[Bug 518315] Review Request: vanessa_logger - Generic logging layer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=518315 Andrew Colin Kissa and...@topdog.za.net changed: What|Removed |Added CC||and...@topdog.za.net --- Comment #1 from Andrew Colin Kissa and...@topdog.za.net 2009-08-22 02:40:48 EDT --- * Dependency issue - vanessa_logger-sample should depend on vanessa_logger not on vanessa_logger-devel, as libvanessa_logger.so.0 is in vanessa_logger not in the devel 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 516337] Review Request: perl-Devel-LeakGuard-Object - Scoped checks for object leaks
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=516337 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-08-22 02:47:53 EDT --- perl-Devel-LeakGuard-Object-0.06-1.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Devel-LeakGuard-Object-0.06-1.fc10 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 516337] Review Request: perl-Devel-LeakGuard-Object - Scoped checks for object leaks
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=516337 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-08-22 02:47:48 EDT --- perl-Devel-LeakGuard-Object-0.06-1.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Devel-LeakGuard-Object-0.06-1.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 510668] Review Request: canorus - Music Score 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=510668 --- Comment #17 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com 2009-08-22 02:46:08 EDT --- Yay! Finally! I'm very sorry for the delay (In reply to comment #13) * naming: TODO - name matches upstream - spec file name matches package name - snapshot release tag (assuming it is a post-release snapshot) should contain the date (the svnrev can be appended, but the date is required) ( according to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Snapshot_packages ) Added * License: TODO - the package contains sources under the GPLv2, too: src/import/pmidi/except.c (GPLv2 as published), most likely this means that the complete package must be released as GPLv2 - the source package (and the built binary package) contain lots of examples and so it is necessary to check their legal status - in the worst case they must not only be stripped out from the binary but also from the sources - do you have any information whether they are distributable? - license file packaged: if the final package would be GPLv2, then we should not package GPLv1 I removed the midi and the xml files which have unclear licenses. Also removed a can file with bad license. I created a new tarball and gave the instructions. Upstream told me the program itself is GPLv2. * Sources: OK - Source0 URL ok - spectool -g canorus.spec works - sources matches upstream - md5sum: 2dc201fec21d781d0add487c5a9ed35b canorus_0.7svn.R1163_source.tar.bz2 - even if the URL for the nightly builds is linked directly from canorus' homepage it is a little bit strange to use plain IP addresses here - let's hope that upstream does an official release soon and the URL can be changed again to something like this: http://prdownload.berlios.de/canorus/canorus_0.7.R1002_source.tar.bz2 Yes, I will turn to regular release tarballs when the software turns more stable. * Locales handling: TODO The package contains language files in a non-gettext format (*.qm files). Is it necessary to add them also via the %lang(xx) tag? Yes, we do this with qt applications. For instance, I was asked in the past explicitly to mark the .qm files as %lang(xx) for qjackctl and qsynth * code vs. content: TODO - see above (license issues) - package contains example midi files, sheets of music, etc. (3.5 MB) - according to the guidelines examples in general are not considered as content, but if they e.g. contain notes from music which is still under copyright I assume it would not be permissable... See above * functional test: TODO - program segfaults when it is closed - program segfaults when opening any of the musicxml examples Yes, the last time I talked to them on IRC upstream knew about the issue. But I didn't contact them in the past 3-4 weeks (I was too busy) so I don't know what is the current situation. Upstream had told me before that canorus is still alpha quality, for the time being. But they did a good job for a start and I see it worth packaging. Spec URL: http://oget.fedorapeople.org/review/canorus.spec SRPM URL: http://oget.fedorapeople.org/review/canorus-0.7-3.R1177.20090804svn.fc11.src.rpm koji rawhide build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1624776 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 518315] Review Request: vanessa_logger - Generic logging layer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=518315
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Colin Kissa and...@topdog.za.net 2009-08-22
