[Bug 511204] Review Request: wicd - A wireless and wired network manager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=511204 --- Comment #11 from Rangeen Basu Roy Chowdhury sherry...@gmail.com 2009-08-09 02:00:25 EDT --- I'm going to review this package when Rangeen gives us an updated spec. I really like to see this in Fedora ASAP, but first we need to fix selinux-policy-targeted. Please take up the this package as I am not able to dedicate enough time towards packaging and Fedora in general ( Little busy with my job). You can put me as a co maintainer. If you want I can also review the package at some point of time. By the way, if this package can wait for some time then I will take up the task after some time, once I have sufficient time. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 510097] Review Request: python-urwid - console user interface for python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=510097 --- Comment #27 from Rangeen Basu Roy Chowdhury sherry...@gmail.com 2009-08-09 01:55:39 EDT --- Rangeen, would you like to co-maintain this package with Konstantinos? Konstantinos can help you with wicd in turn. This is useful is one of you is on holidays or has not enough time to look after the package. I am a little busy with my job + I do not have a proper net connection yet since I recently relocated. But hopefully I will be able to obtain a net connection soon and also I will have sufficient time from next week onwards. So if Konstantinos wants he can put me as a co-maintainer and I will definitely try to 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 516340] Review Request: fupt - Fedora Unity Paste tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=516340 --- Comment #3 from Ankur Sinha sanjay.an...@gmail.com 2009-08-09 03:07:59 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2) You can drop the buildroot. There is no need to define it anymore https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag Also cleaning it up in %install is unnecessary as well. See the next section. Can you also request upstream to consider using fedorahosted.org? The output Please tell us this resulting URL (may take a second) seems pretty ambiguous. If this is intended for a non technical audience, tell whom? What is URL If the upstream author needs help in better wording, fedora-docs list can be useful. updated spec and srpm: http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/fupt/fupt.spec http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/fupt/fupt-20090809-1.fc12.src.rpm regards, Ankur -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 498248] Review Request: viewmol - An open source graphical front end for computational chemistry programs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=498248 Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||WONTFIX --- Comment #10 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi 2009-08-09 03:19:28 EDT --- I have fixed the issues. However, the program segfaults straight away. Actually, I don't think there is much sense in packaging this. The latest release is from 2004, and this program has been the basis for a commercial product so I doubt that anything new will happen with it. Given that the build install is a mess, I wouldn't want to maintain the package either. So I think it's best to cancel this whole review. Closing as WONTFIX. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC 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 Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jussi.leht...@iki.fi 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 515670] Review Request: commanderstalin - Soviet Boswar modification
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=515670 Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jussi.leht...@iki.fi Depends on|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 491694] Review Request: anyterm - Web based terminal emulator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=491694 Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jussi.leht...@iki.fi 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 468516] Review Request: verilator - A fast simulator of synthesizable Verilog HDL
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468516 Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jussi.leht...@iki.fi 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 515045] Review Request: perl-Flickr-API - Perl interface to the Flickr API
