[Bug 512138] Review Request: perl-CGI-Application-Plugin-DebugScreen - Add Debug support to CGI::Application
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=512138 Emmanuel Seyman changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Emmanuel Seyman 2009-07-17 02:39:23 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1) > > APPROVED. Thanks! Requesting CVS. New Package CVS Request === Package Name: perl-CGI-Application-Plugin-DebugScreen Short Description: Add Debug support to CGI::Application Owners: eseyman Branches: F-11 F-10 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 481009] Review request: pothana2000-fonts - Unicode compliant OpenType font for Telugu
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=481009 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System 2009-07-17 02:37:16 EDT --- pothana2000-fonts-1.3.1-2.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/pothana2000-fonts-1.3.1-2.fc10 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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 #48 from Jeroen van Meeuwen 2009-07-17 02:33:39 EDT --- Is there any other way I can help you, besides going renegade and attempting to fix this by working on the code myself, without help? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 481009] Review request: pothana2000-fonts - Unicode compliant OpenType font for Telugu
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=481009 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System 2009-07-17 02:31:22 EDT --- pothana2000-fonts-1.3.1-2.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/pothana2000-fonts-1.3.1-2.fc11 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 466183] Review Request: sblim-sfcb - Small Footprint CIM Broker
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=466183 Matt Domsch changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? | --- Comment #16 from Matt Domsch 2009-07-17 01:25:35 EDT --- Resetting the review flag, so Praveen can set it back to ? himself to take over the review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 466183] Review Request: sblim-sfcb - Small Footprint CIM Broker
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=466183
--- Comment #15 from Matt Domsch 2009-07-17 01:24:28
EDT ---
I built Emily's 1.3.4 package now. Yes, the plugins have moved into
/usr/lib*/sfcb/. Thank you.
Are the /usr/lib*/sfcb/*.la files needed? I wouldn't expect so.
I believe that generating the RSA keypair should be moved from RPM installtime
to the initscript, similar to how sshd's initscript works. At installtime
(which may well be in a factory), there may not be sufficient entropy to
generate the keypair which would hang the install process. At least at first
boot initscript startup time, there is a higher likelihood of a console being
present to add entropy if needed.
For Praveen's comment 1), the source package contains a COPYING file listing
the Eclipse Public License 1.0. which is getting installed. That handles the
concern.
Removing %{_smp_mflags} because parallel build doesn't work is fine. Please
file a bug with upstream noting this though.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 468287] Review Request: cim-schema - Common Information Model (CIM) 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=468287 Matt Domsch changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|182235(FE-Legal)| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 510055] Review Request: ModemManager - mobile broadband modem service
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=510055 kevin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kmg...@bigpond.com --- Comment #6 from kevin 2009-07-17 00:48:55 EDT --- There is an error in the file /lib/udev/rules.d/77-mm-zte-port-type.rules: at line 7, there is a GOTO label "nm..." but at line 78 the label is defined at "mm..." Cheers, Kev -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 508511] Review Request: python-Lightbox - Lightbox photo display widget
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=508511 --- Comment #5 from Parag AN(पराग) 2009-07-17 00:37:32 EDT --- Review: + package builds in mock (rawhide i586). koji Build =>http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1481057 + rpmlint output on SRPM and for RPM. python-Lightbox.src: E: description-line-too-long Lightbox is a TurboGears widget wrapper for the Lightbox2 JavaScript library by Lokesh Dhakar. python-Lightbox.src: E: description-line-too-long It displays a thumbnail image which, when clicked, opens an overlay popup window for viewing python-Lightbox.src: E: description-line-too-long the linked image in full size. You can also browse through several Lightbox images that are python-Lightbox.noarch: E: description-line-too-long Lightbox is a TurboGears widget wrapper for the Lightbox2 JavaScript library by Lokesh Dhakar. python-Lightbox.noarch: E: description-line-too-long It displays a thumbnail image which, when clicked, opens an overlay popup window for viewing python-Lightbox.noarch: E: description-line-too-long the linked image in full size. You can also browse through several Lightbox images that are python-Lightbox.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/lightbox/static/css/lightbox.css python-Lightbox.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/lightbox/static/javascript/lightbox.js + source files match upstream url 82d970d81261efa020071e4507a284aeb866e5d7 Lightbox-2.1.tar.bz2 + package meets naming and packaging guidelines. + specfile is properly named, is cleanly written + Spec file is written in American English. + Spec file is legible. + dist tag is present. + build root is correct. + license is open source-compatible. + %doc is present. + BuildRequires are proper. + %clean is present. + Macro use appears rather consistent. + Package contains code, not content. + no headers or static libraries. + no .pc file present. + no -devel subpackage + no .la files. + no translations are available + Does owns the directories it creates. + no scriptlets present. + no duplicates in %files. + file permissions are appropriate. Provide updated SRPM which will fix also comment #1 Fix rpmlint messages -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 512138] Review Request: perl-CGI-Application-Plugin-DebugScreen - Add Debug support to CGI::Application
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=512138 Parag AN(पराग) changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Parag AN(पराग) 2009-07-17 00:29:24 EDT --- Review: + package builds in mock (rawhide i586). koji Build =>http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1481033 + rpmlint is silent for SRPM and for RPM. + source files match upstream url 19b67f3d6be4c3eabe3661e04086c4e8b115ac43 CGI-Application-Plugin-DebugScreen-0.06.tar.gz + package meets naming and packaging guidelines. + specfile is properly named, is cleanly written + Spec file is written in American English. + Spec file is legible. + dist tag is present. + build root is correct. + license is open source-compatible. + License text is included in package. + %doc is present. + BuildRequires are proper. + %clean is present. + package installed properly. + Macro use appears rather consistent. + Package contains code, not content. + no headers or static libraries. + no .pc file present. + no -devel subpackage + no .la files. + no translations are available + Does owns the directories it creates. + no scriptlets present. + no duplicates in %files. + file permissions are appropriate. + make test gave Files=1, Tests=1, 0 wallclock secs ( 0.02 usr 0.01 sys + 0.04 cusr 0.01 csys = 0.08 CPU) + Package perl-CGI-Application-Plugin-DebugScreen-0.06-1.fc12.noarch Provides: perl(CGI::Application::Plugin::DebugScreen) = 0.06 Requires: perl(Devel::StackTrace) perl(HTML::Template) perl(IO::File) perl(UNIVERSAL::require) perl(strict) perl(warnings) 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 510979] Review Request: phpSmug - PHP wrapper for the SmugMug API
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=510979 Paul W. Frields changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo?(da...@gnsa.us) --- Comment #2 from Paul W. Frields 2009-07-16 22:43:11 EDT --- Updated to handle all the goofs: http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/packages/SPECS/phpSmug.spec http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/phpSmug-2.0.2-2.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 512273] Review Request: php-pear-File-Bittorrent2 - Decode and Encode data in Bittorrent format
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=512273 Paul W. Frields changed: What|Removed |Added CC||sticks...@gmail.com Flag||needinfo?(da...@gnsa.us) --- Comment #1 from Paul W. Frields 2009-07-16 22:30:56 EDT --- I agree with that approach and have a package together: http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/packages/SPECS/php-pear-File-Bittorrent.spec http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/php-pear-File-Bittorrent-1.3.1-2.fc11.src.rpm If you want to use it, you're welcome. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 511148] Review Request: matahari - qmf agent for host management