02:53:29 EDT ---
* Is this a typo ? confgure|configure
# I am providing my own configure macro replacement. Hopefully this
# will result in fewer portability problems than using the one supplied
# by various vendours. I fear that I hope in vein.
CFLAGS=${CFLAGS:-%optflags} ; export CFLAGS
if [ -f confgure.in ]; then
aclocal
libtoolize --force --copy
autoheader
automake
autoconf
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 516337] Review Request: perl-Devel-LeakGuard-Object - Scoped checks for object leaks
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=516337 Iain Arnell iarn...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 502130] Review Request: openocd - Open On-Chip Debugger
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=502130 Chitlesh GOORAH chitl...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||davi...@pacbell.net Blocks|177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | --- Comment #13 from Chitlesh GOORAH chitl...@gmail.com 2009-08-22 03:25:31 EDT --- I sponsored you as a Fedora packager with its relative rights. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 502130] Review Request: openocd - Open On-Chip Debugger
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=502130
--- Comment #14 from Chitlesh GOORAH chitl...@gmail.com 2009-08-22 03:47:47
EDT ---
The package looks good to me except the following warnings are found during the
rpmbuild
warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/openocd/contrib/libdcc
warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/openocd/contrib/libdcc/README
warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/openocd/contrib/libdcc/dcc_stdio.c
warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/openocd/contrib/libdcc/dcc_stdio.h
warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/openocd/contrib/libdcc/example.c
warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/openocd/contrib/openocd.udev
To fix it, replace
%{_datadir}/%{name}
by
%dir %{_datadir}/%{name}
%{_datadir}/%{name}/scripts
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 502130] Review Request: openocd - Open On-Chip Debugger
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=502130
--- Comment #15 from Chitlesh GOORAH chitl...@gmail.com 2009-08-22 03:48:28
EDT ---
[Pending] MUST: the package does not contain any duplicate files in the %files
listing.
[Pending] MUST: the package owns all directories that it creates.
Fix the %files as mentioned above
---
- MUST: The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
- MUST: The spec file name matches the base package %{name}
- MUST: The package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
- MUST: The package is licensed (GPLv2) with an open-source compatible license
and meet other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
- MUST: The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
- MUST: the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file,
then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is
included in %doc.
- MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
- MUST: The spec file for the package is be legible.
- MUST: The sources used to build the package must matches the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL.
- MUST: The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least i586.
- MUST: All build dependencies is listed in BuildRequires.
- MUST: The spec file handles locales properly.: No locales in this package
- MUST: the package is not designed to be relocatable
- MUST: Permissions on files are set properly.
- MUST: The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}
(or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
- MUST: The package consistently uses macros, as described in the macros
section of Packaging Guidelines.
- MUST: The package contains code, or permissible content. This is described in
detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines.
- MUST: There are no Large documentation files
- MUST: %doc does not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If
it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present.
- MUST: There are no Header files or static libraries
- MUST: The package does not contain library files with a suffix
- MUST: Package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives
- MUST: Package does not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
SHOULD Items:
- SHOULD: The source package does include license text(s) as COPYING
- SHOULD: mock builds succcessfully in i586.
- SHOULD: The reviewer tested that the package functions as described. A
package should not segfault instead of running, for example.
- SHOULD: Those scriptlets used are sane.
- SHOULD: No subpackages present.
Update the package for approval.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 486570] Review Request: courier-authlib - The Courier authentication library provides authentication services for other Courier 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=486570 Itamar Reis Peixoto ita...@ispbrasil.com.br changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|ita...@ispbrasil.com.br |nob...@fedoraproject.org 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 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 #12 from D Haley my...@yahoo.com 2009-08-22 07:32:53 EDT ---
Your uploaded spec and SRPM do not appear to match. Please do not modify the
uploaded spec without posting a matching SRPM.
Please repost an updated SRPM with the changes suggested by Guido (Comment
11). Also I don't think you need Requires: jpackage-utils in the javadoc
package, as it depends on the main, which also requires jpackage-utils.
