe-0.9.6.4.1-1.fc10.src.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[ke4...@nalleyt61 rpmbuild]$ rpmlint
RPMS/noarch/wordpress-plugin-add-to-any-subscribe-
wordpress-plugin-add-to-any-subscribe-0.9.6.4.1-1.fc10.noarch.rpm
wordpress-plugin-add-to-any-subscribe-i18n-0.9.6.4.1-1.fc10.noarch.rpm
[ke4...@nalleyt61 rpmbuild]$ rpmlint
RPMS/noarch/wordpress-plugin-add-to-any-subscribe*
wordpress-plugin-add-to-any-subscribe.noarch: W: dangling-symlink
/usr/share/wordpress/wp-content/plugins/add-to-any-subscribe/i18n/add-to-any-subscribe.mo
/usr/share/locale/en/LC_MESSAGES/wordpress-plugin-add-to-any-subscribe.mo
wordpress-plugin-add-to-any-subscribe.noarch: W: dangling-symlink
/usr/share/wordpress/wp-content/plugins/add-to-any-subscribe/i18n/add-to-any-subscribe-da_DK.mo
/usr/share/locale/da_DK/LC_MESSAGES/wordpress-plugin-add-to-any-subscribe.mo
wordpress-plugin-add-to-any-subscribe.noarch: W: dangling-symlink
/usr/share/wordpress/wp-content/plugins/add-to-any-subscribe/i18n/add-to-any-subscribe-zh_CN.mo
/usr/share/locale/zh_CN/LC_MESSAGES/wordpress-plugin-add-to-any-subscribe.mo
wordpress-plugin-add-to-any-subscribe.noarch: W: file-not-in-%lang
/usr/share/wordpress/wp-content/plugins/add-to-any-subscribe/i18n/add-to-any-subscribe-da_DK.mo
wordpress-plugin-add-to-any-subscribe.noarch: W: file-not-in-%lang
/usr/share/wordpress/wp-content/plugins/add-to-any-subscribe/i18n/add-to-any-subscribe-zh_CN.mo
wordpress-plugin-add-to-any-subscribe.noarch: W: file-not-in-%lang
/usr/share/wordpress/wp-content/plugins/add-to-any-subscribe/i18n/add-to-any-subscribe.mo
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings.
The errors are expected and documented in the spec file.
OK: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
OK: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
OK: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
OK: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines .
Appears to be GPLv3 See more information below.
FIX: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
The website you reference in the spec does indeed say that the files and
content are licensed under the GPL and then links to a copy of GPLv3. However
the license linked is not GPLv3+.
I trust this is something that you can fix before it hits CVS.
NA: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package must be included in %doc
OK: The spec file must be written in American English.
OK: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
OK: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no
upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL
Guidelines for how to deal with this.
02049bf88fa2b594dce643e1842b5aea add-to-any-subscribe.0.9.6.4.1.zip
02049bf88fa2b594dce643e1842b5aea add-to-any-subscribe.0.9.6.4.1.zip.1
OK: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture.
At least works on x86_64, though since it's a noarch package should work
anywhere.
NA: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line.
OK: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of
those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
OK: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
NA: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files
(not just symlinks) in
[Bug 498362] Review Request: wordpress-plugin-add-to-any - Add to Any: Share/Bookmark/Email Button plugin for WordPress
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=498362
David Nalley da...@gnsa.us changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from David Nalley da...@gnsa.us 2009-05-06 08:02:45 EDT ---
OK: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the
review.