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=511148 David Lutterkort changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RELEASE_PENDING Flag||fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from David Lutterkort 2009-07-16 21:52:26 EDT --- Great - one thing I missed yesterday is that Source: should be a URL pointing to the where the tarball for the release can be downloaded, and ideally those tarballs are kept around for a while. Please add that before adding this package to CVS. APPROVED Please follow http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/CVSAdminProcedure and import the package. Close this bug as RAWHIDE once it's been successfully imported and built. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 512027] Review Request: zikula-module-News - Manages news articles on your Zikula site
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=512027 Paul W. Frields changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo?(da...@gnsa.us) --- Comment #2 from Paul W. Frields 2009-07-16 21:41:44 EDT --- http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/packages/SPECS/zikula-module-News.spec http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/zikula-module-News-2.4.1-1.fc11.src.rpm Thanks for the review David -- I shouldn't have tried to complete this so quickly the other night. The new files have no rpmlint errors, and the License is fixed as well. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 489014] Review Request: gnome-do-plugins - Plugins for Gnome Do
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=489014 Toshio Ernie Kuratomi changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #353942|0 |1 is obsolete|| --- Comment #50 from Toshio Ernie Kuratomi 2009-07-16 21:31:07 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=354073) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=354073) specfile that merges latest from nushio Hmm... So I got an older version of the spec file from the srpm it looks like. Here's the new spec file with the changes merged. And a build with this: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1480316 Could you test that this works? I don't know if gnome-do will need a patch to look in the new directory or not. I also am not 100% sure I got all of the plugins that depend on the precompiled libraries... if some plugins are broken but others work we should look at that. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 507089] Review Request: olpc-powerd - power management 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=507089 --- Comment #6 from Christoph Wickert 2009-07-16 21:08:20 EDT --- BTW: he scripts from comment #4 result in a couple of additional deps: Requires(post): chkconfig Requires(preun): chkconfig # This is for /sbin/service Requires(preun): initscripts See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SysVInitScript#Initscript_packaging -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 506339] Review Request: XZ Utils - LZMA Utils with newer file format
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=506339 Jason Tibbitts changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|xja...@fi.muni.cz |ti...@math.uh.edu --- Comment #23 from Jason Tibbitts 2009-07-16 20:25:30 EDT --- Perhaps Milos is on vacation, but it's come to my attention that this is critical and needs a review immediately, so I've volunteered to take care of this. I don't mean to step on anyone's toes, but we have some important stuff waiting on this review. Builds fine; rpmlint says: xz.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary XZ Generally I'd just suggest dropping "XZ Utils" from the summary, but it's not a big deal. xz.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 4..8-0.6.beta ['4.999.8-0.6.beta.fc12', '4.999.8-0.6.beta'] There's an extra '9' in the changelog entry. xz-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation OK. xz-lzma-compat.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/bin/lzcat xz xz-lzma-compat.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/bin/unlzma xz xz-lzma-compat.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/bin/lzma xz These are OK because the links aren't dangling when dependencies are installed. xz-libs.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/liblzma.so.0.0.0 /lib64/libpthread.so.0 This isn't a particularly big deal. So outside of one typo in the changelog, I don't see anything that really needs fixing. I looked over the licensing and have a question. The code that I believe you currently indicate is LGPLv2+ is public domain unless the getopt_long code is used. But there shouldn't be any reason for that to be compiled or linked in, because glibc should already have it. Indeed, the build log shows no trace of that code being used. So why isn't the bulk of the package public domain? (Obviously the various scripts that are GPLv2+ and are correctly marked as such.) There's a test suite present. I tried it and it fails utterly, though it passes when I build the package locally. I suspect this is related to the rpath issues, so I went with the following: %check LD_LIBRARY_PATH=$PWD/src/liblzma/.libs make check and it worked fine. I think it's a good idea the test suite if at all possible, and it seems possible. Any reason not to add it? * source files match upstream. sha256sum: 059da5a9fe51c28b38f67e5b8063a451c516f37fbb268177fd1081b70dd97f53 xz-4.999.8beta.tar.gz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. ? license fields match the actual licenses. * license is open source-compatible. * license text included in package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper (none). * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly. * debuginfo package looks complete. * rpmlint has acceptable complaints. * final provides and requires are sane: xz-4.999.8-0.6.beta.fc12.x86_64.rpm xz = 4.999.8-0.6.beta.fc12 xz(x86-64) = 4.999.8-0.6.beta.fc12 = liblzma.so.0()(64bit) xz-libs = 4.999.8-0.6.beta.fc12 xz-devel-4.999.8-0.6.beta.fc12.x86_64.rpm pkgconfig(liblzma) = 4.999.8beta xz-devel = 4.999.8-0.6.beta.fc12 xz-devel(x86-64) = 4.999.8-0.6.beta.fc12 = /usr/bin/pkg-config liblzma.so.0()(64bit) pkgconfig xz-libs = 4.999.8-0.6.beta.fc12 xz-libs-4.999.8-0.6.beta.fc12.x86_64.rpm liblzma.so.0()(64bit) xz-libs = 4.999.8-0.6.beta.fc12 xz-libs(x86-64) = 4.999.8-0.6.beta.fc12 = /sbin/ldconfig liblzma.so.0()(64bit) xz-lzma-compat-4.999.8-0.6.beta.fc12.x86_64.rpm lzma = 5 xz-lzma-compat = 4.999.8-0.6.beta.fc12 xz-lzma-compat(x86-64) = 4.999.8-0.6.beta.fc12 = /bin/sh liblzma.so.0()(64bit) xz = 4.999.8-0.6.beta.fc12 * %check is not present but there's a test suite. * shared libraries are installed: ldconfig called properly. unversioned .so link is in the -devel package. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files (excepting license files, which has been deemed OK). * file permissions are appropriate. * no generically named files. * scriptlets are OK (ldconfig). * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * headers are in the -devel subpackage. * pkgconfig file is in the -devel package; pkgconfig dependency
[Bug 510982] Review Request: psimedia - Audio and video RTP services for Psi-like IM clients
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=510982 --- Comment #8 from nucleo 2009-07-16 20:22:33 EDT --- - Fixed patch for using libdir in plugins path - Group changed to Applications/Multimedia New Spec URL: http://nucleo.fedorapeople.org/pkg-reviews/psimedia/psimedia.spec New SRPM URL: http://nucleo.fedorapeople.org/pkg-reviews/psimedia/psimedia-1.0.3-2.fc11.src.rpm $ rpmlint psimedia-1.0.3-2.fc11.i586.rpm psimedia-1.0.3-2.fc11.src.rpm psimedia-debuginfo-1.0.3-2.fc11.i586.rpm 3 packages and 0 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 511944] Review Request: tabled - distributed data storage cloud service
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=511944 Jeff Garzik changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #354039|0 |1 is obsolete|| --- Comment #4 from Jeff Garzik 2009-07-16 19:37:52 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=354072) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=354072) Updated tabled SRPM file. Updated with review feedback from sister project cld (bug #511938): - add more %doc - %config(noreplace) - chkconfig default off - convert spaces to tabs (rpmlint) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 511944] Review Request: tabled - distributed data storage cloud service
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=511944 Jeff Garzik changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #354038|0 |1 is obsolete|| --- Comment #3 from Jeff Garzik 2009-07-16 19:36:29 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=354071) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=354071) Updated tabled spec 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 507089] Review Request: olpc-powerd - power management 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=507089
--- Comment #5 from Christoph Wickert 2009-07-16
19:27:11 EDT ---
One more thing: The rm -rf in %preun is not nice and causes an rpmlint warning.
We should let the package own the file, then rpm will remove it:
%install
...
mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_localstatedir}/run
...
touch $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_localstatedir}/run/powerevents
%files
...