Read upsteam homepage for license information
Upstream says The code is protected by copyright, though only to avoid people
selling it unmodified or copyrighting it themselves. Which is not quite PD,
but close. Someone else may need to confirm the licencing here. All the source
headers appear to be in place.
$ diff -uh metadata-extractor.spec metadata-extractor.spec-orig
--- metadata-extractor.spec 2009-08-11 04:58:42.0 +1000
+++ metadata-extractor.spec-orig 2009-08-22 21:32:37.0 +1000
@@ -11,15 +11,13 @@
# Patch provided by Gabriel Ebner to remove all references to the
# com.sun classes. Package builds with a free java implementation now.
Patch0: %{name}-2.3.1-nosun.patch
-# Patch provided by Guido Grazioli to make junit tests complete successfully
-Patch1: %{name}-2.3.1-buildxml.patch
BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
BuildArch: noarch
BuildRequires: jpackage-utils
BuildRequires: java-devel
BuildRequires: ant
-BuildRequires: ant-junit
+BuildRequires: junit
Requires: jpackage-utils
Requires: java
@@ -44,7 +42,6 @@
%prep
%setup -q -c
%patch0 -p1
-%patch1 -p0
# Remove pre-built JAR and class files
find -name '*.jar' -exec rm -f '{}' \;
@@ -56,6 +53,9 @@
# Fix end-of-line encoding
sed -i 's/\r//' ChangeLog.txt
+# Do not execute unit test
+sed -i 's:clean, compile, test:clean, compile:' build.xml
+
%build
ant dist-binaries javadoc
@@ -96,9 +96,8 @@
%changelog
-* Mon Aug 10 2009 Andrea Musuruane musur...@gmail.com 2.3.1-2
+* Sun Aug 09 2009 Andrea Musuruane musur...@gmail.com 2.3.1-2
- Created JAR alias
-- Added a patch to make junit tests complete successfully
* Sun Aug 02 2009 Andrea Musuruane musur...@gmail.com 2.3.1-1
- First release
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 511144] Review Request: openstreetmap - A JavaScript library for displaying the OpenStreetMap.org map data
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=511144 D Haley my...@yahoo.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||my...@yahoo.com --- Comment #4 from D Haley my...@yahoo.com 2009-08-22 07:48:59 EDT --- Quick 2 cents: Openlayers is in fedora -- why is this package needed? I need this API for an application I'm developping *snip* Possibility 2 causes problems, as upstream might make a new release and break API compatibility. How is this a fedora problem? Why would fedora want two packages of the same code from different upstreams? This seems most odd. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 511144] Review Request: openstreetmap - A JavaScript library for displaying the OpenStreetMap.org map data
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=511144 --- Comment #5 from Mathieu Bridon boche...@fedoraproject.org 2009-08-22 08:18:52 EDT --- Openlayers and OpenStreetMap are not the same code. This openstreetmap package extends the openlayers one for accessing the OpenStreetMap.org data. So this is just another Javascript library, built on top of the OL library. For example, some of the OSM code got merged in the OL 2.8 release as it was generic code. But the rest really is an extension of OL. Maybe the two will be merged one day, I have no idea. Until then, both are different and, depending on what you do, needed. (and yes, I know OL is in Fedora, I co-maintain 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 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 #13 from Andrea Musuruane musur...@gmail.com 2009-08-22 09:23:08 EDT --- (In reply to comment #12) Please repost an updated SRPM with the changes suggested by Guido (Comment 11). Also I don't think you need Requires: jpackage-utils in the javadoc package, as it depends on the main, which also requires jpackage-utils. Spec URL: http://www.webalice.it/musuruan/RPMS/reviews/metadata-extractor.spec SRPM URL: http://www.webalice.it/musuruan/RPMS/reviews/metadata-extractor-2.3.1-3.fc10.src.rpm Changelog: * Sat Aug 22 2009 Andrea Musuruane musur...