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=515045 Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jussi.leht...@iki.fi Blocks|177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | Bug 515045 depends on bug 507801, which changed state. Bug 507801 Summary: Review Request: perl-XML-Parser-Lite-Tree - Lightweight XML tree builder https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=507801 What|Old Value |New Value Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||ERRATA -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 516343] Review Request: metadata-extractor - JPEG metadata extraction framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=516343 --- Comment #5 from Andrea Musuruane musur...@gmail.com 2009-08-09 04:00:31 EDT --- (In reply to comment #3) Did you try to BuildRequire: ant-junit ? It seems you lack the jar providing junit functions to ant Yes, that's what I get: [...] test: [junit] WARNING: multiple versions of ant detected in path for junit [junit] jar:file:/usr/share/java/ant-1.7.1.jar!/org/apache/tools/ant/Project.class [junit] and jar:file:/usr/share/java/ant.jar!/org/apache/tools/ant/Project.class [junit] Running com.drew.metadata.test.AllTests [junit] Tests run: 79, Failures: 1, Errors: 0, Time elapsed: 0,269 sec BUILD FAILED /home/andrea/devel/prg/metadata-extractor/build.xml:48: Test com.drew.metadata.test.AllTests failed Total time: 1 second (In reply to comment #4) can you please tell me what are the pro's of doing this? Is this something mandatory? It means that anyone trying to link to your jar can find it quite easily with build-classpath, and they wont have to update their package with the new jar version every time you update your version of this jar. I'll wait for more comments from your part to publish a new release. I'll include this improvement too. Thanks! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 502388] Review Request: mingw32-enchant - MinGW Windows Enchanting Spell Checking 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=502388 Kalev Lember ka...@smartlink.ee changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #7 from Kalev Lember ka...@smartlink.ee 2009-08-09 04:45:31 EDT --- Looks good. APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 507110] Review Request: openal-soft - OpenAL-Soft lib
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=507110 Thomas Kowaliczek linuxdon...@linuxdonald.de changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #21 from Thomas Kowaliczek linuxdon...@linuxdonald.de 2009-08-09 04:46:12 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: openal-soft Short Description: Open Audio Library Owners: linuxdonald Branches: devel InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 502388] Review Request: mingw32-enchant - MinGW Windows Enchanting Spell Checking 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=502388 Erik van Pienbroek erik-fed...@vanpienbroek.nl changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #8 from Erik van Pienbroek erik-fed...@vanpienbroek.nl 2009-08-09 04:53:44 EDT --- Thanks for the approval! New Package CVS Request === Package Name: mingw32-enchant Short Description: MinGW Windows Enchanting Spell Checking Library Owners: epienbro 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 515351] Review Request: vdr-epgsearch - Powerful schedules menu replacement plugin for VDR
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=515351 Ville Skyttä ville.sky...@iki.fi changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #3 from Ville Skyttä ville.sky...@iki.fi 2009-08-09 05:10:38 EDT --- Thanks for the review. Note that when you find time to test, this package uses the new ISA qualified dependency to vdr(abi) which is available in vdr = 1.6.0-26 which is currently in Rawhide only. I may end up pushing that to F-11 sometime later, but until that, either use Rawhide to test, rebuild vdr 1.6.0-26 for an earlier distro you're using, or install the plugin with --nodeps. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 512523] Review Request: graphem - Mouse Gesture based Authentication Program and Screen Locker
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=512523 --- Comment #5 from Dominic Hopf dma...@gmail.com 2009-08-09 05:38:12 EDT --- Just to clarify why I didn't upload a new release yet: I already fixed the issue with the license on my machine, but didn't think this small change was it worth to build and upload a new package. For any other issues i triggered upstream and I was told that graphem 0.3 will be available at the end of the coming week. So I think it's better to wait until this release with building and uploading a new package release instead of backporting those fixes for 0.2. I did *not* forget this issue. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 516341] Review Request: pcc - The Portable C Compiler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=516341 --- Comment #1 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi 2009-08-09 05:38:58 EDT --- Modified to use glibc version of crt. http://theory.physics.helsinki.fi/~jzlehtol/rpms/pcc.spec http://theory.physics.helsinki.fi/~jzlehtol/rpms/pcc-0.9.9-0.2.090809cvs.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 516343] Review Request: metadata-extractor - JPEG metadata extraction framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=516343 --- Comment #6 from Guido Grazioli guido.grazi...@gmail.com 2009-08-09 06:34:49 EDT --- (In reply to comment #5) (In reply to comment #3) Did you try to BuildRequire: ant-junit ? It seems you lack the jar providing junit functions to ant Yes, that's what I get: [...] test: [junit] WARNING: multiple versions of ant detected in path for junit [junit] jar:file:/usr/share/java/ant-1.7.1.jar!