[Bug 502358] Review Request: mojomojo - Catalyst DBIx::Class powered Wiki
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=502358
Chris Weyl cw...@alumni.drew.edu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||cw...@alumni.drew.edu
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|cw...@alumni.drew.edu
--- Comment #4 from Chris Weyl cw...@alumni.drew.edu 2009-06-09 02:12:57 EDT
---
Ok. One last package to get in rawhide and I can update Catalyst::Devel to
latest over there... Let me get those in and we can start with 5.8 as a
baseline for this review.
I've only taken a cursory look at the spec so far, but given that this came
from the CPAN we may want to explicitly provide: perl-MojoMojo =
%{version}-%{release}.
I'm also bringing HTML::Entities (perl-HTML-Parser) up to 3.60; this should
allow for the versioned depends.
The cpan.org url is the canonical url: for packages from the CPAN, but given
that http://mojomojo.org exists perhaps we should use it?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 503617] Review Request: senamirmir-washra-fonts - Fonts for the Geʼez (Ethiopic) scrip
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=503617 Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||panem...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|panem...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 504744] Review Request: python-yams - An Entity Relationship Schema
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=504744 Ramakrishna Reddy ramkr...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|panem...@gmail.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 504744] New: Review Request: python-yams - An Entity Relationship Schema
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-yams - An Entity Relationship Schema https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=504744 Summary: Review Request: python-yams - An Entity Relationship Schema Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: ramkr...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://ramakrishnareddy.info/fedora/python-yams.spec SRPM URL: http://ramakrishnareddy.info/fedora/python-yams-0.23.0-0.fc11.src.rpm Description: Yet Another Magic Schema! A simple generic but powerful entities relations schema, suitable to represent RDF like data. The schema is readable, writeable from and to various 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 504744] Review Request: python-yams - An Entity Relationship Schema
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=504744 Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458430] Review Request: lcdf-typetools - Tools for manipulating OpenType and PostScript fonts
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458430 Parag pnem...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||NOTABUG -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458430] Review Request: lcdf-typetools - Tools for manipulating OpenType and PostScript fonts
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458430 --- Comment #13 from Parag pnem...@redhat.com 2009-06-09 02:45:53 EDT --- Closing now as said earlier. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 456582] Review Request: tex-fontools - Tools for handling fonts with LaTeX and fontinst
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456582 Bug 456582 depends on bug 458430, which changed state. Bug 458430 Summary: Review Request: lcdf-typetools - Tools for manipulating OpenType and PostScript fonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458430 What|Old Value |New Value Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||NOTABUG -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 503617] Review Request: senamirmir-washra-fonts - Fonts for the Geʼez (Ethiopic) script
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=503617 Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |senamirmir-washra-fonts - |senamirmir-washra-fonts - |Fonts for the Geʼez |Fonts for the Geʼez |(Ethiopic) scrip|(Ethiopic) script -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 504746] New: Review Request: perl-Text-PDF - Module for manipulating PDF files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: perl-Text-PDF - Module for manipulating PDF files Alias: perl-Text-PDF https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=504746 Summary: Review Request: perl-Text-PDF - Module for manipulating PDF files Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All URL: http://search.cpan.org/dist/Text-PDF OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: cw...@alumni.drew.edu QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~cweyl/review/perl-Text-PDF.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~cweyl/review/perl-Text-PDF-0.29a-1.fc10.src.rpm Description: This module allows interaction with existing PDF files directly. It includes various tools: pdfbklt - make booklets out of existing PDF files pdfrevert - remove edits from a PDF file pdfstamp - stamp text on each page of a PDF file Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1400986 *rt-0.10 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 503202] Review Request: blueproximity - A tool that locks/unlocks your screen when your bluetooth devices gets away/near from your computer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=503202 --- Comment #3 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com 2009-06-09 03:10:06 EDT --- ping? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 504746] Review Request: perl-Text-PDF - Module for manipulating PDF files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=504746 Marcela Maslanova mmasl...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mmasl...@redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 504746] Review Request: perl-Text-PDF - Module for manipulating PDF files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=504746
--- Comment #1 from Marcela Maslanova mmasl...@redhat.com 2009-06-09
03:28:55 EDT ---
OK Rpmlint must be run on every package.
OK The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
OK The spec file name must match the base package %{name}.
OK The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
OK The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license.
OK The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
OK If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file.
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.
2fdf4c3170e53a083715888237914a9b
OK The package MUST successfully compile.
OK Correct BuildRequires.
OK Proper use of %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly
forbidden.
OK Shared library files (not just symlinks) must call ldconfig in %post and
%postun.
OK Relocatable package must state this fact in the request for review.
OK A package must own all directories that it creates.
OK A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
OK Permissions on files must be set properly.
OK Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}
(or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
OK Each package must consistently use macros.
OK The package must contain code, or permissable content.
OK Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
OK If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of
the application.
OK Header files must be in a -devel package.
OK Static libraries must be in a -static package.
OK Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'.
OK Library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1) and files that end in .so
(without suffix) must go in -devel.
OK In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package.
OK Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
OK Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file.
OK At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 504430] Review Request: healpy - A python wrapper of the healpix 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=504430 --- Comment #11 from Joseph Smidt josephsm...@gmail.com 2009-06-09 03:18:25 EDT --- - The package *does not contain any license statement at all*. It cannot go in until you get upstream to put the license in the tarball, the order of preference is I have contacted upstream. I will let you know when the License has been properly included. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 504746] Review Request: perl-Text-PDF - Module for manipulating PDF files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=504746 Chris Weyl cw...@alumni.drew.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 504746] Review Request: perl-Text-PDF - Module for manipulating PDF files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=504746 --- Comment #3 from Chris Weyl cw...@alumni.drew.edu 2009-06-09 03:31:22 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: perl-Text-PDF Short Description: Module for manipulating PDF files Owners: cweyl Branches: F-10 F-11 devel InitialCC: perl-sig -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 504746] Review Request: perl-Text-PDF - Module for manipulating PDF files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=504746 Marcela Maslanova mmasl...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Marcela Maslanova mmasl...@redhat.com 2009-06-09 03:29:13 EDT --- ACCEPT -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 504748] Review Request: perl-PDF-Reuse - Reuse and mass produce PDF documents
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=504748 Chris Weyl cw...@alumni.drew.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||504746(perl-Text-PDF) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 504746] Review Request: perl-Text-PDF - Module for manipulating PDF files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=504746 Chris Weyl cw...@alumni.drew.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||504748(perl-PDF-Reuse) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 504748] New: Review Request: perl-PDF-Reuse - Reuse and mass produce PDF documents
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: perl-PDF-Reuse - Reuse and mass produce PDF documents Alias: perl-PDF-Reuse https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=504748 Summary: Review Request: perl-PDF-Reuse - Reuse and mass produce PDF documents Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All URL: http://search.cpan.org/dist/PDF-Reuse OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: cw...@alumni.drew.edu QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~cweyl/review/perl-PDF-Reuse.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~cweyl/review/perl-PDF-Reuse-0.35-1.fc10.src.rpm Description: This module allows you to reuse PDF-files. You can use pages, images, fonts and Acrobat JavaScript from old PDF-files (if they were not encrypted), and rearrange the components, and add new graphics, texts etc. There is also support for graphics. In the tutorial there is a description of how to transform simple PDF-pages to graphic Perl objects with the help of programs based on this module. The module is fairly fast, so it should be possible to use it for mass production. *rt-0.10 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 504749] New: Review Request: perl-Catalyst-View-PDF-Reuse - Create PDF files from Catalyst using Template Toolkit templates