@gmail.com 2.3.1-3 - Used a different workaround as suggested by Guido Grazioli to make junit tests complete successfully Please note that I didn't removed the Requires: jpackage-utils because this exactly what is used in the ant template you can find in the Java Packaging Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java Read upsteam homepage for license information Upstream says The code is protected by copyright, though only to avoid people selling it unmodified or copyrighting it themselves. Which is not quite PD, but close. Someone else may need to confirm the licencing here. All the source headers appear to be in place. Upstream, in the About this library paragraph in its homepage, also states this: This metadata library is available with Java source code for usage in the public domain. Moreover, as you noted, all source files contain the following text: * This class is public domain software - that is, you can do whatever you want * with it, and include it software that is licensed under the GNU or the * BSD license, or whatever other licence you choose, including proprietary * closed source licenses. Similarly, I release this Java version under the * same license, though I do ask that you leave this header in tact. * * If you make modifications to this code that you think would benefit the * wider community, please send me a copy and I'll post it on my site. * * If you make use of this code, I'd appreciate hearing about it. * drew.noa...@drewnoakes.com * Latest version of this software kept at * http://drewnoakes.com/ Or the following text: * This is public domain software - that is, you can do whatever you want * with it, and include it software that is licensed under the GNU or the * BSD license, or whatever other licence you choose, including proprietary * closed source licenses. I do ask that you leave this header in tact. * * If you make modifications to this code that you think would benefit the * wider community, please send me a copy and I'll post it on my site. * * If you make use of this code, I'd appreciate hearing about it. * d...@drewnoakes.com * Latest version of this software kept at * http://drewnoakes.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 508922] Review Request: system-config-selinux - GUI Code for system-config-selinux, polgen, and lockdown
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=508922 --- Comment #11 from Christopher Pardy chris.pa...@gmail.com 2009-08-22 09:44:42 EDT --- I've removed all the selinux commands, it should now build but requires packages that currently must be built out of koji to run. Spec URL: http://www.fedorahosted.org/releases/s/y/system-config-selinux/system-config-selinux.spec SRPM URL: http://www.fedorahosted.org/releases/s/y/system-config-selinux/system-config-selinux-0.2-3.fc11.src.rpm Description: system-config-selinux provides the graphical tools system-config-selinux and selinux-polgen for managing SELinux systems. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 502130] Review Request: openocd - Open On-Chip Debugger
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=502130 --- Comment #16 from Dean Glazeski dngl...@gmail.com 2009-08-22 10:04:50 EDT --- (In reply to comment #15) I've updated the spec file to have the fix for the warnings about the files being listed twice. New links given below. http://files.dinoprojects.com/openocd/openocd-0.2.0-4.fc11.src.rpm http://files.dinoprojects.com/openocd/openocd.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 516971] Review Request: tokyotyrant - A network interface to Tokyo Cabinet
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=516971 --- Comment #9 from Silas Sewell si...@sewell.ch 2009-08-22 10:27:00 EDT --- Thanks Mamoru Tasaka. I've fixed the URL. diff: http://code.google.com/p/silassewell/source/detail?r=316 srpm: http://code.google.com/p/silassewell/downloads/detail?name=tokyotyrant-1.1.33-5.fc12.src.rpm [si...@fox rpmbuild]$ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/result/*.rpm tokyotyrant.i586: W: non-standard-uid /var/lib/tokyotyrant tokyotyrant tokyotyrant.i586: W: non-standard-gid /var/lib/tokyotyrant tokyotyrant tokyotyrant.i586: W: non-standard-uid /var/run/tokyotyrant tokyotyrant tokyotyrant.i586: W: non-standard-gid /var/run/tokyotyrant tokyotyrant tokyotyrant.i586: W: non-standard-uid /var/log/tokyotyrant tokyotyrant tokyotyrant.i586: W: non-standard-gid /var/log/tokyotyrant tokyotyrant 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 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 516971] Review Request: tokyotyrant - A network interface to Tokyo Cabinet
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=516971 Silas Sewell si...@sewell.ch changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #10 from Silas Sewell si...@sewell.ch 2009-08-22 10:27:48 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: tokyotyrant Short Description: A network interface to Tokyo Cabinet Owners: silas 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 516849] Review Request: espresso-ab - A boolean minimization 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=516849 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-08-22 10:54:58 EDT --- espresso-ab-1.0-1.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/espresso-ab-1.0-1.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 472658] Review Request: shmpps - Shared Memory driver for PPS signals