[ke4...@nalleyt61 SPECS]$ rpmlint ./wordpress-plugin-add-to-any.spec
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[ke4...@nalleyt61 SPECS]$ rpmlint
../SRPMS/wordpress-plugin-add-to-any-0.9.9.2.3-1.fc10.src.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[ke4...@nalleyt61 SPECS]$ rpmlint
../RPMS/noarch/wordpress-plugin-add-to-any-0.9.9.2.3-1.fc10.noarch.rpm
wordpress-plugin-add-to-any.noarch: W: dangling-symlink
/usr/share/wordpress/wp-content/plugins/add-to-any/i18n/add-to-any-pt_PT.mo
/usr/share/locale/pt_PT/LC_MESSAGES/wordpress-plugin-add-to-any.mo
wordpress-plugin-add-to-any.noarch: W: dangling-symlink
/usr/share/wordpress/wp-content/plugins/add-to-any/i18n/add-to-any-ca.mo
/usr/share/locale/ca/LC_MESSAGES/wordpress-plugin-add-to-any.mo
wordpress-plugin-add-to-any.noarch: W: dangling-symlink
/usr/share/wordpress/wp-content/plugins/add-to-any/i18n/add-to-any.mo
/usr/share/locale/en/LC_MESSAGES/wordpress-plugin-add-to-any.mo
wordpress-plugin-add-to-any.noarch: W: dangling-symlink
/usr/share/wordpress/wp-content/plugins/add-to-any/i18n/add-to-any-zh_CN.mo
/usr/share/locale/zh_CN/LC_MESSAGES/wordpress-plugin-add-to-any.mo
wordpress-plugin-add-to-any.noarch: W: dangling-symlink
/usr/share/wordpress/wp-content/plugins/add-to-any/i18n/add-to-any-es_ES.mo
/usr/share/locale/es_ES/LC_MESSAGES/wordpress-plugin-add-to-any.mo
wordpress-plugin-add-to-any.noarch: W: dangling-symlink
/usr/share/wordpress/wp-content/plugins/add-to-any/i18n/add-to-any-be.mo
/usr/share/locale/be/LC_MESSAGES/wordpress-plugin-add-to-any.mo
wordpress-plugin-add-to-any.noarch: W: dangling-symlink
/usr/share/wordpress/wp-content/plugins/add-to-any/i18n/add-to-any-da_DK.mo
/usr/share/locale/da_DK/LC_MESSAGES/wordpress-plugin-add-to-any.mo
wordpress-plugin-add-to-any.noarch: W: file-not-in-%lang
/usr/share/wordpress/wp-content/plugins/add-to-any/i18n/add-to-any-be.mo
wordpress-plugin-add-to-any.noarch: W: file-not-in-%lang
/usr/share/wordpress/wp-content/plugins/add-to-any/i18n/add-to-any-ca.mo
wordpress-plugin-add-to-any.noarch: W: file-not-in-%lang
/usr/share/wordpress/wp-content/plugins/add-to-any/i18n/add-to-any-da_DK.mo
wordpress-plugin-add-to-any.noarch: W: file-not-in-%lang
/usr/share/wordpress/wp-content/plugins/add-to-any/i18n/add-to-any-es_ES.mo
wordpress-plugin-add-to-any.noarch: W: file-not-in-%lang
/usr/share/wordpress/wp-content/plugins/add-to-any/i18n/add-to-any-pt_PT.mo
wordpress-plugin-add-to-any.noarch: W: file-not-in-%lang
/usr/share/wordpress/wp-content/plugins/add-to-any/i18n/add-to-any-zh_CN.mo
wordpress-plugin-add-to-any.noarch: W: file-not-in-%lang
/usr/share/wordpress/wp-content/plugins/add-to-any/i18n/add-to-any.mo
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 14 warnings.
The errors are expected and documented in the spec file.
OK: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
OK: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
OK: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
OK: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines .
Appears to be GPLv3 See more information below.
FIX: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
The website you reference in the spec does indeed say that the files and
content are licensed under the GPL and then links to a copy of GPLv3. However
the license linked is not GPLv3+.
I trust this is something that you can fix before it hits CVS.
NA: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package must be included in %doc
OK: The spec file must be written in American English.
OK: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
WORRISOME: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream
source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task.
If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL
Guidelines for how to deal with this.
So I initially tried to wget the source and md5sum and received a mismatch, so
I then started from scratch, installed the SRPM anew and grabbed the source 5
times with wget.
Running md5sum against these 6 files yields three different md5sums - two of
which match the source. I must admit a bit of being baffled unless one
[Bug 495564] Review Request: libguestfs - Access and modify virtual machine disk images
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=495564
--- Comment #11 from Jim Meyering meyer...@redhat.com 2009-05-06 08:12:14
EDT ---
Hi Rich,
In src/guestfs.c, you probably want to use a read wrapper
so you don't have to worry about EINTR and EAGAIN
(the code should retry, not fail in those cases).
It looks like there are a few others that would benefit.
while (!cancel (r = read (fd, buf, sizeof buf)) 0) {
err = send_file_data_sync (g, buf, r);
if (err 0) {
if (err == -2) /* daemon sent cancellation */
send_file_cancellation_sync (g);
return err;
}
}
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 495564] Review Request: libguestfs - Access and modify virtual machine disk images
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=495564
--- Comment #12 from Jim Meyering meyer...@redhat.com 2009-05-06 08:13:12
EDT ---
Please use an unsigned type for length-only variables like len here:
This is partly stylistic, and partly to keep reviewers from wondering
if they can be negative. Added bonus, use a wider type like
size_t and you don't have to worry about overflow if there's
ever an input of 2^32 bytes or longer.