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: perl-Catalyst-View-PDF-Reuse - Create PDF files from Catalyst using Template Toolkit templates https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=504749 Summary: Review Request: perl-Catalyst-View-PDF-Reuse - Create PDF files from Catalyst using Template Toolkit templates Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All URL: http://search.cpan.org/dist/Catalyst-View-PDF-Reuse OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: cw...@alumni.drew.edu QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~cweyl/review/perl-Catalyst-View-PDF-Reuse.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~cweyl/review/perl-Catalyst-View-PDF-Reuse-0.03-1.fc10.src.rpm Description: Catalyst::View::PDF::Reuse provides the facility to generate PDF files from a Catalyst application by embedding PDF::Reuse commands within a Template::Toolkit template. Within your template you will have access to a 'pdf' object which has methods corresponding to all of PDF::Reuse's functions. *rt-0.10 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 504261] Review Request: mailody - Simple KDE-based IMAP mail client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=504261 --- Comment #4 from Sandro Mathys s...@sandro-mathys.ch 2009-06-09 03:46:58 EDT --- Spec URL: http://red.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/mailody.spec SRPM URL: http://red.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/mailody-1.5.0-0.2.alfa1.fc11.src.rpm Terje: Thanks for the comments! Well, there's probably some Requires missing as of now since I really don't have an idea about them. But one should have been clear to me and I still missed it :/ kdepimlibs-akonadi now is on the Requires, I hope that fixes your problem. Yes, I forgot about the desktop file install...or the validation of the installed file to be precise. I already fixed that here, but didn't upload that version until now :) Note: the desktop file is correctly installed automatically, I only validate it. I also made the other changes you suggested. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 504748] Review Request: perl-PDF-Reuse - Reuse and mass produce PDF documents
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=504748 Chris Weyl cw...@alumni.drew.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||504749 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 504749] Review Request: perl-Catalyst-View-PDF-Reuse - Create PDF files from Catalyst using Template Toolkit templates
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=504749 Chris Weyl cw...@alumni.drew.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||504748(perl-PDF-Reuse) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 502795] Review Request: mcu8051ide - IDE for MCS-51 based microcontrollers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=502795 Chitlesh GOORAH chitl...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | Flag|fedora-review? |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 502795] Review Request: mcu8051ide - IDE for MCS-51 based microcontrollers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=502795
--- Comment #11 from Chitlesh GOORAH chitl...@gmail.com 2009-06-09 03:54:59
EDT ---
- MUST: The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
- MUST: The spec file name matches the base package %{name}
- MUST: The package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
- MUST: The package is licensed (GPL) with an open-source compatible license
and meet other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
- MUST: The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
- MUST: 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.
- MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
- MUST: The spec file for the package is be legible.
- MUST: The sources used to build the package must matches the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL.
- MUST: The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least i386.
- MUST: All build dependencies is listed in BuildRequires.
- MUST: The spec file handles locales properly.
- MUST: If the package does not contain shared library files located in the
dynamic linker's default paths
- MUST: the package is not designed to be relocatable
- MUST: the package owns all directories that it creates.
- MUST: the package does not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
- MUST: Permissions on files are set properly.
- MUST: The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}
(or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
- MUST: The package consistently uses macros, as described in the macros
section
of Packaging Guidelines.
- MUST: The package contains code, or permissable content. This is described in
detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines.
- MUST: There are no Large documentation files
- MUST: %doc does not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If
it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present.
- MUST: There are no Header files or static libraries
- MUST: The package does not contain library files with a suffix
- MUST: Package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives
- MUST: Package containing GUI applications includes a %{name}.desktop file,
and
that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install
section.
- MUST: Package does not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
SHOULD Items:
- SHOULD: The source package does include license text(s) as LICENSE
- SHOULD: mock builds succcessfully in i386.
- SHOULD: The reviewer tested that the package functions as described. A
package should not segfault instead of running, for example.
- SHOULD: No scriptlets were used, those scriptlets must be sane.
- SHOULD: No subpackages present.
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 504748] Review Request: perl-PDF-Reuse - Reuse and mass produce PDF documents
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=504748 Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||panem...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|panem...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 504749] Review Request: perl-Catalyst-View-PDF-Reuse - Create PDF files from Catalyst using Template Toolkit templates
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=504749 Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||panem...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|panem...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 504403] Review Request: perl-Cache-Memcached - Perl client for memcached
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=504403
Marcela Maslanova mmasl...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mmasl...@redhat.com
--- Comment #1 from Marcela Maslanova mmasl...@redhat.com 2009-06-09
04:50:42 EDT ---
? Rpmlint must be run on every package.
OK The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
OK The spec file name must match the base package %{name}.
OK The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
? The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license.
OK The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
OK If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file.
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.
ff74342ce45fbb2115792b0d24d7ae8c
OK The package MUST successfully compile.
OK Correct BuildRequires.
OK Proper use of %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly
forbidden.
OK Shared library files (not just symlinks) must call ldconfig in %post and
%postun.
OK Relocatable package must state this fact in the request for review.
OK A package must own all directories that it creates.
OK A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
OK Permissions on files must be set properly.
OK Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}
(or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
OK Each package must consistently use macros.
OK The package must contain code, or permissable content.
OK Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
OK If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of
the application.
OK Header files must be in a -devel package.
OK Static libraries must be in a -static package.
OK Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'.
OK Library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1) and files that end in .so
(without suffix) must go in -devel.
OK In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package.
OK Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
OK Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file.
OK At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
Remove rf from release, because it makes rpmlint scream. Also there is problem
with license. I found the same as Perl itself in Cache.pm file.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 504403] Review Request: perl-Cache-Memcached - Perl client for memcached
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=504403 --- Comment #2 from Marcela Maslanova mmasl...@redhat.com 2009-06-09 04:51:16 EDT --- Build pass http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1401083 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 504748] Review Request: perl-PDF-Reuse - Reuse and mass produce PDF documents
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=504748 --- Comment #2 from Marcela Maslanova mmasl...@redhat.com 2009-06-09 04:59:03 EDT --- Ooops, sorry. I've overlooked, it was already taken. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 504748] Review Request: perl-PDF-Reuse - Reuse and mass produce PDF documents
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=504748
--- Comment #1 from Marcela Maslanova mmasl...@redhat.com 2009-06-09
04:57:53 EDT ---
OK Rpmlint must be run on every package.
OK The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
OK The spec file name must match the base package %{name}.
OK The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
OK The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license.
OK The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
OK If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file.
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.
1e2541eacaf8df4f4012312f6c353688
OK The package MUST successfully compile.
OK Correct BuildRequires.
OK Proper use of %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly
forbidden.
OK Shared library files (not just symlinks) must call ldconfig in %post and
%postun.
OK Relocatable package must state this fact in the request for review.
OK A package must own all directories that it creates.