%ghost(missingok) %{_localstatedir}/run/powerevents
IMO this is the best solution, but we don't have a guideline for files in
/var/run. On my machine half of the files is owned by a package, the others are
not. I think I should ask packaging committee about this and/or write a
proposal.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 511941] Review Request: chunkd - Data storage daemon
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=511941 Jeff Garzik changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #354035|0 |1 is obsolete|| --- Comment #5 from Jeff Garzik 2009-07-16 19:25:02 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=354070) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=354070) Updated chunkd SRPM This was updated again, to reflect applicable feedback on package cld (bug #511938): - add more %doc - %config(noreplace) - chkconfig default off Successful koji build at http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1480771 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 507089] Review Request: olpc-powerd - power management 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=507089 --- Comment #4 from Christoph Wickert 2009-07-16 19:21:40 EDT --- On the scriptlets again... Your scripts only handle the case where one replaces ohm with powerd, but not when upgrading powerd. The problem is the order: Upon an upgrade, %preun of the old package runs after %post of the new package, see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets#Scriptlet_Ordering So what we get is: initctl start powerd initctl start olpc-switchd ... initctl stop olpc-switchd initctl stop powerd This cannot work! How about this: # Only on install %post if [ $1 = 1 ] ; then if test -e /etc/init.d/ohmd ; then service ohmd stop >/dev/null 2>&1 chkconfig ohmd off fi initctl -q start powerd initctl -q start olpc-switchd fi # Only on uninstall %preun if [ $1 = 0 ] ; then initctl stop -q olpc-switchd initctl stop -q powerd if test -e /etc/init.d/ohmd then /sbin/service ohmd start >/dev/null 2>&1 /sbin/chkconfig ohmd on fi fi # Restart after upgrade %postun if [ "$1" -ge "1" ] ; then initctl stop -q olpc-switchd initctl stop -q powerd initctl start -q powerd initctl start -q olpc-switchd fi -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 511941] Review Request: chunkd - Data storage daemon
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=511941 Jeff Garzik changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #354034|0 |1 is obsolete|| --- Comment #4 from Jeff Garzik 2009-07-16 19:18:58 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=354068) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=354068) Updated chunkd spec 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 507089] Review Request: olpc-powerd - power management 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=507089
--- Comment #3 from Christoph Wickert 2009-07-16
19:16:42 EDT ---
Sorry it took so long, but the scriptlets really caused me some headache...
(In reply to comment #1)
> i'm aware that the post-install hook that disables ohmd is almost certainly
> not
> acceptable. ohmd and olpc-powerd cannot run at the same time, though they can
> co-exist otherwise.
It's definitely not according to the guidelines, see
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SysVInitScript#Why_don.27t_we
But as ohmd is olpc specific and not in Fedora IMO we can make an exception
here.
REVIEW FOR 55f351e35ee8dbb622c4565a8a7b1412 olpc-powerd-7-1.src.rpm
FIX - MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted
in the review:
$ rpmlint Desktop/olpc-powerd-*
olpc-powerd.i586: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 6-2 ['7-1.fc11', '7-1']
=> See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Changelogs
olpc-powerd.i586: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/bin/powerd-config
=> false positive, see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468987#c1
olpc-powerd.i586: W: dangerous-command-in-%preun rm
=> that's /var/run/powerevents, save to igonore.
OK - MUST: The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
OK - MUST: The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
OK - MUST: The package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
OK - MUST: The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines: GPLv2+
OK - MUST: The License field in the package spec file matches the actual
license.
FIX - MUST: The license file from the source package is included in %doc, but
it's LGPLv2.1
OK - MUST: The spec file is in American English.
OK - MUST: The spec file for the package is legible.
N/A - MUST: The sources used to build the package match the upstream source by
MD5 (Git checkout)
OK - MUST: The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on
%{ix86}
N/A - 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.
OK - MUST: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
N/A - MUST: The spec file handles locales properly with the %find_lang macro.
N/A - MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared
library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths,
must call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
N/A - MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must
state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package.
OK - MUST: The package owns all directories that it creates.
FIX - MUST: The package contains duplicate files in the %files listing:
warning: File listed twice: /etc/event.d/olpc-switchd
warning: File listed twice: /etc/event.d/powerd
warning: File listed twice: /etc/powerd/pleaseconfirm.pgm
warning: File listed twice: /etc/powerd/powerd.conf
warning: File listed twice: /etc/powerd/shuttingdown.pgm
OK - MUST: Permissions on files are set properly. Every %files section includes
a %defattr(...) line.
OK - MUST: The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT.
OK - MUST: The package consistently uses macros, as described in the macros
section of Packaging Guidelines.
OK - MUST: The package contains code, or permissable content.
N/A - MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage.
OK - MUST: Files included as %doc do not affect the runtime of the application.
N/A - MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
N/A - MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
N/A - MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires:
pkgconfig'.
N/A - MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g.
libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in
a -devel package.
N/A - MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release}
OK - MUST: The package does not contain any .la libtool archives.
N/A - MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file.
OK - MUST: The packages does not own files or directories already owned by
other packages.
OK - MUST: At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT.
OK - MUST: All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.
SHOULD Items:
N/A - SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
N/A - SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file
should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
OK - SHOULD: The the pa
[Bug 511938] Review Request: cld - Coarse locking daemon
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=511938
Jeff Garzik changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #354037|0 |1
is obsolete||
--- Comment #8 from Jeff Garzik 2009-07-16 19:05:20 EDT
---
Created an attachment (id=354063)
--> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=354063)
Updated cld SRPM
Feedback items pointed out:
1) %config(noreplace): done
2) mixing %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT: you were looking at an older spec
file, see "Updated cld spec file" attachment.
3) updated %doc
4) I included the git commit id. The git suffix in the filename comes from the
package's "make dist".
5) cleaned up the init.d chkconfig stuff
koji build completed successfully:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1480723
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 512273] New: Review Request: php-pear-File-Bittorrent2 - Decode and Encode data in Bittorrent format
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: php-pear-File-Bittorrent2 - Decode and Encode data in Bittorrent format https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=512273 Summary: Review Request: php-pear-File-Bittorrent2 - Decode and Encode data in Bittorrent format Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: da...@gnsa.us QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://ke4qqq.fedorapeople.org/php-pear-File-Bittorrent2.spec SRPM URL: http://ke4qqq.fedorapeople.org/php-pear-File-Bittorrent2-1.3.1-1.fc11.src.rpm Description: This package consists of three classes which handles the encoding and decoding of data in Bittorrent format. You can also extract useful informations from .torrent files, create .torrent files and query the torrent's scrape page to get its statistics. PHP5 only. [ke4...@nalleyt61 SPECS]$ rpmlint ./php-pear-File-Bittorrent2.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [ke4...@nalleyt61 SPECS]$ rpmlint ../SRPMS/php-pear-File-Bittorrent2-1.3.1-1.fc11.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [ke4...@nalleyt61 SPECS]$ rpmlint ../RPMS/noarch/php-pear-File-Bittorrent2-1.3.1-1.fc11.noarch.rpm php-pear-File-Bittorrent2.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/php-pear-File-Bittorrent2-1.3.1/torrentinfo.php php-pear-File-Bittorrent2.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/php-pear-File-Bittorrent2-1.3.1/scrape.php php-pear-File-Bittorrent2.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/php-pear-File-Bittorrent2-1.3.1/example.php 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. So this spec was created with 'pear make-rpm-spec Foo.tgz' I tried using dos2unix/sed to correct the end of line encoding. However the generated XML file contains md5sums of the files. So then those files aren't included and several cp/mv directives in the spec deal with those files and it ends up blowing up. I am interested in ways to mitigate this since using pear make-rpm-spec is an approved manner of generating specs and the xml file is required. (suppose we could modify the xml 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 511938] Review Request: cld - Coarse locking daemon