guestfs__receive_file_sync (guestfs_h *g, const char *filename)
{
void *buf;
int fd, r, len;
fd = open (filename, O_WRONLY|O_CREAT|O_TRUNC|O_NOCTTY, 0666);
if (fd == -1) {
perrorf (g, open: %s, filename);
goto cancel;
}
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 495564] Review Request: libguestfs - Access and modify virtual machine disk images
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=495564
--- Comment #13 from Jim Meyering meyer...@redhat.com 2009-05-06 08:13:39
EDT ---
This realloc (from guestfsd.c) leaks upon failure:
if (r 0 stdoutput) {
so_size += r;
*stdoutput = realloc (*stdoutput, so_size);
if (*stdoutput == NULL) {
perror (realloc);
*stdoutput = NULL;
continue;
}
memcpy (*stdoutput + so_size - r, buf, r);
}
Also, this stmt is unnecessary:
*stdoutput = NULL;
Same thing with unnecessary code below:
if (*stdoutput == NULL) {
perror (realloc);
*stdoutput = NULL;
} else
and with stderror:
if (*stderror == NULL) {
perror (realloc);
*stderror = NULL;
More importantly, it looks like this function can return
0 even when it has set *stdoutput to NULL, and that would
make the following from file.c deference out==NULL:
r = command (out, err, file, -bsL, buf, NULL);
if (freeit) free (buf);
if (r == -1) {
free (out);
reply_with_error (file: %s: %s, path, err);
free (err);
return NULL;
}
free (err);
/* We need to remove the trailing \n from output of file(1). */
len = strlen (out);
if (out[len-1] == '\n')
out[len-1] = '\0';
Also, so_size and se_size become invalid upon failed realloc.
You should change it so that they are increased only if realloc
succeeds.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 495564] Review Request: libguestfs - Access and modify virtual machine disk images
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=495564 --- Comment #15 from Jim Meyering meyer...@redhat.com 2009-05-06 08:16:52 EDT --- Since make check doesn't pass for me, I haven't yet tried running things under valgrind. Have you? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 495564] Review Request: libguestfs - Access and modify virtual machine disk images
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=495564 --- Comment #14 from Jim Meyering meyer...@redhat.com 2009-05-06 08:14:44 EDT --- I've built the RPM from a git clone on F10: make dist rpmbuild -ta libguestfs-1.0.18.tar.gz It satisfies all MUST requirements and almost all SHOULDs. The only missing SHOULD is gettext support. However, I'm still getting the make check failures we've been looking at for some time. Probably not worth worrying about if I'm the only 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 495564] Review Request: libguestfs - Access and modify virtual machine disk images
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=495564 --- Comment #16 from Jim Meyering meyer...@redhat.com 2009-05-06 08:49:27 EDT --- oops. re #14, there's no SHOULD-use-gettext. I didn't read carefully enough the one that mentioned translations. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 499279] Review Request: xfce4-cddrive-plugin - Xfce panel plugin to open or close a CD-ROM drive tray
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=499279 Christoph Wickert fed...@christoph-wickert.de changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora_requires_release_not ||e? --- Comment #2 from Christoph Wickert fed...@christoph-wickert.de 2009-05-06 09:18:28 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1) - You're BRing xfce4-panel-devel and hal-devel, aren't dependencies of xfce4-panel and hal automatically picked up? Note different versions in xfce4-panel: BuildRequires: xfce4-panel-devel = 4.3.99.2 Requires: xfce4-panel = 4.4.0 Hal is not picked up automatically, only hal-libs is pulled in, not hald. xfce4-panel will be pulled in automatically but the different versions are intended: BuildRequires is as low as possible to make it easier to rebuild the package on other branches/distros/ as well. Requirements are adjusted to follow the versions on our repos more closely. New Package CVS Request === Package Name: xfce4-cddrive-plugin Short Description: Xfce panel plugin to open or close a CD-ROM drive tray Owners: cwickert Branches: F-9 F-10 F-11 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 499279] Review Request: xfce4-cddrive-plugin - Xfce panel plugin to open or close a CD-ROM drive tray
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=499279 Christoph Wickert fed...@christoph-wickert.de changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora_requires_release_not |fedora-cvs? |e? | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 499281] Review Request: xfce4-cellmodem-plugin - Cell Modem monitor plugin for the Xfce panel
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=499281 Christoph Wickert fed...@christoph-wickert.de changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Christoph Wickert fed...@christoph-wickert.de 2009-05-06 09:20:09 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1) - Same note here as well: your version requirements of xfce4-panel and xfce4-panel-devel are different. Intended. New Package CVS Request === Package Name: xfce4-cellmodem-plugin Short Description: Cell Modem monitor plugin for the Xfce panel Owners: cwickert Branches: F-9 F-10 F-11 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 499282] Review Request: xfce4-notifyd - Simple notification daemon for Xfce
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=499282 Christoph Wickert fed...@christoph-wickert.de changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Christoph Wickert fed...@christoph-wickert.de 2009-05-06 09:23:54 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1) - First and last are not a problem, second one maybe should be provided? Up to you. I don't think I should, notification-daemon-xfce was never in Fedora or packaged at all. Nothing will require it, the Obsoletes: is just for smother upgrading. New Package CVS Request === Package Name: xfce4-notifyd Short Description: Simple notification daemon for Xfce Owners: cwickert Branches: F-9 F-10 F-11 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 499283] Review Request: xfce4-radio-plugin - V4l radio device control plugin for the Xfce panel