OK A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
OK Permissions on files must be set properly.
OK Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}
(or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
OK Each package must consistently use macros.
OK The package must contain code, or permissable content.
OK Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
OK If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of
the application.
OK Header files must be in a -devel package.
OK Static libraries must be in a -static package.
OK Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'.
OK Library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1) and files that end in .so
(without suffix) must go in -devel.
OK In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package.
OK Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
OK Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file.
OK At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 504748] Review Request: perl-PDF-Reuse - Reuse and mass produce PDF documents
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=504748 --- Comment #3 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com 2009-06-09 05:03:59 EDT --- I am actually waiting for perl-Text-PDF to be built for rawhide so that I can continue with this 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 499579] Review Request: libxdg-basedir - Implementation of the XDG Base Directory Specifications
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=499579
--- Comment #5 from Michal Nowak mno...@redhat.com 2009-06-09 05:06:48 EDT
---
(In reply to comment #4)
Hola, thanks for the review.
Re:
Ok, good! Only one small request: please can you rename the -docs package into
-doc? I'm not 100% sure about this because I've found on my system packages
with both naming conventions. However, the packaging guidelines only mention
-doc:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PackageDocumentation
Correct. I misread the docs. Corrected.
Re:
Sorry, probably there was a small misunderstanding here. Adding Requires:
pkgconfig is sufficient since it will provide the ownership of
%{_libdir}/pkgconfig. So it is not needed that libxdg-base-devel owns the
pkgconfig directory itself (and other packages with *.pc files don't do it
either... ;-) ).
Yep. Right. I should use brain next time.
Both issues fixed:
* Tue Jun 9 2009 Michal Nowak mno...@redhat.com - 1.0.1-2
- removed bogus ownership of %%{_libdir}/pkgconfig/
- docs sub-package renamed to doc
http://mnowak.fedorapeople.org/libxdg-basedir/libxdg-basedir.spec
http://mnowak.fedorapeople.org/libxdg-basedir/libxdg-basedir-1.0.1-2.fc11.src.rpm
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 489686] Review Request: armadillo - fast C++ matrix library with interfaces to LAPACK and ATLAS
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=489686
--- Comment #37 from Chitlesh GOORAH chitl...@gmail.com 2009-06-09 05:06:29
EDT ---
Actually there is no need to include the licenses again in the sub -devel
package.
as I said in comment #26
Remove these
rm -rf symlink; mkdir symlink
ln -s %{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}/LICENSE.txt symlink/
ln -s %{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}/licenses symlink/
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 489686] Review Request: armadillo - fast C++ matrix library with interfaces to LAPACK and ATLAS
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=489686 --- Comment #38 from Conrad Sanderson conrads...@ieee.org 2009-06-09 05:18:06 EDT --- (In reply to comment #37) Actually there is no need to include the licenses again in the sub -devel package. They need to be there, otherwise README.txt and index.html (from upstream archive) refer to stuff that isn't there (i.e. we'd have broken references/links). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 465372] Review Request: chntpw - Change passwords in Windows SAM files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=465372 Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rjo...@redhat.com --- Comment #15 from Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com 2009-06-09 05:23:45 EDT --- Package Change Request == Package Name: chntpw New Branches: EL-5 Owners: rjones -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 504403] Review Request: perl-Cache-Memcached - Perl client for memcached
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=504403 --- Comment #3 from Michael Fleming mfleming+...@thatfleminggent.com 2009-06-09 05:22:21 EDT --- Ah, this is what happens when I try and write a blog post and keep an eye on IRC / microblogs when making quick hacks to a .spec New Spec URL: http://mfleming.fedorapeople.org/perl-Cache-Memcached.spec SRPM URL: http://mfleming.fedorapeople.org/perl-Cache-Memcached-1.26-3.fc10.src.rpm [mflem...@defender mfleming]$ rpmlint /home/mfleming/rpmbuild/SRPMS/perl-Cache-Memcached-1.26-3.fc10.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [mflem...@defender mfleming]$ rpmlint perl-Cache-Memcached.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 465372] Review Request: chntpw - Change passwords in Windows SAM files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=465372 Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs+ |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 489686] Review Request: armadillo - fast C++ matrix library with interfaces to LAPACK and ATLAS
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=489686
--- Comment #39 from Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com 2009-06-09
05:34:00 EDT ---
Well, sometimes it's worth the little bit of extra effort and install all
documentation files into a common %{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}/ via %install
instead of using %doc for subpackages.
[The more subpackages include %doc files, the more docdirs get created. That
doesn't help with keeping /usr/share/doc browsable. Some packages with multiple
subpackages spread their %doc files over more than four different docdirs.]
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 489686] Review Request: armadillo - fast C++ matrix library with interfaces to LAPACK and ATLAS
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=489686
--- Comment #40 from Conrad Sanderson conrads...@ieee.org 2009-06-09
06:09:17 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #39)
Well, sometimes it's worth the little bit of extra effort
and install all documentation files into a common
%{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}/ via %install instead
of using %doc for subpackages.
I concur. Updated:
http://arma.sf.net/fedora/armadillo.spec
http://arma.sf.net/fedora/armadillo-0.6.11-6.fc10.src.rpm
rpmlint gives no warnings on the source and binary packages.
(I hope this is the last iteration...)
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 504403] Review Request: perl-Cache-Memcached - Perl client for memcached
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=504403 Marcela Maslanova mmasl...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Marcela Maslanova mmasl...@redhat.com 2009-06-09 06:18:28 EDT --- The spec file in srpm is all right. ACCEPT -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 489686] Review Request: armadillo - fast C++ matrix library with interfaces to LAPACK and ATLAS
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=489686
--- Comment #41 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi 2009-06-09 06:23:26
EDT ---
Now you need to:
- mark the documentation files as %doc
and
- add
%dir %{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}/
to the files of the main package. (I don't think it owns the directory 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 504403] Review Request: perl-Cache-Memcached - Perl client for memcached
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=504403 Michael Fleming mfleming+...@thatfleminggent.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Michael Fleming mfleming+...@thatfleminggent.com 2009-06-09 06:46:33 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: perl-Cache-Memcached Short Description: Perl client for memcached Owners: mfleming Branches: F10 F11 EL-4 EL-5 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 489686] Review Request: armadillo - fast C++ matrix library with interfaces to LAPACK and ATLAS
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=489686
--- Comment #42 from Conrad Sanderson conrads...@ieee.org 2009-06-09
07:13:47 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #41)
Now you need to:
- mark the documentation files as %doc
and
- add
%dir %{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}/
to the files of the main package. (I don't think it owns the directory yet.)
Agreed on %dir %{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}/
However, is %doc guaranteed to always place files into
%{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}/ ?
If not, this is going to conflict with the -devel package which lists the
documentation as %{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}/README.txt ...