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=511938 Jeff Garzik changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #354036|0 |1 is obsolete|| --- Comment #7 from Jeff Garzik 2009-07-16 19:00:59 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=354062) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=354062) Updated cld spec 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 499875] Review Request: libdasm - Library for disassembling x86 code
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=499875 --- Comment #6 from Dave Malcolm 2009-07-16 19:02:24 EDT --- One of the developers directed me to a newer version of the code here: http://code.google.com/p/libdasm/ which is more actively maintained; the last commit was May 17th of this year. I'd want to include this version. Unfortunately the licensing there still appears ambiguous: the "Code license" field reads "New BSD License", which is fair enough, but the "Labels" field has the label "publicdomain", and the description says "public domain". The files still contain copyright claims. The original author appears to be happy to license the code under a BSD-style license (private email), and believes the other contributors would be as well. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 512273] Review Request: php-pear-File-Bittorrent2 - Decode and Encode data in Bittorrent format
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=512273 David Nalley changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||504066(FE-ZIKULA) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 512272] New: Review Request: surl - A URL shortening command line tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: surl - A URL shortening command line tool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=512272 Summary: Review Request: surl - A URL shortening command line tool Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: fab...@bernewireless.net QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/surl.spec SRPM URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/surl-0.5.1-1.fc11.src.rpm Project URL: https://launchpad.net/surl Description: surl is a URL shortening command line application that supports various sites. It supports stdin or filename input. It grabs the URLs, converts them, and returns the same text that was used in the input. It is known to work with a wealth of services, such as bit.ly, tinyurl.com and tr.im. The currently supported sites are a.gd, bit.ly, burnurl.com, cli.gs, decenturl.com, digg.com, is.gd, kl.am, liip.to, metamark.net, sn.im, snipr.com, snipurl.com, snurl.com, tinyurl.com, tr.im, turl.ca, ur.ly, and zz.gd. Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1480612 rpmlint output: [...@laptop09 SRPMS]$ rpmlint surl-0.5.1-1.fc11.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [...@laptop09 noarch]$ rpmlint surl-0.5.1-1.fc11.noarch.rpm surl.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/surl/surl.py 0644 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings. This should not be a problem because surl.py is called by /bin/surl. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 511938] Review Request: cld - Coarse locking daemon
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=511938 --- Comment #6 from Jeff Garzik 2009-07-16 18:51:08 EDT --- koji has the build failure, on both ppc and ppc64: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1477924 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 511938] Review Request: cld - Coarse locking daemon
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=511938 --- Comment #5 from Pete Zaitcev 2009-07-16 18:40:10 EDT --- Where does the endianness issue come from? I don't see it mentioned in any supporting materials. In theory CLD is endianness-clean, although I don't a PPC to check it for real. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC 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 #47 from Hongli Lai 2009-07-16 18:27:18 EDT --- Thanks for the offer, but there is no documentation at this time that describes what the Boost changes are and why they were made, except for the Git commit logs. Writing one will take some time and the earliest date at which I can do that is probably October. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 511938] Review Request: cld - Coarse locking daemon
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=511938
--- Comment #4 from Mike Bonnet 2009-07-16 18:24:57 EDT ---
%{_sysconfdir}/sysconfig/cld should be %config(noreplace)
Mixing %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT in %install
COPYING should be included in %doc
You might want to consider including the date and git revision in the Release
(and removing git from the version) as outlined here:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Snapshot_packages
rpmlint output:
$ rpmlint -v *.rpm
cld.i586: I: checking
cld.i586: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/sysconfig/cld
- Bogus warning.
cld.i586: W: service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/cld
- The service should not be enabled by default, according to:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SysVInitScript
- Also according to that page, it looks like the Default-Stop line is used
incorrectly.
cld.i586: W: incoherent-subsys /etc/rc.d/init.d/cld $prog
- Bogus.
cld.i586: W: service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/cld
- See above.
cld-debuginfo.i586: I: checking
cld-devel.i586: I: checking
License is good.
After the package review is complete you need to file bugs for ExlcludeArch'ing
ppc and ppc64, mark them as blockers for FE-ExcludeArch-ppc and
FE-ExcludeArch-ppc64 respectively, and reference the bug numbers in the spec
file. The comment about endianness is good enough as a placeholder for now.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 512270] New: Review Request: quitcount - A tool for people who quit smoking
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: quitcount - A tool for people who quit smoking https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=512270 Summary: Review Request: quitcount - A tool for people who quit smoking Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: fab...@bernewireless.net QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/quitcount.spec SRPM URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/quitcount-1.4.1-1.fc11.src.rpm Project URL: http://quitcount.sourceforge.net/ Description: QuitCount is a simple counter that shows what you spared since you quit smoking. Once you tell it the date you quit, how much you smoked, and how much it cost, it'll tell you how many cigarettes you didn't smoke since, and how much it makes in terms of money, tar, and life expectancy. Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1480595 rpmlint output: [...@laptop09 SRPMS]$ rpmlint quitcount-1.4.1-1.fc11.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [...@laptop09 i586]$ rpmlint quitcount* 2 packages and 0 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 508525] Review Request: gjs - Javascript Bindings for GNOME
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=508525 Owen Taylor changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|508318 | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 508318] Review Request: mutter - A window manager based on metacity and clutter
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=508318
Owen Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on|508525 |512260
--- Comment #12 from Owen Taylor 2009-07-16 18:12:06 EDT
---
[OK]* MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be
posted in the review.[1]
ON SRPM:
rpmlint /tmp/mutter-2.27.0-0.2.20090626gita13dec3.fc11.src.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
On RPM:
mutter.i586: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 2.27.0-0.2
['2.27.0-0.2.20090626gita13dec3.fc11', '2.27.0-0.2.20090626gita13dec3']
Doesn't matter, we'll have real tarballs soon anyways.
mutter.i586: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib/libmutter-private.so.0.0.0
e...@glibc_2.0
None of rpmlint's damn business (libmutter-private has meta_exit, meta_fatal
utility functions in it.)
mutter.i586: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/gconf/schemas/mutter.schemas
OK.
[OK]* MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming
Guidelines .
[OK]* MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the
format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [2] .
[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. [3]
[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.[4]
[OK]* MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [5]
[OK]* MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [6]
[XX]* 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.
Source: should be
http://download.gnome.org/sources/mutter/2.27/%{name}-%{version}.tar.bz2
[XX]* MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary
rpms on at least one primary architecture. [7]
Looks like the file list is out of sync with recent mutter changes; removing
files that are no longer in Mutter and adding .po file handling, it seems to
build OK.
[NA]* 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.
[XX]* 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.
>From reading the configure.in, missing BuildRequires I can find:
gir-repository-devel
libXcomposite-devel
libSM-devel
[XX]* MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by
using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly
forbidden.[9]
Not OK, no handling of .po files.
[OK]* MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared
library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths,
must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [10]
[OK]* MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must
state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package.
[XX]* MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does
not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which
does create that directory. [12]
File list has: %{_libdir}/mutter/plugins/clutter/*.so and doesn't own any of
the parent directories. (Current mutter removes the clutter/ part of this).
Probably should just have %{_datadir}/mutter in the file list.