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=499283 Christoph Wickert fed...@christoph-wickert.de changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Christoph Wickert fed...@christoph-wickert.de 2009-05-06 09:27:33 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1) - And here: requiring different version of xfce4-panel-devel than xfce4-panel. Again intended. One is what configure really checks for, the other is what this package is build against. MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates or require the package that owns the directory. NEEDSFIX - Must Requires: hicolor-icon-theme Not necessary, because it requires gtk2, which already requires hicolor-icon-theme. New Package CVS Request === Package Name: xfce4-radio-plugin Short Description: V4l radio device control plugin for the Xfce panel Owners: cwickert Branches: F-9 F-10 F-11 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 497251] Review Request: libstdc++-docs - Documentation in html for libstdc++
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=497251 --- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com 2009-05-06 09:33:34 EDT --- Benjamin, can you please look at http://koji.fedoraproject.org/scratch/jakub/task_1338267/ and say if that's what you want or not? If so, I'll do a real build soon. All I found so far is that I need to remove all *~ files from the html directory. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226358] Merge Review: rdesktop
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226358 --- Comment #8 from Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net 2009-05-06 09:48:25 EDT --- Behdad, I requested commit access for this package a while ago, but nothing happen. In fact the package maintainer should patch the spec file, build the package, and a packager should do the merge review ;-) -- 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 498490] Review Request: smem - Reports application memory usage in a meaningful way
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=498490 --- Comment #16 from Matthew Miller mat...@mattdm.org 2009-05-06 09:58:44 EDT --- Okay, updated. Spec URL: http://mattdm.org/misc/fedora/smem.spec SRPM URL: http://mattdm.org/misc/fedora/smem-0.1-4.fc11.mattdm.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 497593] Review Request: gnome-alsamixer - advanced mixer for GNOME
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=497593 James Laska jla...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jla...@redhat.com --- Comment #26 from James Laska jla...@redhat.com 2009-05-06 10:00:10 EDT --- Should this bug remain open? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226322] Merge Review: psmisc
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226322 Daniel Novotny dnovo...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|needinfo?(dnovo...@redhat.c | |om) | --- Comment #12 from Daniel Novotny dnovo...@redhat.com 2009-05-06 09:58:21 EDT --- hello, I made the suggested .spec changes: * added purpose comments to all patches * fixed URL * fixed %defattr as for the others: * Not necessary to define globally when used only for make configure and autoreconf doesn't use those? I'm not sure... * don't mix variable and macro style as far as I can see, there's only variable style for those two variables output: http://people.fedoraproject.org/~dnovotny/psmisc.review.spec -- 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 499394] New: Review Request: ampache - web based audio/video streaming application
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: ampache - web based audio/video streaming application https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=499394 Summary: Review Request: ampache - web based audio/video streaming application Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All URL: http://ampache.org/ OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: pro...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Description of problem: Spec URL: http://orion.lcg.ufrj.br/RPMS/SPECS/ampache.spec SRPM URL: http://orion.lcg.ufrj.br/RPMS/src/ampache-3.5-6.fc10.src.rpm Ampache is a web based audio/video streaming application and file manager allowing you to access your music videos from anywhere, using almost any internet enabled device. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226299] Merge Review: pkgconfig
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226299
--- Comment #7 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi 2009-05-06 10:09:55
EDT ---
- Any reason why SMP make is not enabled? (make %{?_smp_mflags})
- Package includes internal glib, which is not allowed. Use BR: glib-devel and
--with-installed-glib option to configure.
rpmlint output:
pkgconfig.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/bin/pkg-config
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
- This is kind of expected.
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. N/A
MUST: Optflags are used and time stamps preserved. NEEDSFIX
- Use INSTALL=install -p as argument to make install.
MUST: Packages containing shared library files must call ldconfig. N/A
MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates or require the package
that owns the directory. N/A
MUST: Files only listed once in %files listings. OK
MUST: Debuginfo package is complete. OK
MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. NEEDSFIX
- %defattr should be (-,root,root,-)
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. NEEDSFIX
- Add ChangeLog to %doc.
MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. N/A
MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. N/A
MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'. N/A
MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix then library files
ending in .so must go in a -devel package. N/A
MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency. N/A
MUST: Packages does not contain any .la libtool archives. N/A
MUST: Desktop files are installed properly. N/A
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
--
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 226322] Merge Review: psmisc
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226322 --- Comment #13 from Michal Nowak mno...@redhat.com 2009-05-06 10:12:59 EDT --- (In reply to comment #12) [...] output: http://people.fedoraproject.org/~dnovotny/psmisc.review.spec Looks good to me. (Don't forget tu bump changelog entry when in CVS, please.) Jon: Are you satisfied? Will you approve it, or should I? -- 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 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 Mattias Ellert mattias.ell...@fysast.uu.se changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #10 from Mattias Ellert mattias.ell...@fysast.uu.se 2009-05-06 10:20:45 EDT --- Package approved. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226331] Merge Review: pydict
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226331
--- Comment #1 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi 2009-05-06 10:23:53
EDT ---
- Buildroot is obsolete. Use
%(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XX)
instead.
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.
NEEDSFIX
- There is no mention of a license in the package!
MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL. NEEDSFIX
- Source url is missing!
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. NEEDSFIX
- Time stamps are lost in install and in character set conversion.
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: Debuginfo package is complete. N/A
MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. OK
MUST: Clean section exists. OK
MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. N/A
MUST: All relevant items are included in %doc. Items in %doc do not affect
runtime of application. OK
MUST: Desktop files are installed properly. ~OK
- Vendor tag is incorrect. In fact there shouldn't be any, but this can't be
changed due to compatibility reasons.
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
--
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 498490] Review Request: smem - Reports application memory usage in a meaningful way
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=498490 Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #17 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi 2009-05-06 10:52:01 EDT --- Okay, looks good, 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 499409] New: Review Request: jargs - Java command line option parsing suite
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: jargs - Java command line option parsing suite https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=499409 Summary: Review Request: jargs - Java command line option parsing suite Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: guido.grazi...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://guidograzioli.fedorapeople.org/packages/jargs/jargs.spec SRPM URL: http://guidograzioli.fedorapeople.org/packages/jargs/jargs-1.0-1.fc10.src.rpm Description: This project provides a convenient, compact, pre-packaged and comprehensively documented suite of command line option parsers for the use of Java programmers. Initially, parsing compatible with GNU-style 'getopt' is provided. rpmlint is silent, koji build is here: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1338557 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 499409] Review Request: jargs - Java command line option parsing suite
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=499409 Guido Grazioli guido.grazi...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|medium |low Blocks||177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) Severity|medium |low -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 497593] Review Request: gnome-alsamixer - advanced mixer for GNOME
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=497593 --- Comment #27 from Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com 2009-05-06 12:15:21 EDT --- I'd tend towards 'no'. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226299] Merge Review: pkgconfig
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226299 --- Comment #8 from Matthias Clasen mcla...@redhat.com 2009-05-06 12:49:53 EDT --- - Package includes internal glib, which is not allowed. Use BR: glib-devel and --with-installed-glib option to configure. Please take a minute to understand why things are the way they are...then you will see that it needs to be this way. Hint: glib is using pkg-config itself. -- 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 468227] Review Request: python-repoze-who - An identification and authentication framework for WSGI
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468227 --- Comment #2 from Luke Macken lmac...@redhat.com 2009-05-06 13:19:16 EDT --- Yes, this package is still needed. http://lmacken.fedorapeople.org/rpms/python-repoze-who-1.0.13-1.fc9.src.rpm http://lmacken.fedorapeople.org/rpms/python-repoze-who.spec * Wed May 06 2009 Luke Macken lmac...@redhat.com - 1.0.13-1 - Update to the latest upstream release. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 468227] Review Request: python-repoze-who - An identification and authentication framework for WSGI
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468227 --- Comment #3 from Luke Macken lmac...@redhat.com 2009-05-06 13:20:04 EDT --- Sorry, bad link: http://lmacken.fedorapeople.org/rpms/python-repoze-who-1.0.13-1.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 499316] Review Request: meterbridge - Meter Bridge for JACK
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=499316 Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com 2009-05-06 13:23:19 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2) Review: Thank you for the review Parag! suggestions: 1) should ask upstream to add contents to README. I'll do that. 2) License tag should be GPLv2+ The source files do not specify the version of GPL in their headers. In this case we choose GPL+ as per the guidelines. Please see instrcution #4 at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/FAQ#How_do_I_figure_out_what_version_of_the_GPL.2FLGPL_my_package_is_under.3F Do I miss something? New Package CVS Request === Package Name: meterbridge Short Description: Meter Bridge for JACK Owners: oget Branches: F-9 F-10 F-11 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 226299] Merge Review: pkgconfig
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226299 Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rc040...@freenet.de --- Comment #9 from Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de 2009-05-06 13:47:57 EDT --- (In reply to comment #8) - Package includes internal glib, which is not allowed. Use BR: glib-devel and --with-installed-glib option to configure. Please take a minute to understand why things are the way they are...then you will see that it needs to be this way. Hint: glib is using pkg-config itself. Hint: Your argument is a nop. -- 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 497947] Review Request: libmetalink - A Metalink C 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=497947
--- Comment #6 from Ant Bryan anthonybr...@gmail.com 2009-05-06 13:49:10 EDT
---
(In reply to comment #3)
A few notes:
- .la files need to be removed, add
find . -name *.la -exec rm {} \;
to the end of the install phase
- if possible, static library build should be disable (usually %configure
--disable-static)
- devel package needs to Requires: pkgconfig
- you're running autoreconf, but not BRing the packages = the package will
not
build in mock. Autoreconf'ing is frowned upon, and should not be done unless
it
is specifically necessary.