I can't use %doc for the -devel package, as it's going to create a separate
directory. Michael Schwendt (Comment #39) suggested to avoid the use of %doc
for the devel package in order to keep everything in one place. If we're using
direct file specification instead of %doc in the devel package, why not also do
this in the main package ?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226515] Merge Review: unixODBC
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226515 Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com 2009-06-09 07:31:19 EDT --- All changes merged into F-11 and devel branches, so I think we may close this ticket. -- 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 226515] Merge Review: unixODBC
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226515 --- Comment #7 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com 2009-06-09 07:32:03 EDT --- Koji scratch build http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1401209 -- 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 489686] Review Request: armadillo - fast C++ matrix library with interfaces to LAPACK and ATLAS
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=489686
--- Comment #43 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi 2009-06-09 07:42:40
EDT ---
(In reply to comment #42)
Agreed on %dir %{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}/
However, is %doc guaranteed to always place files into
%{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}/ ?
If not, this is going to conflict with the -devel package which lists the
documentation as %{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}/README.txt ...
Nope, it just tags the files as documentation in the RPM database, see:
http://www.rpm.org/max-rpm/s1-rpm-inside-files-list-directives.html
Normally one doesn't use this, but in this case you should.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 489686] Review Request: armadillo - fast C++ matrix library with interfaces to LAPACK and ATLAS
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=489686
--- Comment #44 from Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com 2009-06-09
07:45:56 EDT ---
%doc for absolute paths is just an attribute, whereas for local files it copies
them into a subpkg's default docdir (after emptying that docdir). Your %files
entries with %{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version} at the front are absolute paths. You
can add the %doc attribute to them without problems.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 489686] Review Request: armadillo - fast C++ matrix library with interfaces to LAPACK and ATLAS
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=489686 --- Comment #45 from Conrad Sanderson conrads...@ieee.org 2009-06-09 08:04:39 EDT --- (In reply to comment #43) Nope, it just tags the files as documentation in the RPM database, see: http://www.rpm.org/max-rpm/s1-rpm-inside-files-list-directives.html Normally one doesn't use this, but in this case you should. ok, done: http://arma.sf.net/fedora/armadillo.spec http://arma.sf.net/fedora/armadillo-0.6.11-7.fc10.src.rpm 7th time lucky ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 504151] Review Request: python-iterthreader - Threaded itertools.imap
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=504151 Stepan Kasal ska...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||ska...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ska...@redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 504151] Review Request: python-iterthreader - Threaded itertools.imap
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=504151
--- Comment #1 from Stepan Kasal ska...@redhat.com 2009-06-09 10:57:15 EDT
---
FAIL source files match upstream
there seems to be no upstream.
Source0: is a 70 lines long script; was it published somewhere?
When adding this to the cvs, please commit Source0 as a text file, do not
upload using the sourcesmechanism
The URL: tag points to a list post post from 2006 that contained an almost
identical script.
But the Source0: script contains a copyright header; if the origin of that is
a priv. comm. with the packager, please explain that in a comment in the spec
file. Actually, the link to the posting is better suited to be a comment,
not an URL: tag.
FAIL package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
version: 20060718
-- I would use a lower version number, like 0.0.20060718 because I hate
when one has to use epoch to go to a later version, if this library
is ever released.
-- Why the version resembles a date in 2006 (the original post) when the
copyright mentiones (c) 2005-2008 ?
OK specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
OK dist tag is present.
OK build root is correct.
FAIL license field matches the actual license.
the licence fields says GPLv2, while the script inmplies it should be MIT.
OK license is open source-compatible. (both are :-)
OK license text not included upstream.
OK license text not included in package, as it is not included upstream, as
there is no upstream.
FAIL latest version is being packaged.
Who knows? This would also be resolved by the comment about the actual
origin of the script, for which I asked above.
FAIL BuildRequires are proper.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Python says:
Python packages should be sure to have: BuildRequires: python-devel
OK %clean is present.
FAIL package builds in mock.
add the mandatory build require and do s/py$/py*/ in %files to pack pycpyo
then ok
OK package installs properly.
OK no debuginfo package
FAIL rpmlint is silent.
-- see below, the warnings should be ignored, but the error should not:
the module should not have executable bit set
OK final provides and requires are sane
OK %check not present, no test suite available
OK no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths.
OK owns the directories it creates.
OK doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
OK no duplicates in %files.
FAIL file permissions are appropriate.
clear the exec bit on the module
OK no scriptlets present.
OK code, not content.
OK no docs, headers, .pc files, .la files, desktop files
To sum up:
1) fix the 8 items marked FAIL
2) Moreover, I feel uneasy about creating this microscopic package;
I'd like to see a comment from someone who understand what is this module
good for and why is has to be packed as a tiny individual rpm.
Appendix:
$ rpmlint -i python-iterthreader-20060718-1.fc11.{noarch,src}.rpm
python-iterthreader.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0-1
['20060718-1.fc11', '20060718-1']
The last entry in %changelog contains a version identifier that is not
coherent with the epoch:version-release tuple of the package.
python-iterthreader.noarch: W: no-documentation
The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include
documentation files.
python-iterthreader.noarch: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/iterthreader.py
This text file has executable bits set or is located in a path dedicated for
executables, but lacks a shebang and cannot thus be executed. If the file is
meant to be an executable script, add the shebang, otherwise remove the
executable bits or move the file elsewhere.
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 504809] Review Request: system-config-selinux - SELinux configuration GUI
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=504809 Roman Rakus rra...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||504293 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 504809] New: Review Request: system-config-selinux - SELinux configuration GUI
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: system-config-selinux - SELinux configuration GUI https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=504809 Summary: Review Request: system-config-selinux - SELinux configuration GUI Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rra...@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: https://fedoraproject.org/w/uploads/c/cd/System-config-selinux.spec SRPM URL: https://fedoraproject.org/w/uploads/f/f5/System-config-selinux-2.0.62-13.fc12.src.rpm Description: system-config-selinux is meant to be replacement of policycoreutils-gui. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 504151] Review Request: python-iterthreader - Threaded itertools.imap
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=504151 --- Comment #2 from Matej Cepl mc...@redhat.com 2009-06-09 11:05:13 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1) 2) Moreover, I feel uneasy about creating this microscopic package; I'd like to see a comment from someone who understand what is this module good for and why is has to be packed as a tiny individual rpm. Just my comment ... this is not C, so even in 70 lines of code it is possible to make useful library, which this seems to be. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 504809] Review Request: system-config-selinux - SELinux configuration GUI
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=504809 Jaroslav Reznik jrez...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||jrez...@redhat.com Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 504809] Review Request: system-config-selinux - SELinux configuration GUI
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=504809 Jaroslav Reznik jrez...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jrez...@redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 504809] Review Request: system-config-selinux - SELinux configuration GUI
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=504809
--- Comment #1 from Jaroslav Reznik jrez...@redhat.com 2009-06-09 11:32:25
EDT ---
Quick overview before deeper review (I'll finish it later):
- version (2.0.62) and release (13) don't match changelog ones (1.0.0-1)
- inconsistent usage of %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT - use only one
- use lowercase SPEC filename
- no %doc
RPMLint
rpmlint System-config-selinux.spec
System-config-selinux.spec: E: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install
System-config-selinux.spec: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 40,
tab: line 1)
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings.
rpmlint System-config-selinux-2.0.62-13.fc12.src.rpm
system-config-selinux.src: W: non-coherent-filename
System-config-selinux-2.0.62-13.fc12.src.rpm
system-config-selinux-2.0.62-13.fc12.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 504809] Review Request: system-config-selinux - SELinux configuration GUI
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=504809
--- Comment #2 from Roman Rakus rra...@redhat.com 2009-06-09 11:47:00 EDT ---
Quick overview before deeper review (I'll finish it later):
- version (2.0.62) and release (13) don't match changelog ones (1.0.0-1)
fixed
- inconsistent usage of %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT - use only one
used %{buildroot}
- use lowercase SPEC filename
It is lowercase. Just uploaded file on fedoraproject.org/wiki starts with
uppercase character. I don't know why. But finally it will be lowercase.