Needs to Requires: control-center-filesystem for
/usr/share/gnome/wm-properties/
[OK]* MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the
spec file's %files listings. [13]
[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. [14]
[OK]* MUST: Each package must have a %clean section
[OK]* MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [16]
[OK]* MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [17]
[OK]* MUST: 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). [18]
[OK]* MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of
[Bug 512263] New: Review Request:audtty - A ncurses based terminal client for the Audacious
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request:audtty - A ncurses based terminal client for the Audacious https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=512263 Summary: Review Request:audtty - A ncurses based terminal client for the Audacious Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: fab...@bernewireless.net QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/audtty.spec SRPM URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/audtty-0.1.11-1.fc11.src.rpm Project URL: http://audtty.alioth.debian.org/ Description: audtty is a simple application for controlling Audacious from the command line. It is designed to make common, simple tasks fast and easy to do. It is operated using arrow keys and standard Audacious keys, to make it easy and intuitive to learn. Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1480105 rpmlint output: [...@laptop09 SRPMS]$ rpmlint audtty-0.1.11-1.fc11.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [...@laptop09 i586]$ rpmlint audtty* 2 packages and 0 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 511938] Review Request: cld - Coarse locking daemon
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=511938 Mike Bonnet changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||mi...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mi...@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 512068] Review Request: rancid - Really Awesome New Cisco confIg Differ
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=512068 --- Comment #6 from Gary T. Giesen 2009-07-16 16:36:51 EDT --- I'll fix up the logrotate, and double check all the permissions to make sure they're appropriate. I'm not holding my breath on getting positive results re: namespace collision. Is anyone actually aware of any packages that collide? Rancid 1.0 was released in June of 1999, so the package is 10 years old and is pretty established. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 512217] Review Request: geany-plugins - A bundle of plugins for Geany
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=512217 --- Comment #3 from Dominic Hopf 2009-07-16 16:26:47 EDT --- Update with fixes available: Spec URL: http://dominichopf.de/geany-plugins/geany-plugins.spec SRPM URL: http://dominichopf.de/geany-plugins/geany-plugins-0.17-1.fc11.src.rpm Note: There is still an issue with the docs. geany-plugins.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/geany-plugins/geanyvc/AUTHORS geany-plugins.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/geany-plugins/geanyvc/ChangeLog geany-plugins.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/geany-plugins/geanylipsum/AUTHORS geany-plugins.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/geany-plugins/addons/ChangeLog I will talk to upstream because of this to get the files filled with additional information. Another idea I have is to write general documentation files for the whole geany-plugins project. I'll suggest this to upstream too. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 510700] Review Request: unetbootin - Create bootable Live USB drives for a variety of Linux distributions
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=510700 --- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System 2009-07-16 16:06:49 EDT --- unetbootin-0-6.356bzr.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update unetbootin'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/EL-5/FEDORA-EPEL-2009-0088 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 507157] Review Request: efte - A lightweight, extendable, folding text editor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=507157 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System 2009-07-16 16:06:55 EDT --- efte-1.0-5.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update efte'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/EL-5/FEDORA-EPEL-2009-0089 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 509883] Review Request: sipcalc - "advanced" console based ip subnet calculator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=509883 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|ON_QA --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System 2009-07-16 16:06:40 EDT --- sipcalc-1.1.4-3.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update sipcalc'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/EL-5/FEDORA-EPEL-2009-0084 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 509883] Review Request: sipcalc - "advanced" console based ip subnet calculator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=509883 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System 2009-07-16 16:06:45 EDT --- sipcalc-1.1.4-3.el4 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 4 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update sipcalc'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/EL-4/FEDORA-EPEL-2009-0088 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 508318] Review Request: mutter - A window manager based on metacity and clutter
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=508318 Owen Taylor changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|otay...@redhat.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #11 from Owen Taylor 2009-07-16 15:25:33 EDT --- Taking for review -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 506954] Review Request: uberftp - GridFTP-enabled ftp 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=506954
--- Comment #3 from Mike Bonnet 2009-07-16 15:49:58 EDT ---
You know version 2.4 is available, right? After the review is complete you may
want to consider updating to that version.
Tarball in the specfile matches upstream tarball:
$ md5sum uberftp-client-2.3.tar.gz uberftp-review/uberftp-client-2.3.tar.gz
f5b1febe3b705c8ddf23c7fc05d70e7b uberftp-client-2.3.tar.gz
f5b1febe3b705c8ddf23c7fc05d70e7b uberftp-review/uberftp-client-2.3.tar.gz
rpmlint output is clean:
$ rpmlint -v *.rpm
uberftp.i586: I: checking
uberftp.src: I: checking
uberftp-debuginfo.i586: I: checking
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Source code is NCSA licensed and a copy of the license text is included in the
copyright file in the source tarball. The copyright file must be included in
%doc according to the packaging guidelines.
Built successfully (again) in Koji:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1432298
If you look at the build log it looks like %{optflags} is getting included
twice in the gcc invocations:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=1480256&name=build.log
Not a huge deal, but maybe something that should be investigated upstream.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 512228] Review Request: (Previously Orphaned) dumpasn1 - ASN.1 object dump utility
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=512228
Ville Skyttä changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ville.sky...@iki.fi
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Ville Skyttä 2009-07-16 15:35:23 EDT
---
Approved, just a couple of remarks:
I'd personally use a patch for the BYTE -> char change, it's less fragile that
way on future updates.
sed -e 's/\r//g' %{SOURCE1} > dumpasn1.cfg
This is no longer necessary, the 20090531 dumpasn1.cfg already has Unix line
endings.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 468287] Review Request: cim-schema - Common Information Model (CIM) 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=468287 --- Comment #28 from Fedora Update System 2009-07-16 15:23:42 EDT --- cim-schema-2.22.0-1.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/cim-schema-2.22.0-1.el5 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 468287] Review Request: cim-schema - Common Information Model (CIM) 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=468287 --- Comment #27 from Fedora Update System 2009-07-16 15:23:09 EDT --- cim-schema-2.22.0-1.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/cim-schema-2.22.0-1.fc11 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 470293] Review Request: sblim-cmpi-network - SBLIM Network Instrumentation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470293 Bug 470293 depends on bug 468287, which changed state. Bug 468287 Summary: Review Request: cim-schema - Common Information Model (CIM) Schema https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468287 What|Old Value |New Value Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Resolution||RAWHIDE Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 468287] Review Request: cim-schema - Common Information Model (CIM) 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=468287 Matt Domsch changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE --- Comment #26 from Matt Domsch 2009-07-16 15:17:25 EDT --- Built in rawhide, EL-5 and F-11. Closing. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 466183] Review Request: sblim-sfcb - Small Footprint CIM Broker
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=466183 Bug 466183 depends on bug 468287, which changed state. Bug 468287 Summary: Review Request: cim-schema - Common Information Model (CIM) Schema https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468287 What|Old Value |New Value Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 506954] Review Request: uberftp - GridFTP-enabled ftp 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=506954 Mike Bonnet changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 511944] Review Request: tabled - distributed data storage cloud service
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=511944 --- Comment #2 from Jeff Garzik 2009-07-16 15:07:39 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=354039) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=354039) Updated tabled SRPM file. I updated the spec file for review comments found in tabled's pre-req packages (reviews: bug #511938 and #511941), plus a few things found in a re-review of the packaging guidelines. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC 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 Mike Bonnet changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 511938] Review Request: cld - Coarse locking daemon
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=511938 --- Comment #3 from Jeff Garzik 2009-07-16 15:04:34 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=354037) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=354037) Updated cld SRPM I updated the specfile for review comments, plus a few other things I found re-reviewing the packaging guidelines. Successful koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1480181 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 506954] Review Request: uberftp - GridFTP-enabled ftp 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=506954 Mike Bonnet changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mi...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mi...@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 511938] Review Request: cld - Coarse locking daemon
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=511938 --- Comment #2 from Jeff Garzik 2009-07-16 15:03:17 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=354036) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=354036) Updated cld spec 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 511944] Review Request: tabled - distributed data storage cloud service
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=511944 --- Comment #1 from Jeff Garzik 2009-07-16 15:05:56 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=354038) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=354038) Updated tabled spec file Updated tabled spec 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 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
--- Comment #13 from Mike Bonnet 2009-07-16 15:02:34 EDT ---
rpmlint output:
$ rpmlint ndoutils-1.4-0.3.b7.fc12.x86_64.rpm
ndoutils-mysql-1.4-0.3.b7.fc12.x86_64.rpm
ndoutils-pgsql-1.4-0.3.b7.fc12.x86_64.rpm
ndoutils.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /var/log/ndoutils nagios
ndoutils.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /var/run/ndoutils nagios
ndoutils.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /var/cache/ndoutils nagios
ndoutils.x86_64: W: log-files-without-logrotate /var/log/ndoutils
ndoutils.x86_64: W: incoherent-init-script-name ndo2db
ndoutils-mysql.x86_64: W: no-documentation
ndoutils-pgsql.x86_64: W: no-documentation
All of them are explained satisfactorily above.