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472658 --- Comment #19 from Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com 2009-08-22 11:23:23 EDT --- Just as an FYI, it generally doesn't make much sense to push new packages into testing, as it is very unlikely that anyone will test a new package. You should be safe to simply push them to stable. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 518766] New: Review Request: auto-destdir - Automate DESTDIR support for make install
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: auto-destdir - Automate DESTDIR support for make install https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=518766 Summary: Review Request: auto-destdir - Automate DESTDIR support for make install Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: dwhee...@dwheeler.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://www.dwheeler.com/auto-destdir/auto-destdir.spec SRPM URL: http://www.dwheeler.com/auto-destdir/auto-destdir-1.4-1.fc10.src.rpm Description: Auto-DESTDIR is a set of programs for POSIX/Unix/Linux systems that helps automate program installation from source code. The Auto-DESTDIR tools (run-redir and make-redir) redirect file installations so that the installed files are placed inside the the $DESTDIR directory, even if the provided makefile doesn't support the DESTDIR convention. For example, you can replace make install with make-redir DESTDIR=xyz install, and then all files are stored inside $DESTDIR. This program can be useful for creating native packages (e.g., RPM or deb), or for installing programs from source code to be managed by tools like GNU stow. Note: rpmlint gives one warning: auto-destdir.src:50: W: configure-without-libdir-spec This warning is irrelevant; this only installs bash scripts and documentation, so there's no libdir to use. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 471231] Review Request: WebCalendar - Single/multi-user web-based calendar 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=471231 David Nalley da...@gnsa.us changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #25 from David Nalley da...@gnsa.us 2009-08-22 12:30:14 EDT --- Hi Patrick: sorry for the lag on my part. I don't see anything else blocking this. (There are the dependencies of course, but those are separate review requests.) but this request is APPROVED Thanks for all of your work on 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 510943] Review Request: ipplan - Web-based IP address manager and tracker
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=510943 --- Comment #11 from David Nalley da...@gnsa.us 2009-08-22 12:32:24 EDT --- Andrew: sorry for my lag I will try and get this pushed out to you this weekend. Thanks for your work on 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 510943] Review Request: ipplan - Web-based IP address manager and tracker
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=510943
--- Comment #12 from David Nalley da...@gnsa.us 2009-08-22 13:04:37 EDT ---
OK: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the
review.
[ke4...@nalleyt43 SPECS]$ rpmlint ./ipplan.spec
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[ke4...@nalleyt43 SPECS]$ rpmlint ../SRPMS/ipplan-4.92-1.fc11.src.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[ke4...@nalleyt43 SPECS]$ rpmlint ../RPMS/noarch/ipplan-4.92-1.fc11.noarch.rpm
ipplan.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/cache/ipplan 0700
ipplan.noarch: E: non-readable /etc/ipplan/config.php 0640
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings.
OK: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
OK: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
OK: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
OK: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines .
GPLv2+ per source code
FIX: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
SPEC file says GPLv2 should be GPLv2+
FIX: 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
gpl.html isn't pushed to %doc - I realize that this is likely due to the fact
that it is referenced by the application - but consider symlinking.