- no %doc
It has not any doc
RPMLint
rpmlint System-config-selinux.spec
System-config-selinux.spec: E: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install
fixed
System-config-selinux.spec: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 40,
tab: line 1)
fixed
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings.
rpmlint System-config-selinux-2.0.62-13.fc12.src.rpm
system-config-selinux.src: W: non-coherent-filename
System-config-selinux-2.0.62-13.fc12.src.rpm
system-config-selinux-2.0.62-13.fc12.src.rpm
The same as above
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 503847] Review Request: paperbox - A GTK tracker based document 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=503847 --- Comment #3 from Gareth John gareth.l.j...@googlemail.com 2009-06-09 13:30:16 EDT --- Spec URL: http://garethsrpms.googlecode.com/files/paperbox.spec SRPM URL: http://garethsrpms.googlecode.com/files/paperbox-0.4.2-1.fc10.src.rpm There is the latest revision. I have added and tidy the BR, I am reasonably sure that they are correct, I'm in the middle of moving at the minute and am aware i have not done much in a few days (week) and wanted to post. This should be complete however as times are hectic. Thanks Mamoru for the log was helpful. Have not studied it greatly but will do so. Tomorrow or at least sometime this week. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 504809] Review Request: system-config-selinux - SELinux configuration GUI
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=504809
--- Comment #3 from Bill Nottingham nott...@redhat.com 2009-06-09 13:35:51
EDT ---
1. ...
%install
make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot}
ln -sf consolehelper %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/system-config-selinux
...
desktop-file-install --vendor fedora \
--dir %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/applications \
%{SOURCE2}
rm -rf %{buildroot}
Having rm -rf %{buildroot} as the last line of install is almost certainly NOT
what you want.
2. Spec references selinux-polgengui.desktop, not in the source RPM.
3. It uses consolehelper
4. How much of this is something we really need a GUI for?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 503847] Review Request: paperbox - A GTK tracker based document 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=503847 --- Comment #4 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-06-09 13:41:41 EDT --- Just a note: - Please change the release number of your spec/srpm every time you modify them to avoid confusion. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 492224] Review Request: gnome-mud - MUD client for GNOME desktop
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=492224 --- Comment #11 from Sean Middleditch s...@middleditch.us 2009-06-09 13:42:38 EDT --- Weird. The tarball I uploaded was a make dist from the 0.11.2 SVN checkout. Guess upstream did something funny when they rolled the release. Will test with upstream's tarball. I am unsure how I am supposed to fix AUTHORS, since it is part of the upstream source. Am I supposed to use the RPM patch mechanism for this? (Guess I better read up on how that works now either way.) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 502919] Review Request: polkit - PolicyKit Authorization Framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=502919 Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mcla...@redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 502918] Review Request: eggdbus - Experimental D-Bus bindings for GObject
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=502918 Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mcla...@redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 503586] Review Request: python-tgext-crud - Crud Controller Extension for TG2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=503586 Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jo...@redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 501381] Review Request: 389-console - A Java based remote management console used for managing 389 Administration Server and 389 Directory Server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=501381 Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|joc...@herr-schmitt.de -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 492224] Review Request: gnome-mud - MUD client for GNOME desktop
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=492224 --- Comment #12 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-06-09 14:04:56 EDT --- (In reply to comment #11) Weird. The tarball I uploaded was a make dist from the 0.11.2 SVN checkout. - Well, you are saying that you are using svn repository based tarball, not the tarball formally relased and put on the URL written as %Source in your spec file? If you are using svn repo based tarball, please follow https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL#Using_Revision_Control https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Snapshot_packages I am unsure how I am supposed to fix AUTHORS, since it is part of the upstream source. Am I supposed to use the RPM patch mechanism for this? (Guess I better read up on how that works now either way.) - Just using iconv is enough. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 504641] Review Request: sendxmpp - A perl script to send xmpp messages
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=504641 Chris Weyl cw...@alumni.drew.edu changed: What|Removed |Added CC||cw...@alumni.drew.edu --- Comment #1 from Chris Weyl cw...@alumni.drew.edu 2009-06-09 14:23:54 EDT --- A couple comments after a quick once-over: This package isn't delivering any modules (*.pm), so we can safely omit the requires: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT...). Group is largely irrelevant these days (AFAIK), but there's probably a better one than Development/Libraries. The description should probably end with a . :) README should be included in %doc. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 504489] Review Request: proguard - Java class file shrinker, optimizer, obfuscator and preverifier
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=504489 --- Comment #4 from François Kooman fkoo...@tuxed.net 2009-06-09 14:31:00 EDT --- I think all issues are fixed now. Spec URL: http://fkooman.fedorapeople.org/proguard/proguard.spec SRPM URL: http://fkooman.fedorapeople.org/proguard/proguard-4.3-3.fc11.src.rpm One more thing: I install the JAR files without version in their name, is that a problem? Most of the time Java packages install a versioned JAR file and create an unversioned symlink. Would that be better? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 504243] Review Request: php-getid3 - The PHP media file parser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=504243
David Nalley da...@gnsa.us changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from David Nalley da...@gnsa.us 2009-06-09 14:57:36 EDT ---
Sorry, several things cropped up to slow me down on this, I intended to have
this done many days ago.
OK: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the
review.
[ke4...@nalleyt61 rpmbuild]$ rpmlint
RPMS/noarch/php-getid3-1.7.9-1.fc11.noarch.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[ke4...@nalleyt61 rpmbuild]$ rpmlint SRPMS/php-getid3-1.7.9-1.fc11.src.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[ke4...@nalleyt61 rpmbuild]$ rpmlint SPECS/php-getid3.spec
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[ke4...@nalleyt61 SPECS]$ rpmlint ../SRPMS/php-getid3-2.0.0b5-1.fc11.src.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[ke4...@nalleyt61 SPECS]$ rpmlint php-getid3.spec
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[ke4...@nalleyt61 SPECS]$ rpmlint
../RPMS/noarch/php-getid3-2.0.0b5-1.fc11.noarch.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
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 .
On the website, gplv2 is specified as the license. License.txt included in
source also agrees with gplv2
OK: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
OK: 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
d2b24ccb4bd4a5c135517bd0ae3b2dd3 getid3-2.0.0b5.zip
d2b24ccb4bd4a5c135517bd0ae3b2dd3 getid3-2.0.0b5.zip.1
OK: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture.
Really no compile or build, php does runtime compilatoins.
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.
N/A: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
N/A: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files
(not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call
ldconfig in %post and %postun.
N/A: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this
fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation
of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a
blocker.
OK: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a
directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that
directory.
OK: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings.
OK: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with
executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
%defattr(...) line.