The GPLv2 license is mentioned in a few of the source files, but you may want
to encourage upstream to include a LICENSE or COPYING file in the source
tarball.
A better URL might be http://www.nagios.org/download/addons/, but I'll leave
that decision to you.
The Source0 URL should be:
Source0: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/nagios/ndoutils-1.4b7.tar.gz
in accordance with:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL#Sourceforge.net
Tarball in .src.rpm matches upstream tarball.
Koji scratch build succeeded on all arches:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1480076
The %files sections for the mysql and pgsql subpackages need %defattr lines (I
don't think this changes anything, but it's in the guidelines).
It seems very odd to be dropping a .o file into %{_libdir} (rather than a
versioned .so). Is this customary for nagios addons? Are there other packages
that do this?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 511941] Review Request: chunkd - Data storage daemon
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=511941 --- Comment #2 from Jeff Garzik 2009-07-16 15:00:33 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=354034) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=354034) Updated chunkd spec 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 511941] Review Request: chunkd - Data storage daemon
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=511941 --- Comment #3 from Jeff Garzik 2009-07-16 15:02:14 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=354035) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=354035) Updated chunkd SRPM I updated the specfile with review comments, plus a few other things I found re-reviewing packging guidelines. Successful koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1480186 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 512217] Review Request: geany-plugins - A bundle of plugins for Geany
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=512217 Jochen Schmitt changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||joc...@herr-schmitt.de AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|joc...@herr-schmitt.de Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Jochen Schmitt 2009-07-16 14:55:45 EDT --- Good: + Basename of the SPEC file matches with package name + Package name fullfill naming guidelines + URL tag shows on proper project homepage + Package contains most recent release of the application + Could download package tar ball via spectool -g + Package contains valid License tag + License tag states GPLV2+ as a valid OSS license + License state in the license tag matches with copyright notes on the souces + Package contains proper BuildRoot definition + BuildRoot will cleaned at the beginning of %clean and %install + Package contains verbain copy of the license tag + Package tar ball matches with upstream (md5sum: 9da6ab5bebd5e7de306b4dd3d1c9a5b4) + Consistently usage of rpm macros + Package has no subpackages + Package has a SMP-enabled build step + Local build works fine + Debuginfo package contains sources + Scratch build on koji works fine. + Package files has proper file permission + All packaged files are owned by the package + %file stanza has no duplicate entries + No package file belong to another packer + Package contains a small %doc stanza Bad: - You should start with review 1 for the Fedora package - Rpmlint has issues with source package: geany-plugins.src:64: W: macro-in-%changelog _datadir geany-plugins.src:67: W: macro-in-%changelog files geany-plugins.src: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 12) 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Please keep in mind to escape '%' in the changelog section with a additional '%' char. - Rpmlint complaints on binary package: geany-plugins.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided geanyvc geany-plugins.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/geany-plugins-0.17/geanyvc/AUTHORS geany-plugins.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/geany-plugins-0.17/geanylipsum/AUTHORS geany-plugins.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/geany-plugins-0.17/geanyvc/ChangeLog geany-plugins.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/geany-plugins-0.17/addons/ChangeLog 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 1 warnings. - Because the package contains empty document files I would to avoid the usage of the --docdir option on ./configure -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 512068] Review Request: rancid - Really Awesome New Cisco confIg Differ
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=512068
--- Comment #5 from David Nalley 2009-07-16 14:54:30 EDT ---
I am thrilled to see this in Fedora (it was actually on my todo list - though I
wish upstream would accept jcollie's git patch. )
I'd like to hear back what upstream says about the naming issue as I think
that's a potentially significant conflict.
MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the
review.
[ke4...@nalleyt61 SPECS]$ rpmlint ./rancid.spec
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[ke4...@nalleyt61 SPECS]$ rpmlint ../SRPMS/rancid-2.3.2-1.fc11.src.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[ke4...@nalleyt61 SPECS]$ rpmlint ../RPMS/i586/rancid-*
rancid.i586: W: non-standard-uid /etc/rancid/rancid.conf rancid
rancid.i586: W: non-standard-gid /etc/rancid/rancid.conf rancid
rancid.i586: E: non-readable /etc/rancid/rancid.conf 0640
rancid.i586: W: non-standard-uid /var/rancid/CVS rancid
rancid.i586: W: non-standard-gid /var/rancid/CVS rancid
rancid.i586: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/rancid/CVS 0700
rancid.i586: W: non-standard-uid /etc/rancid/lg.conf rancid
rancid.i586: W: non-standard-gid /etc/rancid/lg.conf rancid
rancid.i586: E: non-readable /etc/rancid/lg.conf 0640
rancid.i586: W: non-standard-uid /var/rancid rancid
rancid.i586: W: non-standard-gid /var/rancid rancid
rancid.i586: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/rancid 0700
rancid.i586: W: non-standard-uid /var/rancid/CVS/CVSROOT rancid
rancid.i586: W: non-standard-gid /var/rancid/CVS/CVSROOT rancid
rancid.i586: E: version-control-internal-file /var/rancid/CVS/CVSROOT
rancid.i586: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/rancid/CVS/CVSROOT 0700
rancid.i586: W: non-standard-uid /etc/rancid rancid
rancid.i586: W: non-standard-gid /etc/rancid rancid
rancid.i586: E: non-standard-dir-perm /etc/rancid 0750
rancid.i586: W: non-standard-uid /var/log/rancid rancid
rancid.i586: W: non-standard-gid /var/log/rancid rancid
rancid.i586: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/log/rancid 0700
rancid.i586: W: log-files-without-logrotate /var/log/rancid
rancid.i586: W: non-standard-dir-in-var rancid
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 8 errors, 16 warnings.
I'd personally like to see log rotate fixed, but don't think it's a blocker.
The rest looks like rpmlint just complaining, though I don't think there is
anything that's a blocker.
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 .
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
[ke4...@nalleyt61 SOURCES]$ md5sum rancid-2.3.2.tar.gz*
4e2de3ff6850b311c0e2a442f7ae5d82 rancid-2.3.2.tar.gz
4e2de3ff6850b311c0e2a442f7ae5d82 rancid-2.3.2.tar.gz.1
OK: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture.
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.
NA: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
NA: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files
(not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call
ldconfig in %post and %postun.
NA: 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.