I may not have been clear before, but I addressed those 4 issues you found and
they are resolved in my second round of rpms.
Spec URL: http://pastebin.ca/1407423
SRPM URL:
http://www.metalinker.org/mirrors/libmetalink/libmetalink-0.0.3-2.fc10.src.rpm
Any other issues I can fix?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC 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 Yaakov Nemoy loupgaroubl...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #48 from Yaakov Nemoy loupgaroubl...@gmail.com 2009-05-06 13:58:23 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: xmonad Short Description: a tiling window manager written in haskell Owners: ynemoy Branches: F-11 InitialCC: fedora-haskell-sig -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 499137] Review Request: sipwitch - SIP telephony server for secure phone 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=499137
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 2009-05-06
14:08:17 EDT ---
From very quick glance at your spec file:
- Fedora suggests that one line in %description must
not have more than 79 characters
(please check rpmlint warnings)
- Use macros consistently.
31 Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
36 Requires: sipwitch = %{version}-%{release}
- Would you explain why some of the subpackage does not
have the dependency for main package?
- %{buildroot} is missing:
%{__rm} -f %{_libdir}/*.la
%{__rm} -f %{_libdir}/sipwitch/*.la
- Perhaps INSTALL is not needed for rpm document files.
- Files under %_mandir are automatically marked as %doc.
- The main package must not own the directory %_sbindir,
%_bindir themselves.
- For initscripts related convention,
* please follow
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SysVInitScript#Initscripts_on_the_filesystem
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SysVInitScript#Initscript_packaging
From rpmlint:
* service should not be enabled by default (i.e. change
-
# chkconfig: 2345 95 15
-
to
-
# chkconfig: - 95 15
-
* init script should have status entry
(please also check $ rpmlint -I no-status-entry)
* init script should put a lock file in
%_localstatedir/lock/subsys .
- {_datadir}/snmp{,/mibs} is not owned by the main package
but it installs some files under these directories.
These directories are owned by net-snmp-libs, currently this
package (sipwitch) does not seem to require net-snmp-libs.
Would you check if sipwitch should require net-snmp-libs?
(or examine why some files are installed under %_datadir/snmp?)
- Using %_libdir/python* is wrong (by the way this does not
seem to work on 64 bit architecture). Please follow
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Python#System_Architecture
- Because of some reasons (one of the reasons is to avoid
selinux AVC denial), we always install byte-compiled .py{o,c}
files altogether (note that these .py{o,c} files are automatically
created by /usr/lib/rpm/brp-python-bytecompile).
So
- these files must appear in %files list (using sipwitch.py*
is easier)
- creating/removing byte-compiled python files in scriptlets
(i.e. at %post or so) should be removed.
- Usually configuration files should be marked as
%config(noreplace)
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Configuration_files
- When only /sbin/ldconfig is called on a scriptlet, use -p
option to avoid unneeded shell call, like:
-
%postun -p /sbin/ldconfig
-
(however also please check initscripts scriptlets convention)
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 498736] Review Request: ucommon - Portable C++ runtime for threads and sockets
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=498736 --- Comment #15 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-05-06 14:10:13 EDT --- This package itself seems good. Then when you clean up sipwitch srpm (on bug 499137), I will approve this package and sponsor you. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 497947] Review Request: libmetalink - A Metalink C 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=497947
--- Comment #7 from Ruben Kerkhof ru...@rubenkerkhof.com 2009-05-06 14:38:51
EDT ---
Just a few:
replace /usr/share/doc with %{_docdir} in the %files section.