OK: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}
(or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
OK: Each package must consistently use macros.
OK: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
N/A: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of
large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to
size. Large can refer to either size or quantity).
OK: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of
the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc,
[Bug 226659] Merge Review: xsri
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226659 Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||a...@redhat.com, ||mcla...@redhat.com --- Comment #4 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com 2009-06-09 15:01:59 EDT --- re-re-ping? I added two other previous maintainers to CC. Please do not ignore! -- 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 226075] Merge Review: libXinerama
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226075 --- Comment #4 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com 2009-06-09 15:03:04 EDT --- ping? -- 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 226034] Merge Review: libmusicbrainz
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226034 --- Comment #23 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com 2009-06-09 15:06:21 EDT --- ping? no one wants to fix the trivial things I pointed in comments #7 and #22 ? -- 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 226036] Merge Review: liboil
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226036 Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bnoc...@redhat.com --- Comment #3 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com 2009-06-09 15:05:03 EDT --- re-ping? I added more previous maintainers to the CC. Please DO NOT IGNORE! -- 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 478759] Review Request: perl-SystemPerl - SystemPerl Perl module
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478759 --- Comment #25 from Lane dir...@gmail.com 2009-06-09 15:08:35 EDT --- I tried building this and it failed saying it required perl-Verilog 3.2. You might want to update this version in the build dependencies list. Also, is perl-Verilog 3.2 rpm available? I only saw 3.12 in rawhide. Maybe I missed it. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 502065] Review Request: slashem - Super Lotsa Added Stuff Hack - Extended Magic
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=502065 Jerry James loganje...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||loganje...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|loganje...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Jerry James loganje...@gmail.com 2009-06-09 15:12:22 EDT --- Ooh, I've wasted hours of my life on rogue and nethack. I'll take this 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 468516] Review Request: verilator - A fast simulator of synthesizable Verilog HDL
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468516 --- Comment #31 from Lane dir...@gmail.com 2009-06-09 15:26:11 EDT --- I updated verilator to the latest 3.710 and also switched to using the SYSTEMPERL_INCLUDE env variable to be compatible with the systemperl installation location. Spec URL: http://brooks.nu/~lane/verilator.spec SRPM URL: http://brooks.nu/~lane/verilator-3.710-1.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 478759] Review Request: perl-SystemPerl - SystemPerl Perl module
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478759 Brennan Ashton bash...@brennanashton.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #26 from Brennan Ashton bash...@brennanashton.com 2009-06-09 15:37:22 EDT --- [PASS] source files match upstream [PASS] package meets naming and versioning guidelines. [PASS] specfile is properly named [PASS] dist tag is present. [PASS] build root is correct. [PASS] license field matches the actual license. [PASS] license is open source-compatible. [PASS] latest version is being packaged. [PASS] BuildRequires are proper. [PASS] %clean is present. [N/A] package builds in mock. Building with a koji build of perl-Verlog [PASS] package installs properly. debuginfo package looks complete. [PASS] %check is present and all tests pass: [PASS] owns the directories it creates. [PASS] doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. [PASS] no duplicates in %files. [PASS] file permissions are appropriate. [PASS] no scriptlets present. [PASS] code, not content. [PASS] %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. I Approve with the perl-Verlog in koji. Lane is right, you should add the new version requirement of perl-Verlog to the spec. After this go ahead with CVS request. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 501573] Review Request: ndoutils - Stores data from Nagios in a database
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=501573
Xavier Bachelot xav...@bachelot.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xav...@bachelot.org
--- Comment #7 from Xavier Bachelot xav...@bachelot.org 2009-06-09 15:38:00
EDT ---
I cannot sponsor you, but here are a few comments about the spec :
- Source0 needs to be a full URL.
- The beta status of the package should be reflected in the release tag and
thus the version needs to be modified.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Pre-Release_packages
- Why are you disabling postgres support ?
- Why are you installing files manually ? Upstream is not providing an install
target in the Makefile ?
- The initscript should be in %{_initrddir}.
- There are spurious spaces in the mkdir lines.
- The first 3 %attr in the %files section are unneeded, the perms are already
properly set at install time.
- The package doesn't own %{_sysconfdir}/ndoutils
- You don't need to set the dir perms on the last 3 %attr, this is the standard
perms.
- %postun section is empty.
- Add the version and release in the changelog entry.
- You're missing Requires: for the initscripts and scriptlets are not matching
the guidelines.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SysVInitScript#Initscripts_in_spec_file_scriptlets
There's probably more than that, but this is a start.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 504243] Review Request: php-getid3 - The PHP media file parser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=504243 Paulo Roma Cavalcanti pro...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Paulo Roma Cavalcanti pro...@gmail.com 2009-06-09 15:46:09 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: php-getid3 Short Description: The PHP media file parser Owners: roma Branches: F-9 F-10 F-11 InitialCC: roma Thanks, David. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 503847] Review Request: paperbox - A GTK tracker based document 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=503847 --- Comment #5 from Gareth John gareth.l.j...@googlemail.com 2009-06-09 16:03:05 EDT --- I apologise i do change the revision i just copied the wrong link, here is the latest one SRPM URL: http://garethsrpms.googlecode.com/files/paperbox-0.4.2-2.fc10.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 502065] Review Request: slashem - Super Lotsa Added Stuff Hack - Extended Magic
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=502065 --- Comment #2 from Jerry James loganje...@gmail.com 2009-06-09 16:23:54 EDT --- rpmlint output: slashem.x86_64: E: zero-length /var/games/slashem/record slashem.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/games/slashem 0775 slashem.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/games/slashem/slashem 02755 slashem.x86_64: E: zero-length /var/games/slashem/perm slashem.x86_64: E: zero-length /var/games/slashem/logfile slashem.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/games/slashem/save 0775 slashem.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%post ln slashem.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%preun rm 1 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 2 warnings. The zero-length files are okay, because they will become nonzero as people play the game, and they are all marked %config(noreplace). The nonstandard dir permissions are copied from nethack, so they're fine. But the dangerous commands need to be dealt with. Looking through the scriptlets, it appears you need to add these to the spec file: Requires(post): coreutils, mkfontdir Requires(preun): coreutils Is mkfontdir really a BuildRequires? I only see it invoked in %post. MUST items: OK: package naming guidelines OK: spec file name X: packaging guidelines -- see the section on scriptlets. I believe that the body of your %post script should be wrapped in this: if [ $1 -eq 1 ]; then ... fi and the body of your %preun script should be wrapped in this: if [ $1 -eq 0 ]; then ... fi OK: licensing guidelines OK: license text matches actual license OK: license file included in %doc OK: spec file in American English OK: spec file legible OK: source file matches upstream OK: builds on at least one primary arch (x86_64) NA: appropriate use of ExcludeArch OK: all dependencies listed in BuildRequires NA: proper handling of locales NA: library installation = invoke ldconfig NA: relocatable package OK: package owns all directories it creates OK: no duplicate file listings OK: proper file permissions OK: %clean section OK: consistent use of macros OK: code or permissible content NA: large documentation in -doc OK: no runtime dependencies in %doc NA: header files in -devel NA: static libraries in -static NA: pkgconfig file = Requires: pkgconfig NA: .so files in -devel NA: -devel requires main package OK: no libtool archives OK: desktop file. However, not this sentence from the Packaging guidelines: For new packages, do not apply a vendor tag to desktop files. Existing packages that use a vendor tag must continue to do so for the life of the package. This is mostly for the sake of menu-editing (which bases off of .desktop file/path names). OK: do not own files/dirs already owned by other packages OK: remove buildroot first in %install OK: all filenames are valid UTF-8 SHOULD items: NA: ask upstream to include a license file NA: description and summary translations OK: package builds in mock (only checked fedora-rawhide-x86_64) --: package builds on all supported arches (unable to check) OK: package functions as described (only minimal testing ... just wait until later!) OK: sane scriptlets NA: subpackages require main package NA: placement of pkgconfig files NA: file dependencies -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 504641] Review Request: sendxmpp - A perl script to send xmpp messages