[Bug 512228] New: Review Request: (Previously Orphaned) dumpasn1 - ASN.1 object dump utility
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: (Previously Orphaned) dumpasn1 - ASN.1 object dump utility https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=512228 Summary: Review Request: (Previously Orphaned) dumpasn1 - ASN.1 object dump utility Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: fkoo...@tuxed.net QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://fkooman.fedorapeople.org/dumpasn1/dumpasn1.spec SRPM URL: http://fkooman.fedorapeople.org/dumpasn1/dumpasn1-20090318-1.fc11.src.rpm Description: dumpasn1 is an ASN.1 object dump program that will dump data encoded using any of the ASN.1 encoding rules in a variety of user-specified formats. Changelog: * Thu Jul 16 2009 François Kooman - 20090318-1 - Update to 20090318 and config to 20090531 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 510626] Review Request: olpc-switch-desktop - OLPC utilities for switching desktop environment
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=510626 --- Comment #11 from Christoph Wickert 2009-07-16 14:21:39 EDT --- (In reply to comment #10) > Those directories are owned by sugar. Fine. > Why do we want the install change? I can't see any other Fedora packages which > do this. There are lots of packages with make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT INSTALL='install -p' see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Timestamps In fact, every package that installs stuff that did not get compiled should have it. The reason for this is that we support multiarch systems in Fedora, where you can install both a 32 bit and 64 bit version of a package. rpm will allow a file to be owned be multiple packages as long as size and timestamp match - otherwise the packages will conflict. Since the XO is not multilib, this is a minor issue, no need for a rebuild, but you can fix it in the next version. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 512216] Review Request: geany-plugins - A bundle of plugins for Geany
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=512216 Dominic Hopf changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||DUPLICATE --- Comment #1 from Dominic Hopf 2009-07-16 14:15:10 EDT --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 512217 *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 512217] Review Request: geany-plugins - A bundle of plugins for Geany
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=512217 --- Comment #1 from Dominic Hopf 2009-07-16 14:15:10 EDT --- *** Bug 512216 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 512216] New: Review Request: geany-plugins - A bundle of plugins for Geany
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: geany-plugins - A bundle of plugins for Geany https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=512216 Summary: Review Request: geany-plugins - A bundle of plugins for Geany Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: dma...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://dominichopf.de/geany-plugins/geany-plugins.spec SRPM URL: http://dominichopf.de/geany-plugins/geany-plugins-0.17-5.fc11.src.rpm Description: eany-plugins is a bundle of several plugins. Plugins included are: Addons (various small addons); Geanygdb (provides integration with gdb); Geanylatex (improved support for LaTeX documents); Geanylipsum (for inserting blocks of Lorem Ipsum text); Geanylua (provides support for scripting with Lua); Geanysendmail (allows sending of documents from within Geany); Geanyvc (support for various version control systems); Shiftcolumn (for moving blocks of text horizontally); Spellcheck (for spell checking documents). Note: This is my first package for Fedora and I'm looking forward to get sponsored. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 512217] New: Review Request: geany-plugins - A bundle of plugins for Geany
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: geany-plugins - A bundle of plugins for Geany https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=512217 Summary: Review Request: geany-plugins - A bundle of plugins for Geany Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: dma...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://dominichopf.de/geany-plugins/geany-plugins.spec SRPM URL: http://dominichopf.de/geany-plugins/geany-plugins-0.17-5.fc11.src.rpm Description: eany-plugins is a bundle of several plugins. Plugins included are: Addons (various small addons); Geanygdb (provides integration with gdb); Geanylatex (improved support for LaTeX documents); Geanylipsum (for inserting blocks of Lorem Ipsum text); Geanylua (provides support for scripting with Lua); Geanysendmail (allows sending of documents from within Geany); Geanyvc (support for various version control systems); Shiftcolumn (for moving blocks of text horizontally); Spellcheck (for spell checking documents). Note: This is my first package for Fedora and I'm looking forward to get sponsored. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 512217] Review Request: geany-plugins - A bundle of plugins for Geany
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=512217 Dominic Hopf changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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 #46 from Jeroen van Meeuwen 2009-07-16 13:54:02 EDT --- Look, I perfectly understand your challenges, and I myself as undoubtedly many other people as well are in quite the same situation. Like Toshio suggested, I'm doing this because I have an itch to scratch. Even though of particular benefit to myself (I don't have time to run in circles supporting weird versions of boost), it could result in huge benefit to you as well as your customers. So, if you could please take the time to press "Print" on the documentation, I can come and pick it up next week in Apeldoorn. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 241596] Review Request: maildrop - Mail delivery agent with filtering abilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=241596 Nick Bebout changed: What|Removed |Added CC||n...@fedoraproject.org Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #46 from Nick Bebout 2009-07-16 13:52:34 EDT --- Package Change Request == Package Name: maildrop New Branches: EL-4 EL-5 Owners: nb -- 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 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 Mike Bonnet changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mi...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mi...@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 512068] Review Request: rancid - Really Awesome New Cisco confIg Differ
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=512068 --- Comment #4 from Gary T. Giesen 2009-07-16 12:53:19 EDT --- I will see what I can do, but rancid is a long-established and widely-used utility in the ISP community, so I doubt I'll get much traction there. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 512068] Review Request: rancid - Really Awesome New Cisco confIg Differ
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=512068 David Nalley changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||da...@gnsa.us AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|da...@gnsa.us 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 501385] Review Request: 389-admin-console - 389 Admin Server Management Console
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=501385 Rich Megginson changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #8 from Rich Megginson 2009-07-16 12:10:26 EDT --- danke New Package CVS Request === Package Name: 389-admin-console Short Description: 389 Admin Server Management Console Owners: rmeggins nkinder nhosoi Branches: F-10 F-11 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 510533] Review Request: ghc-editline - Haskell editline 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=510533 Jochen Schmitt changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|needinfo?(joc...@herr-schmi | |tt.de) | --- Comment #2 from Jochen Schmitt 2009-07-16 12:03:37 EDT --- thank you for your review. Next Release: Spec URL: http://www.herr-schmitt.de/pub/ghc-editline/ghc-editline.spec SRPM URL: http://www.herr-schmitt.de/pub/ghc-editline/ghc-editline-0.2.1.0-2.fc11.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 512170] New: Review Request: pidgin-sipe - Pidgin plugin for connecting to MS Communications Server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: pidgin-sipe - Pidgin plugin for connecting to MS Communications Server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=512170 Summary: Review Request: pidgin-sipe - Pidgin plugin for connecting to MS Communications Server Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: mri...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://icon.fedorapeople.org/f/pidgin-sipe.spec SRPM URL: http://icon.fedorapeople.org/f/pidgin-sipe-1.5.0-1.fc11.src.rpm Description: Provides an Open Implementation of SIP/Simple protocol for connecting Pidgin to Live Communications Server 2003/2005 and Office Communications Server 2007. To save you the trouble, I built it in koji scratch: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1479849 PPC and PPC64 builds are failing, and I've reported it upstream. There is currently an excludearch in the .spec. https://sourceforge.net/forum/forum.php?thread_id=3336440&forum_id=688535 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 512164] Review Request: olpc-update - OLPC system update tools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=512164 Peter Robinson changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||pbrobin...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|pbrobin...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Peter Robinson 2009-07-16 11:40:39 EDT --- I'll review this one. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 512164] Review Request: olpc-update - OLPC system update tools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=512164 Daniel Drake changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Daniel Drake 2009-07-16 11:55:51 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: olpc-update Short Description: OLPC system update tools Owners: dsd pbrobinson cjb Branches: F-11 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 501385] Review Request: 389-admin-console - 389 Admin Server Management Console
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=501385 Jochen Schmitt changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #7 from Jochen Schmitt 2009-07-16 11:55:12 EDT --- Good: + Could download upstream tar ball with spectool -g + Package tar ball matches with upstream (md5sum: 55c661be949c27b9ff2f754abbc2607f) + License on the license tag matches with copyright notes of the source files + Local build works fine + Koji build works fine + Package contains several subpackage + Rpmlint is silent for source package + Rpmlint is silent for binary packages + Documentation is in a separate doc subpackage *** 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 512164] Review Request: olpc-update - OLPC system update tools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=512164
Peter Robinson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Peter Robinson 2009-07-16 11:53:59
EDT ---
All looks OK except the URL is broken. Please fix before commit. Otherwise
APPROVED!