And:
rpmlint of libmetalink-devel:
libmetalink-devel.x86_64: W: summary-ended-with-dot A Metalink C library devel
package.
libmetalink-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
And you have to own the directory /usr/include/metalink
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 499214] Review Request: gcolor2 - A simple color selector for GTK+2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=499214
Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net 2009-05-06
14:50:38 EDT ---
Package Review
==
Package:
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
[x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec
[x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines
[x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary RPMs on at least one
supported architecture
Tested on: F10/i386
[x] Rpmlint output:
Source RPM:
[...@laptop24 SRPMS]$ rpmlint gcolor2-0.4-1.fc11.src.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Binary RPM(s):
[...@laptop24 i386]$ rpmlint gcolor2*
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[x] Package is not relocatable
[x] Buildroot is correct
master : %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XX)
spec file: %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XX)
[x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license
License type: GPLv2
[x] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package is included in %doc
[x] Spec file is legible and written in American English
[x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL
Upstream source: 223a126b8a87234d1552be4be4140789
Build source:223a126b8a87234d1552be4be4140789
[x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch
[-] Architecture independent packages have: BuildArch: noarch
[x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[-] The spec file handles locales properly. %find_lang used for locales
[x] %{optflags} or RPM_OPT_FLAGS are honoured
[x] No pre-built binaries (.a, .so*, executable)
[-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required
[x] %install starts with rm -rf %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x] Package must own all directories that it creates
[x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses
[x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages
[x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files
[x] Permissions on files are set properly. %defattr(-,root,root,-) is in every
%files section
[x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime
[x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x] Package consistently uses macros
[x] Package contains code, or permissable content
[x] Included filenames are in UTF-8
[-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required
[-] Header files (.h) in -devel subpackage, if present
[-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackage, if present
[-] Static libraries (.a) in -static subpackage, if present
[-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present
[-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present
[-] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x] -debuginfo subpackage is present and looks complete
[x] Package contains a properly installed .desktop file if it is a GUI
application
[x] Follows desktop entry spec
[x] Valid .desktop Name
[x] Valid .desktop GenericName
[x] Valid .desktop Categories
[-] Valid .desktop StartupNotify
[x] .desktop file installed with desktop-file-install in %install
=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
[x] Timestamps preserved with cp and install
[x] Uses parallel make (%{?_smp_mflags})
[x] Latest version is packaged
[x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream
[-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available
[x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock
Tested on: F10/i386
[x] Package should compile and build into binary RPMs on all supported
architectures.
Tested: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1339014
[x] Package functions as described
[-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used
[-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct
[-] File based requires are sane
[x] Changelog in allowed format
I see no further blocker, package APPROVED
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
---
[Bug 499214] Review Request: gcolor2 - A simple color selector for GTK+2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=499214 Christoph Wickert fed...@christoph-wickert.de changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Christoph Wickert fed...@christoph-wickert.de 2009-05-06 15:06:27 EDT --- Thanks for reviewing! New Package CVS Request === Package Name: gcolor2 Short Description: Simple color selector for GTK+2 Owners: cwickert Branches: F-9 F-10 F-11 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 499469] New: Review Request: libtalloc - spin off of samba4 package
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: libtalloc - spin off of samba4 package https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=499469 Summary: Review Request: libtalloc - spin off of samba4 package Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: sso...@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://simo.fedorapeople.org/libtalloc/libtalloc.spec SRPM URL: http://simo.fedorapeople.org/libtalloc/libtalloc-1.3.0-0.fc11.src.rpm Description: Spin off libtalloc from the samba4 package into its own now that upstream has finally released a separate tarball. The package name and versioning is consistent with what was provided by the samba4 package so dropping this in and disabling building talloc from the samba4 package should provide a seamless migration path -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 499475] New: Review Request: python-morbid - A lightweight message queue for bundled deployment
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: python-morbid - A lightweight message queue for bundled deployment https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=499475 Summary: Review Request: python-morbid - A lightweight message queue for bundled deployment Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: tcall...@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://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/new/python-morbid.spec SRPM URL: http://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/new/python-morbid-0.8.6.1-1.fc11.src.rpm Description: Morbid is a Twisted-based publish/subscribe messaging server that uses the STOMP protocol. It supports publish/subscribe topics, and runs as a single node. It is designed specifically for usecases where a clustered message broker is not necessary. Koji Scratch Build (F12): http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1339067 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC 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 Pierre-YvesChibon pin...@pingoured.fr changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #11 from Pierre-YvesChibon pin...@pingoured.fr 2009-05-06 15:23:42 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: R-Biostrings Short Description: String objects representing biological sequences Owners: pingou Branches: F-10 F-11 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 499475] Review Request: python-morbid - A lightweight message queue for bundled deployment