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=504641 --- Comment #2 from Ruben Kerkhof ru...@rubenkerkhof.com 2009-06-09 16:41:08 EDT --- Thanks Chris, fixed all of the issues. New version here: Spec URL: http://ruben.fedorapeople.org/sendxmpp.spec SRPM URL: http://ruben.fedorapeople.org/sendxmpp-0.0.8-2.fc11.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 504489] Review Request: proguard - Java class file shrinker, optimizer, obfuscator and preverifier
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=504489 --- Comment #5 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com 2009-06-09 16:38:00 EDT --- Thanks, we're almost there. Versioned jar symlinks are for convenience with java libraries. Will anyone use proguard's jar files as a library? If yes, then it is a good idea to make unversioned symlinks. ! Would you consider adding a GenericName key to the .desktop file? That will make KDE users happy. Gnome uses Comment, KDE uses GenericName. ! You can BR ImageMagick and convert those icons in your specfile. That way you don't need to deal with additional sources. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 504489] Review Request: proguard - Java class file shrinker, optimizer, obfuscator and preverifier
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=504489 Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com 2009-06-09 16:41:50 EDT --- On a second thought, these are not blockers. You can do these changes before you commit if you want. --- This package (proguard) is APPROVED by oget --- -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 285801] Review Request: simias - Collection-Oriented Data Storage
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=285801 --- Comment #19 from John Anderson john.e.ander...@gmail.com 2009-06-09 16:57:24 EDT --- I filed a bug upstream regarding lack of tagging or any other way of marking releases in their source: https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=511409 They said they were planning on getting their repository cleaned up this month when talking to them in #ifolder. Right now it seems theres no good way to pull the source for a 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 495902] Review Request: olpc-kbdshim - grab key and better rotation support for the XO laptop
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=495902 Christoph Wickert fed...@christoph-wickert.de changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #21 from Christoph Wickert fed...@christoph-wickert.de 2009-06-09 17:25:26 EDT --- Setting cvs? because Paul seems to lack privileges. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 503847] Review Request: paperbox - A GTK tracker based document 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=503847 --- Comment #6 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi 2009-06-09 17:57:35 EDT --- OK, I'll have a look after you have fixed the remaining issues in gtkmm-utils. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 470696] Review Request: rubygem-passenger - Passenger Ruby on Rails deployment 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=470696 Jeroen van Meeuwen kana...@kanarip.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|needinfo?(kana...@kanarip.c | |om) | --- Comment #39 from Jeroen van Meeuwen kana...@kanarip.com 2009-06-09 18:37:51 EDT --- (In reply to comment #35) Also, could you wait for the 2.2.3 release, which is scheduled for next week? *A lot* of bugs have been fixed in this release. This is a package review for admitting the package in Fedora, not a bug-tracker ;-) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 504891] New: Review Request: trove - Efficient Java collections
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: trove - Efficient Java collections https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=504891 Summary: Review Request: trove - Efficient Java collections Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: loganje...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/trove/trove.spec SRPM URL: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/trove/trove-2.0.4-1.fc10.src.rpm Description: The GNU Trove library has two objectives: - Provide free (as in free speech and free beer), fast, lightweight implementations of the java.util Collections API. These implementations are designed to be pluggable replacements for their JDK equivalents. - Whenever possible, provide the same collections support for primitive types. This gap in the JDK is often addressed by using the wrapper classes (java.lang.Integer, java.lang.Float, etc.) with Object-based collections. For most applications, however, collections which store primitives directly will require less space and yield significant performance gains. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 470696] Review Request: rubygem-passenger - Passenger Ruby on Rails deployment 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=470696 --- Comment #40 from Jeroen van Meeuwen kana...@kanarip.com 2009-06-09 19:12:10 EDT --- (In reply to comment #38) Toshio, I totally understand your points. We are well aware of all of those disadvantages of bundling/forking that you mentioned, but given our circumstances we decided that bundling/forking Boost is the best solution, despite all the aforementioned disadvantages. We made this decision a year ago, and to date we still think that it's the right decision. Note that what we're saying is that forking (and forming another upstream) actually is better then bundling (whether forked or not). Also, we'd like to see an effort made to have the changes applied to boost be sent and accepted upstream even though that would include more work (*NIX - win32 compat). Upstream would then at least stand a chance in whether they want to make stuff win32 compat. or whether to ignore/reject the patch at all. If you decide to do so, please keep me in the loop. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 470696] Review Request: rubygem-passenger - Passenger Ruby on Rails deployment 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=470696 --- Comment #41 from Toshio Ernie Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com 2009-06-09 19:55:39 EDT --- (In reply to comment #38) Toshio, I totally understand your points. We are well aware of all of those disadvantages of bundling/forking that you mentioned, but given our circumstances we decided that bundling/forking Boost is the best solution, despite all the aforementioned disadvantages. We made this decision a year ago, and to date we still think that it's the right decision. Bundling may be the right decision for an upstream development shop. However, it is definitely not the right decision for software that is shipped in many distributions or for the conscientious system administrators. Bundling shifts the cost of forking so that developers bear less up front costs but distributions and system administrators bear more costs later on. In the case of embargoed security fixes the cost is paid when there is time pressure to get a fix created before a certain deadline is reached. In the case of bug-fixes and enhancements (features, performance), the cost penalty is less urgent but still occurs in the form of duplicate bugs, analysis, and debugging against the bundled version of the library when that work has already gone into the system library and resolved there via a patch or upgrade. Not only is the cost shifted around but the benefits are decreased when the forked library is bundled instead of released separately. If the changes that prompt you to bundle the library are useful for you, why won't they be useful for others as well? If they're useful for others, then bundling the library forces them to reinvent the same types of changes you've made instead of working with you to get their make a better product overall. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485652] Review Request: navit - Car navigation system with routing engine
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485652 --- Comment #6 from Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com 2009-06-09 20:23:50 EDT --- forgot to mention, mine has some improvements over Fabian's, like dropping .la files. -- Fedora Bugzappers volunteer triage team https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485652] Review Request: navit - Car navigation system with routing engine
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485652 Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||awill...@redhat.com --- Comment #5 from Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com 2009-06-09 20:22:24 EDT --- The spec contributed by Fabian is clearly based on my Mandriva spec (see, for comparison, http://svn.mandriva.com/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/packages/cooker/navit/current/SPECS/navit.spec?view=markup ) - it would have been polite to acknowledge this in the submission, Fabian. I have built my own modified version of my Mandriva package... http://adamwill.fedorapeople.org/navit/navit-0.1.0-1.aw_fc11.src.rpm http://adamwill.fedorapeople.org/navit/navit.spec obviously it's similar to Fabian's. I tried building current SVN today, but on Fedora 11 it crashes as soon as it has to render text to a map. I've reported this to upstream: http://trac.navit-project.org/ticket/379 . I can provide that build too, if anyone's interested. -- Fedora Bugzappers volunteer triage team https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 496635] Review Request: monodevelop-debugger-mdb - Mono Debugger Addin for MonoDevelop
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=496635
Paul Lange pala...@gmx.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Comment #43 from Paul Lange pala...@gmx.de 2009-06-09 20:26:38 EDT ---
- MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted
in the review:
monodevelop-debugger-mdb.i586: E: no-binary
monodevelop-debugger-mdb.i586: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
monodevelop-debugger-mdb.i586: W: no-documentation
monodevelop-debugger-mdb.src:47: E: hardcoded-library-path in
%{_prefix}/lib/monodevelop/AddIns/MonoDevelop.Debugger/DebuggerClient.dll*
monodevelop-debugger-mdb.src:49: E: hardcoded-library-path in
%{_prefix}/lib/monodevelop/AddIns/MonoDevelop.Debugger/DebuggerServer.exe*
monodevelop-debugger-mdb.src:51: E: hardcoded-library-path in
%{buildroot}/usr/lib
monodevelop-debugger-mdb-devel.i586: E: description-line-too-long The
monodevelop-debugger-mdb-devel package contains development files for
monodevelop-debugger-mdb.