/org/apache/tools/ant/Project.class [junit] and jar:file:/usr/share/java/ant.jar!/org/apache/tools/ant/Project.class [junit] Running com.drew.metadata.test.AllTests [junit] Tests run: 79, Failures: 1, Errors: 0, Time elapsed: 0,269 sec BUILD FAILED /home/andrea/devel/prg/metadata-extractor/build.xml:48: Test com.drew.metadata.test.AllTests failed Total time: 1 second You can ignore the warning (/usr/share/java/ant/ant-junit.jar is a symlink to /usr/share/java/ant/ant-junit-1.7.1.jar); however the package fails in one of the tests, that's probably why junit build was excluded from debian folks too. Which locale do you run the jvm into? The code calls a decimal number formatter which returns x,xx (or x.xx depending on locale) instead of the expected x.xx (should work in us locales, it's bad written code however because it makes a comparison between a value processed depending on locale with a static string). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 516343] Review Request: metadata-extractor - JPEG metadata extraction framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=516343 --- Comment #7 from Guido Grazioli guido.grazi...@gmail.com 2009-08-09 06:40:59 EDT --- You can patch build.xml in the top directory: 48a49 jvmarg value=-Duser.language=en -Duser.country=US/ to make junit tests complete successfully, and send the patch upstream. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 510734] Review Request: x11vnc - VNC server for the current X11 session
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=510734 --- Comment #46 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) pa...@hubbitus.info 2009-08-09 06:47:57 EDT --- (In reply to comment #44) I don't want to kick anyone, but I agree with Christian, just click on the specfile you posted and it appears with standard tabsize 8 on my browser looking strange. Browser is not best spec-related tool, how you think? Would it be possible to link it against the regular liblzo even for the Fedora package? This would save us one condition. It is possible - http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1579635 But it some sort of hack. Are you sure what we should do it? That would be great, please do it! The lzo developer offers liblzo for shared builds and minilzo for embedded static builds. The current Fedora-only situation with a shared minilzo is awkward to say the least and should be removed. And if you get a patch to do the same with libvncserver you will win all my sympathy points and I will send you a truck full of good karma :) Ok, ok, I done that. And I think for libvncserver patch is pretty same. Also x11vnc also shared linked with system libvncserver if you speak about them. Christian Krause, as there appeared patch which must be applied only for Fedora 11 (this all troubles around separate X11 extensions into several packages) and I had introduce conditionals, I also replace file-based buildrequires, as you request before (I just don't known how omit it now :( ). http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1592731 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1592750 http://hubbitus.net.ru/rpm/Fedora11/x11vnc/x11vnc.spec http://hubbitus.net.ru/rpm/Fedora11/x11vnc/x11vnc-0.9.8-8.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 516336] Review Request: mmapper - Graphical MUME mapper
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=516336
Erik van Pienbroek erik-fed...@vanpienbroek.nl changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||erik-fed...@vanpienbroek.nl
Blocks||182235(FE-Legal)
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|erik-fed...@vanpienbroek.nl
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Erik van Pienbroek erik-fed...@vanpienbroek.nl
2009-08-09 06:54:48 EDT ---
Taking for review
Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1592755
$ rpmlint mmapper.spec
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
$ rpmlint ../SRPMS/mmapper-2.0.4-1.final2.fc12.src.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
$ rpmlint ../RPMS/x86_64/mmapper-2.0.4-1.final2.fc12.x86_64.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
$ md5sum ~/Downloads/mmapper-2.0.4-final2-source.tar.gz
ba690157374e51bf11291accb5de3b0e
/home/erik/Downloads/mmapper-2.0.4-final2-source.tar.gz
$ md5sum ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES/mmapper-2.0.4-final2-source.tar.gz
ba690157374e51bf11291accb5de3b0e
/home/erik/rpmbuild/SOURCES/mmapper-2.0.4-final2-source.tar.gz
+ OK
! Needs to be looked into
/ Not applicable
[+] rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the
review
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption on Package Naming Guidelines
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines .
[!] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[+] 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.
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL.
[+] MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one supported architecture.