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...@nalleyt43 SOURCES]$ md5sum ipplan-4.92.tar.gz*
2540b381744d1891b53b660fffc5ec56 ipplan-4.92.tar.gz
2540b381744d1891b53b660fffc5ec56 ipplan-4.92.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.
FIX: 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.
I think there is yet another bundled library - phpmailer
http://sourceforge.net/projects/phpmailer/
This already exists in fedora as: php-PHPMailer
OK: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
NA: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files
(not just symlinks) in 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. If it does not create a
directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that
directory.
OK: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings.
OK: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with
executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
%defattr(...) line.
OK: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}
(or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
OK: Each package must consistently use macros.
OK: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
NA: 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).
NA: 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.
NA: Header files must be in a -devel package.
NA: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
NA: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for
directory ownership and usability).
NA: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1),
then library files that end in .so
[Bug 488563] Review Request: pure - The Pure programming language
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=488563 --- Comment #10 from Michel Alexandre Salim michael.silva...@gmail.com 2009-08-22 13:24:49 EDT --- Updated to 0.30; now builds on Rawhide against just-updated LLVM. Will build LLVM for F-10 and F-11 as well so reviewer only has to rebuild pure. http://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/funpl/pure-0.30-1.fc12.src.rpm Addressing previous pre-review concerns, here are the rpmlint warnings: pure.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libpure.so pure.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postin /usr/lib64/libpure.so.3.0 pure.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postun /usr/lib64/libpure.so.3.0 pure.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/pure/pure_main.c pure.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/include/pure/runtime.h 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 3 warnings. This package is for an interpreted language, so those development files are actually needed at runtime -- similar situation with Scheme implementations. The guidelines make an exception for 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 518779] New: Review Request: libnfc - NFC SDK and Programmers API
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: libnfc - NFC SDK and Programmers API https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=518779 Summary: Review Request: libnfc - NFC SDK and Programmers API 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/libnfc/libnfc.spec SRPM URL: http://fkooman.fedorapeople.org/libnfc/libnfc-1.2.1-1.fc11.src.rpm Description: libnfc is the first free NFC SDK and Programmers API released under the GNU Lesser General Public License. It provides complete transparency and royalty-free use for everyone. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 480724] Review Request: djbdns - A Domain Name System by D. J. Bernstein
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480724 --- Comment #45 from Tom Moertel t...@moertel.com 2009-08-22 14:41:29 EDT --- I have inspected the proposed packaging of djbdns and am delighted that somebody has decided to get it into Fedora. To help make the package better, I have a few suggestions. First, as the package does not use DJB's daemontools to manage the services it provides, it requires initscripts for that purpose. Only one initscript is included in the package, however, and it is named djbdns, making unclear which of the services it controls (it's dnscache). The initscript for tinydns, for example, is missing. Recommendation: include one initscript per service and make the names of the initscripts match the services they control. Second, the package is missing some important parts of djbdns -- axfdns, walldns, and rbldns, for example. While these parts are probably used less often than dnscache or tinydns, they are well established within DJB's bundle, and most people will expect them to be included in any package calling itself djbdns. Recommendation: include the missing pieces. Third, I must agree with Satya Komaragiri about the need for subpackages. It's very common to need only one part of djbdns for any particular install, either dnscache (for a site needing a local, recursive DNS cache), tinydns (for a site needing a content DNS server to publish its public records), or the tools (for administration and debugging). To place all of these in one package will contribute clutter to the typical install. (This problem wasn't so bad in DJB's bundle because it didn't use initscripts, but we do, and installing 5 initscripts when the typical sysadmin will need only 1 seems excessive.) Recommendation: split the package into logical subpackages, following Pavel Lisý's scheme, which makes a lot of sense from an administrator's point of view (and ought to be immediately understandable to anyone familiar with how to deploy from DJB's bundle). Fourth, DJB's bundle relied upon the multilog program from daemontools to handle logging, whereas our proposed package writes to log files directly. But multilog did more than just write to files; it also inserted timestamps, which our logs lack. Timestamps are essential in system logs, so we must put them back in somehow. Maybe we could use syslog or bring back multilog. Recommendation: Restore the timestamps in logs. This package is looking great. I think it's just a few tweaks away from being both a good Fedora package and a faithful representation of everything that made DJB's bundle great. Keep up the good work! Cheers, Tom -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 518082] Review Request: rubygem-facade - A module that helps implement the facade pattern