monodevelop-debugger-mdb-devel.i586: W: no-documentation
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 3 warnings.
* hardcoded paths are only the old location - OK
* no-documentation: no docs available
* no-binary, only-non-bin...: mono bins are not recognized
* TODO: shorten description line
- MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
OK
- MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the
format %{name}.spec
OK
- MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
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: 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
- MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
OK
- MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
OK
- MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no
upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL
Guidelines for how to deal with this.
OK - b60e9a0783f294aaa137c78e32c4f6be - md5 of the original tarball
- MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture.
OK - i386
- MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line.
OK - bug in x86_64 and mono-debugger not available on other architectures
- MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
OK
- MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
OK
- MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
%defattr(...) line.
OK
- MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
OK
- MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
OK
- MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
OK
- MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed
should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This
means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with
any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you
feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another
package owns, then please present that at package review time.
OK
- MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot}
(or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
OK
- MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
OK
One thing left before you can upload the package in CVS:
- Please shorten the Description line. (Simply place the %{name} variable in a
new line.
This is the only thing left. It's only minor, so I'm going to approve this
package right now. Thank you for the hard work. Do you
[Bug 481333] Review Request: sugar-update-control - Activity update control panel for Sugar
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=481333
Martin Dengler mar...@martindengler.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mar...@martindengler.com
--- Comment #22 from Martin Dengler mar...@martindengler.com 2009-06-09
20:50:38 EDT ---
The rpm is broken as it is currently in rawhide (code fails to import
bitfrost). The specfile doesn't look correct to me. It shouldn't be deleting
part of the code it's meant to install. This patch fixes it for me:
---
sugar-update-control.spec |2 --
1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/sugar-update-control.spec b/sugar-update-control.spec
index d5e16aa..09eda58 100644
--- a/sugar-update-control.spec
+++ b/sugar-update-control.spec
@@ -33,8 +33,6 @@ rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
%{__python} setup.py install --root=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT
-# avoid conflicts with standard __init__.py*
-rm
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{python_sitelib}/{bitfrost,bitfrost/update,bitfrost/util}/__init__.py*
%find_lang %{name}
%clean
--
1.6.0.6
~
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485652] Review Request: navit - Car navigation system with routing engine
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485652 --- Comment #7 from Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com 2009-06-09 20:50:35 EDT --- btw, I think the -devel package is bogus...the 'libraries' are just plugins, they shouldn't have been installed as shared libraries by navit in the first place. they should only contain .so files (not .so.0.0.0 and .so.0) and these should be in the main package(s). I don't know why Fabian removed the split of different rendering engines from my package. The reason they were split is to reduce dependencies - if you roll them all together, as Fabian did, you have to have libqt4 installed to install navit even if you have no intention of ever using the QT renderer. ditto cegui etc. -- Fedora Bugzappers volunteer triage team https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 496635] Review Request: monodevelop-debugger-mdb - Mono Debugger Addin for MonoDevelop
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=496635
--- Comment #44 from Mauricio Henriquez buhochil...@gmail.com 2009-06-09
20:55:36 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #43)
- MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted
in the review:
monodevelop-debugger-mdb.i586: E: no-binary
monodevelop-debugger-mdb.i586: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
monodevelop-debugger-mdb.i586: W: no-documentation
monodevelop-debugger-mdb.src:47: E: hardcoded-library-path in
%{_prefix}/lib/monodevelop/AddIns/MonoDevelop.Debugger/DebuggerClient.dll*
monodevelop-debugger-mdb.src:49: E: hardcoded-library-path in
%{_prefix}/lib/monodevelop/AddIns/MonoDevelop.Debugger/DebuggerServer.exe*
monodevelop-debugger-mdb.src:51: E: hardcoded-library-path in
%{buildroot}/usr/lib
monodevelop-debugger-mdb-devel.i586: E: description-line-too-long The
monodevelop-debugger-mdb-devel package contains development files for
monodevelop-debugger-mdb.
monodevelop-debugger-mdb-devel.i586: W: no-documentation
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 3 warnings.
* hardcoded paths are only the old location - OK
* no-documentation: no docs available
* no-binary, only-non-bin...: mono bins are not recognized
* TODO: shorten description line
- MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
OK
- MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the
format %{name}.spec
OK
- MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
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: 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
- MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
OK
- MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
OK
- MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no
upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL
Guidelines for how to deal with this.
OK - b60e9a0783f294aaa137c78e32c4f6be - md5 of the original tarball
- MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture.
OK - i386
- MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work
on
that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line.
OK - bug in x86_64 and mono-debugger not available on other architectures
- MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
OK
- MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
OK
- MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
%defattr(...) line.
OK
- MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
OK
- MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
OK
- MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
OK
- MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed
should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This
means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with
any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you
feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another
package owns, then please present that at package review time.
OK
- MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf
%{buildroot}
(or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
OK
- MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
OK
One thing left before you can upload the package in CVS:
- Please shorten the Description line. (Simply place the %{name} variable in
a
new line.
you mean just this?:
%description
%{name}
This is the only thing left. It's only minor, so I'm going to approve this
package right now. Thank you for the hard work. Do you already have been
[Bug 491430] Review Request: sslogger - A keystroke logging utility for privileged user escalation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=491430 --- Comment #25 from Ed Brand edbr...@brandint.com 2009-06-09 21:53:39 EDT --- Since /usr/bin/sl conflicts with the sl package (Steam Locomotive) Any one care to suggest a new name for sl before i pick one out of the hat -Ed -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