[/] 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.
[+] 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.
[/] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
[/] MUST: Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files (not just
symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in
%post and %postun.
[/] 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.
[/] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates.
[+] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
[+] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} ( or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT ).
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros
section of Packaging Guidelines .
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[/] MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage.
[+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application.
[/] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[/] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[/] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'
(for directory ownership and usability).
[/] 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.
[/] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release}
[+] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be
removed in the spec.
[+] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file, and that file must be properly installed
[Bug 504468] Review Request: rubygem-treetop - A Ruby-based text parsing and interpretation DSL
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=504468
Jan Klepek jan.kle...@hp.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #10 from Jan Klepek jan.kle...@hp.com 2009-08-09 07:21:22 EDT ---
rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the
review.
- Ok
The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
- Ok
The spec file name must match the base package %{name}.
- ok
The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
- ok, meets packaging and ruby specific guidelines
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.
- ok
The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least
one primary architecture.
- ok
ExcludeArch present.
- ok, no excludearch
All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.
- ok
The spec file MUST handle locales properly.
- ok
Ldconfig in %post and %postun.
- ok, not needed
Relocatable package and /usr prefix.
- ok, not relocatable
A package must own all directories that it creates.
- ok
A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files
listings.
- ok
Permissions on files must be set properly.
- ok
Each package must have a correct %clean section.
- ok
Each package must consistently use macros.
- ok
The package must contain code, or permissable content.
- ok
Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
- ok
If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the
application.
- ok
Header files must be in a -devel package.
- ok, no header
Static libraries must be in a -static package.
- ok, no static
Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' .
- ok, no .pc
Library with .so suffix must be in -devel package.
- ok, no .so library
In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package
using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
- ok, no devel
Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in
the spec if they are built.
- ok, no .la
Gui application and desktop-file-install.
- ok, no gui
Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages.
- ok
At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
- ok
All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
- ok
conclusion: 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 493246] Review Request: Shutter -- a feature-rich screenshot program.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=493246 Jan Klepek jan.kle...@hp.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #31 from Jan Klepek jan.kle...@hp.com 2009-08-09 07:34:40 EDT --- 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 504476] Review Request: rubygem-newgem - Bundle Ruby libraries into a RubyGem
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=504476 Jan Klepek jan.kle...@hp.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 503013] Review Request: gnaughty - Downloader for adult content
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=503013 Robert Scheck red...@linuxnetz.de changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #31 from Robert Scheck red...@linuxnetz.de 2009-08-09 08:48:01 EDT --- I'm acting here now as provenpackager on behalf of Simon Wesp (comment #29). New Package CVS Request === Package Name: gnaughty Short Description: Downloader for adult content Owners: cassmodiah 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 458866] Review Request: xls2csv - A script that recodes a spreadsheet's charset and saves as CSV
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458866
--- Comment #7 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) pa...@hubbitus.info
2009-08-09 09:43:16 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #6)
Therefore I think writing make is just as future-proof as
%{__make}, and it's easier to read. The macros aren't forbidden though, as
far as I know.
I thought about it.
But rpmbuild don't add next requires:
perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.10.0)
You should keep that one, according to the guidelines.
Ok.
perl-Unicode-Map or perl(Unicode::Map)
perl-Spreadsheet-ParseExcel depends on perl(Unicode::Map), so you get that
pulled in by the automatic dependency on perl(Spreadsheet::ParseExcel)
Hm... Such dependency may be broken in the future. Imagine:
perl(Spreadsheet::ParseExcel) in the future may change implementation to do not
use perl(Unicode::Map). Therefore, it is not mean what this package not use it
also. So, I think it Requires: perl(Unicode::Map) should be explicit there.
When I build the package I get an automatic dependency on
perl(Locale::Recode),
which perl-libintl provides.
Ok, I wasn't saw that.
Sorry, I don't want change tabs to spaces.