The single warning in rpmlint is expected for a cron job
+ rpmlint output
rpmlint olpc-update.spec olpc-update-2.19-1.fc11.noarch.rpm
olpc-update-2.19-1.fc11.src.rpm
olpc-update.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/cron.d/olpc-update-query
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
+ package name satisfies the packaging naming guidelines
+ specfile name matches the package base name
+ package should satisfy packaging guidelines
+ license meets guidelines and is acceptable to Fedora
+ license matches the actual package license
+ %doc includes license file
+ spec file written in American English
+ spec file is legible
+ upstream sources match sources in the srpm
06c5cc5166e6584b1898ebcee5f7983b olpc-update-2.19.tar.bz2
+ package successfully builds on at least one architecture
tested using koji scratch build
+ BuildRequires list all build dependencies
n/a %find_lang instead of %{_datadir}/locale/*
n/a binary RPM with shared library files must call ldconfig in %post and
%postun+ does not use Prefix: /usr
n/a package owns all directories it creates
n/a no duplicate files in %files
+ %defattr line
+ %clean contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
+ consistent use of macros
+ package must contain code or permissible content
n/a large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage
+ files marked %doc should not affect package
n/a header files should be in -devel
n/a static libraries should be in -static
n/a packages containing pkgconfig (.pc) files need 'Requires: pkgconfig'
n/a libfoo.so must go in -devel
n/a devel must require the fully versioned base
+ packages should not contain libtool .la files
n/a packages containing GUI apps must include %{name}.desktop file
+ packages must not own files or directories owned by other packages
+ %install must start with rm -rf %{buildroot} etc.
+ filenames must be valid UTF-8
Optional:
+ if there is no license file, packager should query upstream
n/a translations of description and summary for non-English languages, if
available
+ reviewer should build the package in mock/koji
n/a the package should build into binary RPMs on all supported architectures
n/a review should test the package functions as described
+ scriptlets should be sane
n/a pkgconfig files should go in -devel
+ shouldn't have file dependencies outside /etc /bin /sbin /usr/bin or
/usr/sbin
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 510573] Review Request: olpc-bootanim - OLPC XO boot animation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=510573 Daniel Drake changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||WONTFIX --- Comment #7 from Daniel Drake 2009-07-16 11:51:33 EDT --- OK, lets keep this one out of tree for now. In the long term hopefully it will be possible to use plymouth instead. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 511148] Review Request: matahari - qmf agent for host management
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=511148
--- Comment #4 from Arjun Roy 2009-07-16 11:44:51 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> FIX- BuildRoot value (one of the recommended values)
>See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag
Buildroot changed to %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root.
> FIX- Source md5sum matches upstream
>No upstream release - consider setting up a simple webpage and a
>tarball (e.g., on fedorahosted); at the very minimum, tag the release
>in git. Once you have that URL should point to that released tarball,
>not git. If you don't do that, you need to explain in a comment before
>the URL how exactly you created the tarball (include the git commit/tag
>from which it was created)
Project URL updated to: http://arjunroy.fedorapeople.org/matahari/index.html
Site contains link to git, and current rpm files and source tarball.
Resubmitting with fixes for consideration:
SRPM: http://arjunroy.fedorapeople.org/matahari/matahari-0.0.4-4.fc11.src.rpm
Specfile: http://arjunroy.fedorapeople.org/matahari/matahari.spec
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 504477] Review Request: rubygem-launchy - Helper class for cross-platform launching of applications
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=504477 --- Comment #3 from Michal Ingeli 2009-07-16 11:45:46 EDT --- * builds in mock * rpmlint silent * source matches upstream * naming OK * clean spec file, american english * naming OK * file list, doc list OK * provides/requires OK - fix license, should be BSD [1] Note that provided spec file and srpm spec file differs. [1] http://copiousfreetime.rubyforge.org/launchy/LICENSE.html -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 511966] Review Request: zbar - bar code reader
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=511966 --- Comment #2 from Douglas Schilling Landgraf 2009-07-16 11:35:27 EDT --- Hello Fabian, Thanks for your review, here a new version based on your comments. md5sum: e1ba7b73625a3f0a48f0b84f353f3a95 zbar-0.8-1.fc11.src.rpm c1df24ddee24b1d1cf5e413bf2589408 zbar.spec URL to download: http://dougsland.com/zbar_package/zbar.spec http://dougsland.com/zbar_package/zbar-0.8-1.fc11.src.rpm Cheers, Douglas -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 512164] Review Request: olpc-update - OLPC system update tools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=512164 Daniel Drake changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||462625(FedoraOLPCDelta) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 512164] New: Review Request: olpc-update - OLPC system update tools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: olpc-update - OLPC system update tools https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=512164 Summary: Review Request: olpc-update - OLPC system update tools Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: d...@laptop.org QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://dev.laptop.org/~dsd/20090716/olpc-update.spec SRPM URL: http://dev.laptop.org/~dsd/20090716/olpc-update-2.19-1.fc11.src.rpm Description: This is a set of utilities used to update OLPC XO systems from a school server. Please consider for Fedora 11 inclusion. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 463808] Review Request: robotfindskitten - A game/zen simulation.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=463808 Will Woods changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Will Woods 2009-07-16 11:21:19 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: robotfindskitten Short Description: A game/zen simulation. You are robot. Your job is to find kitten. Owners: wwoods Branches: F-10 F-11 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 504477] Review Request: rubygem-launchy - Helper class for cross-platform launching of applications
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=504477 Michal Ingeli changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||m...@v3.sk AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|m...@v3.sk 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 486010] Review Request: mrbs - Meeting Room Booking 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=486010 Bug 486010 depends on bug 486009, which changed state. Bug 486009 Summary: Review Request: php-pear-Crypt-Blowfish - Quick two-way blowfish encryption https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=486009 What|Old Value |New Value Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED --- Comment #2 from Xavier Bachelot 2009-07-16 11:16:48 EDT --- Update to 1.4.2 : Spec URL: http://www.bachelot.org/fedora/SPECS/mrbs.spec SRPM URL: http://www.bachelot.org/fedora/SRPMS/mrbs-1.4.2-1.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 509807] Review Request: perl-CGI-Application-Standard-Config - Defines a standard configuration API for CGI::Application
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=509807 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System 2009-07-16 11:14:44 EDT --- perl-CGI-Application-Standard-Config-1.01-1.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-CGI-Application-Standard-Config-1.01-1.fc11 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 509807] Review Request: perl-CGI-Application-Standard-Config - Defines a standard configuration API for CGI::Application
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=509807 --- Comment #5 from Emmanuel Seyman 2009-07-16 11:11:08 EDT --- (In reply to comment #4) > > Is this built for all requested branches? Hum, I thought this too required CGI-Application-Dispatch. Building and releasing updates now. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 509524] Review Request: perl-Test-Unit-Runner-Xml - Generate XML reports from unit test results
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=509524 Xavier Bachelot changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||CURRENTRELEASE --- Comment #5 from Xavier Bachelot 2009-07-16 11:09:25 EDT --- Sorry, I forgot to add the bug number to the push request, so it was not closed automagically. The package has been push to F10 and F11 updates this morning and the EL-5 package is in epel-testing. Thanks for the heads up. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 512068] Review Request: rancid - Really Awesome New Cisco confIg Differ
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=512068
Mamoru Tasaka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp
--- Comment #3 from Mamoru Tasaka 2009-07-16
11:10:09 EDT ---
Well, I still think that the names of man pages like {a,b,c..}login.1.gz
par.1.gz or so will easily cause name space conflict.
Would you discuss the naming of binaries and man packages with the
upstream first?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 509806] Review Request: perl-CGI-Application-Server - Simple HTTP server for developing with CGI::Application
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=509806 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System 2009-07-16 11:12:26 EDT --- perl-CGI-Application-Server-0.061-1.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-CGI-Application-Server-0.061-1.fc11 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 509806] Review Request: perl-CGI-Application-Server - Simple HTTP server for developing with CGI::Application
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=509806 --- Comment #5 from Emmanuel Seyman 2009-07-16 11:05:26 EDT --- (In reply to comment #4) > > Is this built for all requested branches? This was waiting for CGI-Application-Dispatch which only got pushed out as an update today. Builds are underway as we speak. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