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=499475 Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||499476 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 499476] Review Request: python-orbited - A browser(javascript)-tcp bridge
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=499476 Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||499475 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 499476] New: Review Request: python-orbited - A browser(javascript)-tcp bridge
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: python-orbited - A browser(javascript)-tcp bridge https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=499476 Summary: Review Request: python-orbited - A browser(javascript)-tcp bridge Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: tcall...@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://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/new/python-orbited.spec SRPM URL: http://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/new/python-orbited-0.7.9-1.fc11.src.rpm Description: Orbited provides a pure JavaScript/HTML socket in the browser. It is a web router and firewall that allows you to integrate web applications with arbitrary back-end systems. You can implement any network protocol in the browser—without resorting to plugins. Koji Scratch Build (F12): http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1339081 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226299] Merge Review: pkgconfig
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226299 --- Comment #10 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi 2009-05-06 15:28:02 EDT --- (In reply to comment #8) - Package includes internal glib, which is not allowed. Use BR: glib-devel and --with-installed-glib option to configure. Please take a minute to understand why things are the way they are...then you will see that it needs to be this way. Hint: glib is using pkg-config itself. Once there is a glib package available there's no problem to build against it. This is a cyclic dependency and is nothing new. Just define a bootstrap variable that chooses between a) normal case: use glib package from distro or b) bootstrap: build with internal glib [then build glib with the newly built pkgconfig and redo build with a)] You only have to bootstrap once a distribution, and even that you should be able to do with a). -- 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 499476] Review Request: orbited - A browser(javascript)-tcp bridge
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=499476 Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: orbited - A |python-orbited - A |browser(javascript)-tcp |browser(javascript)-tcp|bridge |bridge | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 499476] Review Request: orbited - A browser(javascript)-tcp bridge
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=499476 --- Comment #1 from Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com 2009-05-06 15:33:42 EDT --- I remembered why I didn't name this python-orbited... there is a separate pyorbited package that is the client bits. To minimize confusion, I've renamed it to orbited. No other changes were made. New SPEC: http://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/new/orbited.spec New SRPM: http://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/new/orbited-0.7.9-1.fc11.src.rpm Koji Scratch Build (F12): http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1339097 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458090] Review Request: LuxRender - Lux Renderer, an unbiased rendering 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=458090 --- Comment #16 from Jochen Schmitt joc...@herr-schmitt.de 2009-05-06 15:41:15 EDT --- I would take a look on your source RPM. But It's seems, it is not available on koji anymore. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 497947] Review Request: libmetalink - A Metalink C 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=497947
--- Comment #8 from Ant Bryan anthonybr...@gmail.com 2009-05-06 15:53:47 EDT
---
(In reply to comment #7)
Just a few:
replace /usr/share/doc with %{_docdir} in the %files section.
Ok.
And:
rpmlint of libmetalink-devel:
libmetalink-devel.x86_64: W: summary-ended-with-dot A Metalink C library devel
package.
Ok.
libmetalink-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
I don't need to do anything about that, right?
And you have to own the directory /usr/include/metalink
%files
%dir /usr/include/metalink
Is that all?
Thanks Ruben!
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 497947] Review Request: libmetalink - A Metalink C 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=497947
--- Comment #9 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi 2009-05-06 16:07:09
EDT ---
(In reply to comment #8)
(In reply to comment #7) And you have to own the directory
/usr/include/metalink
%files
%dir /usr/include/metalink
A lot neater is to
%files devel
%defattr(-,root,root,-)
%{_includedir}/metalink/
Also, according to your files listing there is still a static library in the
devel package; you either have to exclude it from the package or make the devel
package provide libmetalink-static = %{version}-%{release}
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458090] Review Request: LuxRender - Lux Renderer, an unbiased rendering 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=458090 --- Comment #17 from Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) kwiz...@gmail.com 2009-05-06 16:14:01 EDT --- (In reply to comment #16) I would take a look on your source RPM. But It's seems, it is not available on koji anymore. Spec URL: http://kwizart.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/LuxRender.spec SRPM URL: http://kwizart.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/LuxRender-0.5-3.fc10.src.rpm Description: Lux Renderer, an unbiased rendering system ^^ This one is still valid (0.6 is nearing, but 0.5 is fine also) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 499483] New: Review Request: python-repoze-who-testutil - Test utilities for repoze.who-powered applications
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: python-repoze-who-testutil - Test utilities for repoze.who-powered applications https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=499483 Summary: Review Request: python-repoze-who-testutil - Test utilities for repoze.who-powered applications Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: tcall...@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://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/new/python-repoze-who-testutil.spec SRPM URL: http://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/new/python-repoze-who-testutil-1.0-0.1.rc1.fc11.src.rpm Description: repoze.who-testutil is a repoze.who plugin which modifies repoze.who‘s original middleware to make it easier to forge authentication, without bypassing identification (this is, running the metadata providers). It’s been created in order to ease testing of repoze.who-powered applications, in a way independent of the identifiers, authenticators and challengers used originally by your application, so that you won’t have to update your test suite as your application grows and the authentication method changes. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