Well, if this is what you want others to see when they read your spec, it's
your choice:
http://www.rombobjörn.se/diverse/xls2csv.png
It is a requirement that the spec be legible, but this misalignment isn't bad
enough to make it illegible, so I suppose it's allowed.
Please, see explanations of Ralf Corsepius there -
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=510865#c23 . In any case I can't
say more. Please keep in mind - I am very grateful that he came, but I did not
ask him about it myself.
BTW, Björn Persson, thank you for the help. Half way done, don't you want
review this package?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 516340] Review Request: fupt - Fedora Unity Paste tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=516340 Rahul Sundaram sunda...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|sunda...@redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 516340] Review Request: fupt - Fedora Unity Paste tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=516340 Rahul Sundaram sunda...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Rahul Sundaram sunda...@redhat.com 2009-08-09 12:13:26 EDT --- GPLv3 requires a copy of the license to be included with the source. So add it as a additional source. Once you do that, you can go ahead and apply for cvs. 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 516340] Review Request: fupt - Fedora Unity Paste tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=516340 Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rc040...@freenet.de --- Comment #5 from Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de 2009-08-09 12:31:20 EDT --- (In reply to comment #4) Approved Do you think this was a wise decision? I don't. IMO, this package is not ready of public consumption. Rationale: - No understandable documentation. I have never heard about fpaste.org before, don't why I would want to access it, nor do I understand what this package does nor why I would want to install it. - Very immature implementation of the script. * No usage(), no support for --help. * Naming a script *.sh is unnessary on Unix. * Using a 4 letter name such as fupt for such a script is not necessarily a wise decision. - Improper upstream packaging (no tarball, no versions, ... ... part of this (as you already mentioned: improper licensing). - The script is unsafe: if [ ! -e /usr/bin/curl ]; then ... cat $1 | curl -s -i -F content=-;type=text/plain .. ... Note: It tests for /usr/bin/curl but runs curl. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 516433] New: Review Request: blazeblogger - A simple to use but capable CMS for the command line
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: blazeblogger - A simple to use but capable CMS for the
command line
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=516433
Summary: Review Request: blazeblogger - A simple to use but
capable CMS for the command line
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Platform: All
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: medium
Priority: medium
Component: Package Review
AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org
ReportedBy: sebast...@when.com
QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com
Estimated Hours: 0.0
Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: http://sdz.fedorapeople.org/rpmbuild/blazeblogger.spec
SRPM URL:
http://sdz.fedorapeople.org/rpmbuild/blazeblogger-0.9.0-1.fc11.src.rpm
Koji Scratch Build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1593092
[sebast...@localhost ~]$ rpmlint blazeblogger-0.9.0-1.fc11.noarch.rpm
blazeblogger.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/bin/blaze-config
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
This is apparently caused by the *-config file name in %{_bindir} and has been
noted by the MiniGW folks in #468987.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 516340] Review Request: fupt - Fedora Unity Paste tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=516340 --- Comment #6 from Ankur Sinha sanjay.an...@gmail.com 2009-08-09 12:44:55 EDT --- (In reply to comment #5) (In reply to comment #4) Approved Do you think this was a wise decision? I don't. IMO, this package is not ready of public consumption. Rationale: - No understandable documentation. I have never heard about fpaste.org before, don't why I would want to access it, nor do I understand what this package does nor why I would want to install it. - Very immature implementation of the script. * No usage(), no support for --help. * Naming a script *.sh is unnessary on Unix. * Using a 4 letter name such as fupt for such a script is not necessarily a wise decision. - Improper upstream packaging (no tarball, no versions, ... ... part of this (as you already mentioned: improper licensing). - The script is unsafe: if [ ! -e /usr/bin/curl ]; then ... cat $1 | curl -s -i -F content=-;type=text/plain .. ... Note: It tests for /usr/bin/curl but runs curl. hi, I'm waiting on Rahul to confirm the approval. I can ask upstream to do the needful if it's really needed. regards, Ankur -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 516340] Review Request: fupt - Fedora Unity Paste tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=516340 --- Comment #7 from Rahul Sundaram sunda...@redhat.com 2009-08-09 12:47:32 EDT --- These are not really packaging issues but you can talk to upstream about it. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 515351] Review Request: vdr-epgsearch - Powerful schedules menu replacement plugin for VDR
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=515351 Ville-Pekka Vainio vpiva...@cs.helsinki.fi changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Ville-Pekka Vainio vpiva...@cs.helsinki.fi 2009-08-09 12:48:54 EDT --- I tested this package by updating VDR and all the other plugins from Rawhide, Fedora 11's RPM has support for packages with XZ payload now, so it was no problem. The package seems to work fine, although the update removed all my search timers, that's probably due to a path having been changed between earlier testing versions of the package and the latest. It doesn't have anything to do with the review, though. In my opinion this package is suitable for inclusion into Fedora and I will accept the package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 516340] Review Request: fupt - Fedora Unity Paste tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=516340 --- Comment #8 from Ankur Sinha sanjay.an...@gmail.com 2009-08-09 12:55:03 EDT --- (In reply to comment #7) These are not really packaging issues but you can talk to upstream about it. okay.. im packaging it in the mean time.. if and when upstream responds, ill release a new package.. regards, Ankur -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 515079] Review Request: perl-Config-Model - Framework to create configuration validation tools and editors
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=515079 --- Comment #7 from David Hannequin david.hanneq...@gmail.com 2009-08-09 13:01:00 EDT --- Hi, Spec URL: http://hvad.cfppa-cibeins.com/perl-modules/perl-Config-Model/perl-Config-Model.spec SRPM URL: http://hvad.cfppa-cibeins.com/perl-modules/perl-Config-Model/perl-Config-Model-0.638-4.fc10.src.rpm Best regard -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 516340] Review Request: fupt - Fedora Unity Paste tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=516340 Ankur Sinha sanjay.an...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #9 from Ankur Sinha sanjay.an...@gmail.com 2009-08-09 13:05:08 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: fupt Short Description: Fedora Unity Paste tool Owners: ankursinha Branches: F-11 F-10 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 514928] Review Request: rubygem-fastercsv - FasterCSV is CSV, but faster, smaller and cleaner
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=514928 --- Comment #4 from Robert Scheck redhat-bugzi...@linuxnetz.de 2009-08-09 13:37:16 EDT --- Thank you both so far, I hopefully addressed all mentioned issues now: Spec URL: http://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/rubygem-fastercsv.spec SRPM URL: http://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/rubygem-fastercsv-1.5.0-2.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 515079] Review Request: perl-Config-Model - Framework to create configuration validation tools and editors
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=515079 Jochen Schmitt joc...@herr-schmitt.de changed: What|Removed |Added CC||joc...@herr-schmitt.de --- Comment #8 from Jochen Schmitt joc...@herr-schmitt.de 2009-08-09 13:52:44 EDT --- @ lain, If you want tprovo ape a package please set the fedora-review flag to '+'. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 514602] Review Request: system-config-audit - an utility for editing audit configuration
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=514602 Jochen Schmitt joc...@herr-schmitt.de changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review?, |fedora-review+ |needinfo?(joc...@herr-schmi | |tt.de) | --- Comment #7 from Jochen Schmitt joc...@herr-schmitt.de 2009-08-09 14:15:53 EDT --- OK; I have take a short look on it and it seems to be ok, so I can approve your package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 515079] Review Request: perl-Config-Model - Framework to create configuration validation tools and editors
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=515079 David Hannequin david.hanneq...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 515079] Review Request: perl-Config-Model - Framework to create configuration validation tools and editors
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=515079 --- Comment #9 from Iain Arnell iarn...@gmail.com 2009-08-09 16:23:03 EDT --- Yep, that looks good now - would set the flag if Jochen hadn't beaten me to it ;) 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 515079] Review Request: perl-Config-Model - Framework to create configuration validation tools and editors
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=515079 David Hannequin david.hanneq...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 515079] Review Request: perl-Config-Model - Framework to create configuration validation tools and editors
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=515079 --- Comment #10 from David Hannequin david.hanneq...@gmail.com 2009-08-09 18:06:38 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: perl-Config-Model Short Description: Framework to create configuration validation tools and editors Owners: hvad Branches: F-10 F-11 InitialCC: hvad -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 515046] Review Request: perl-XML-Parser-Lite-Tree-XPath - XPath access to XML::Parser::Lite::Tree structures
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=515046
Ashay ashay.hum...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ashay.hum...@gmail.com
Bug 515046 depends on bug 507801, which changed state.
Bug 507801 Summary: Review Request: perl-XML-Parser-Lite-Tree - Lightweight XML
tree builder
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=507801
What|Old Value |New Value
Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
Resolution||ERRATA
--- Comment #1 from Ashay ashay.hum...@gmail.com 2009-08-09 18:40:46 EDT ---
Here is my informal review:
NA = Not Applicable
X = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== Required Items ===
[X] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
the review.[1]
rpmlint is clean.
[X] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
.
[X] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [2] .
[X] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
[X] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines .
[X] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license. [3]
[NA] 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]
[X] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [5]
[X] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [6]
[X] 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.
[X] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture. [7]
Tested with rpmbuild and mock on:
F11/x86_64
F11/i586
[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. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line. [8]
[X] 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.
[NA] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using
the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.[9]
[NA] 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]
[NA] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must
state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker. [11]
[X] 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]
[X] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file's %files listings. [13]
[X] 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]
[X] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [15]
[X] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [16]
[X] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [17]
[NA] 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]
[X] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must
run properly if it is not present. [18]
[NA] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [19]
[NA] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [20]
[NA] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires:
[Bug 516464] New: Review Request: adtool - Active Directory administration utility for Unix
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: adtool - Active Directory administration utility for Unix https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=516464 Summary: Review Request: adtool - Active Directory administration utility for Unix Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: ashay.hum...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://ashay.info/rpm/adtool.spec SRPM URL: http://ashay.info/rpm/adtool-1.3.2-1.fc11.src.rpm Description: adtool is a unix command line utility for Active Directory administration. Features include user and group creation, deletion, modification, password setting and directory query and search capabilities. This is my second package, first one is yet to be sponsored. First one: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=513541 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 516466] New: Review Request: sys_basher - multi-threaded hardware tester
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: sys_basher - multi-threaded hardware tester https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=516466 Summary: Review Request: sys_basher - multi-threaded hardware tester Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: bjro...@polybus.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://www.polybus.com/sys_basher_web/ SRPM URL: http://www.polybus.com/sys_basher/sys_basher-1.1.17-1.fc11.src.rpm Description: sys_basher is a multi-threaded harware exerciser. It tests CPUs, RAM and Disk I/O under the most stressful conditions -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458866] Review Request: xls2csv - A script that recodes a spreadsheet's charset and saves as CSV
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458866 --- Comment #9 from Björn Persson bj...@xn--rombobjrn-67a.se 2009-08-09 21:04:18 EDT --- (In reply to comment #7) perl-Spreadsheet-ParseExcel depends on perl(Unicode::Map), so you get that pulled in by the automatic dependency on perl(Spreadsheet::ParseExcel) Hm... Such dependency may be broken in the future. Imagine: perl(Spreadsheet::ParseExcel) in the future may change implementation to do not use perl(Unicode::Map). Therefore, it is not mean what this package not use it also. So, I think it Requires: perl(Unicode::Map) should be explicit there. The question is, does xls2csv use Unicode::Map directly, or does it need Unicode::Map only because Spreadsheet::ParseExcel uses it? Unicode::Map isn't mentioned anywhere in the code, only in the documentation. I also searched for the names of the documented methods of Unicode::Map, and didn't find any of them. Therefore I think that xls2csv doesn't use Unicode::Map directly, and that if Spreadsheet::ParseExcel gets changed to not use Unicode::Map, then xls2csv won't need it either. I'm not a Perl expert however, so I may have missed something. You may want to ask for advice on Fedora-perl-devel-list. BTW, Björn Persson, thank you for the help. Half way done, don't you want review this package? I'm not qualified to do reviews. Comment and discuss like this is all I can do until I find a sponsor, but I think this package is close to being ready for approval. There is one thing I haven't mentioned before because I wasn't sure what's right, namely the license field. Using and in the license field means that the package contains some files with one license and some other files with another license. That's not really possible when the whole program is only one file. The licensing guidelines also say that in such cases there must be a comment explaining what parts are covered by which license. (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios) So should it be GPL+ or Artistic or GPLv2+ or Artistic? I'm not sure. The Perl packaging document seems to say that the same terms as Perl itself should be translated to GPL+ or Artistic (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Perl#License_tag), but the points it makes aren't about the distinction between GPL+ and GPLv2+. Perhaps you should ask on Fedora-perl-devel-list about this 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 504468] Review Request: rubygem-treetop - A Ruby-based text parsing and interpretation DSL
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=504468 Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #11 from Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk 2009-08-09 22:28:26 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: rubygem-treetop Short Description: A Ruby-based text parsing and interpretation DSL Owners: lkundrak Branches: F-11 EL-5 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 514452] Review Request: trac-agilo-plugin - a trac plugin to support the Scrum process.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=514452 --- Comment #2 from Asgeir Frimannsson asge...@redhat.com 2009-08-10 00:25:42 EDT --- 0.8 was released last week, so I'll update the spec to 0.8 final tomorrow. http://www.agile42.com/cms/blog/2009/08/5/agilo-pro-10-and-agilo-08-released- today-/ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 516340] Review Request: fupt - Fedora Unity Paste tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=516340 --- Comment #10 from Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de 2009-08-10 01:05:13 EDT --- (In reply to comment #7) These are not really packaging issues but you can talk to upstream about it. Pardon? A package being immature certainly is a review issue. It's one of the key points of why reviews exits. The fact, you (Rahul) are missing this, even on such a trivial package, is a scandal! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 361701] Review Request: konserve - System tray application that performs periodic backups
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=361701 Ben Boeckel maths...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||maths...@gmail.com --- Comment #20 from Ben Boeckel maths...@gmail.com 2009-08-10 01:06:51 EDT --- @Jason: There hasn't been a release since 2004[1] and upstream seems dead (no public repo on sf.net[2], nor one ont he webpage to be able to really tell). It's also KDE3-based which is unmaintained, so its future is bleak. @Marcela: If you're still interested in packaging this, please respond. [1]http://sourceforge.net/projects/konserve/files/ [2]http://konserve.cvs.sourceforge.net/konserve -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 512627] Review Request: MiniCopier - Graphical copy manager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=512627 Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #7 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2009-08-10 01:33:50 EDT --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 516340] Review Request: fupt - Fedora Unity Paste tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=516340 Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #11 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2009-08-10 01:32:39 EDT --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 513119] Review Request: PgsLookAndFeel - Nice looking LookAndFeel for Swing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=513119 Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #26 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2009-08-10 01:34:55 EDT --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 502388] Review Request: mingw32-enchant - MinGW Windows Enchanting Spell Checking 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=502388 Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #9 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2009-08-10 01:37:34 EDT --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 503013] Review Request: gnaughty - Downloader for adult content
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=503013 Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #32 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2009-08-10 01:36:33 EDT --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 507110] Review Request: openal-soft - OpenAL-Soft lib
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=507110 Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #22 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2009-08-10 01:39:29 EDT --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 515079] Review Request: perl-Config-Model - Framework to create configuration validation tools and editors
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=515079 Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #11 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2009-08-10 01:42:36 EDT --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 504468] Review Request: rubygem-treetop - A Ruby-based text parsing and interpretation DSL
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=504468 Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #12 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2009-08-10 01:43:33 EDT --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