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=518082
--- Comment #7 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-08-22
14:46:26 EDT ---
Well, I missed the following, however:
- I guess %{gemdir}/doc/%{gemname}-%{version}/ri should also be marked
as doc. And the 3 lines:
-
%files
%dir %{gemdir}/doc/%{gemname}-%{version}
%doc %{gemdir}/doc/%{gemname}-%{version}/rdoc
%{gemdir}/doc/%{gemname}-%{version}/ri
--
can be simplified as:
--
%files
%{gemdir}/doc/%{gemname}-%{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 488563] Review Request: pure - The Pure programming language
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=488563 --- Comment #11 from Michel Alexandre Salim michael.silva...@gmail.com 2009-08-22 15:12:25 EDT --- Builds fine against F-12: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1625828 and the updated LLVM has been built for F-10 and F-11, you can grab them for building (please vote for the update if it works): https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/llvm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 475110] Review Request: monkeystudio - Free crossplatform Qt 4 IDE
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475110 --- Comment #18 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu 2009-08-22 15:43:43 EDT --- Fair enough, turns out we no longer really need the customized platform definition for our fedora qt builds anyway, so I'll test that out here. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 455622] Review Request: scriptaculous-js - JavaScript libraries for web user interfaces
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=455622
--- Comment #7 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) pa...@hubbitus.info
2009-08-22 16:30:05 EDT ---
MUST items:
[+/-] rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the
review.
$ rpmlint *
scriptaculous-js-tests.noarch: W: no-documentation
Consider put into tests sub-package files MIT-LICENSE README.rdoc.
[+] 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.
[+] 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.
Yes. I only doubt about one file sound.js, it contain comment string: // Based
on code created by Jules Gravinese (http://www.webveteran.com/)
I have not fount on this page any license.
So, I fire FE-legal here, please try clarify this issue, contact with author or
leave for Spot...
[+] 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. 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.
$ md5sum *
10aa518e3b44f5a2a55f2bc8caadcd62 scriptaculous-js-1.8.2_RPM.tar.bz2
10aa518e3b44f5a2a55f2bc8caadcd62 scriptaculous-js-1.8.2.tar.bz2
[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1626056
[+] 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.
[+] 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.
[+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file's %files listings.
[+] 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.
[+] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [15]
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
Only note: You may also use %{name}-%{version} in Source0 tag, but it on you
choose.
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissible content.
[+] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc sub-package. (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).
[+] 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]
[+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed
should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This
means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with
any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you
feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another
package owns, then please present that at package review time.
[+] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
[+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
SHOULD Items:
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1626056
[+] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all
supported architectures.
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A
package should not segfault instead of running, for example.
There nothing test I think.
Some additional things:
1) It is optional. You name subpackage as scriptaculous-js-tests, but actually
no tests there! It contain only html-files with functionality demo. Please
consider rerename it into something like scriptaculous-js-demo or
scriptaculous-js-examples
2) You Requiere httpd. Why??? It is contain only static jasascript files, so I
eleav it may functional on any web-server. So you
[Bug 455622] Review Request: scriptaculous-js - JavaScript libraries for web user interfaces
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=455622 Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) pa...@hubbitus.info 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 517983] Review Request: 3proxy - Tiny but very powerful proxy
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=517983 Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) pa...@hubbitus.info changed: What|Removed |Added Alias||3proxy -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 510255] Review Request: cobertura - a Java tool for calculating the test coverage
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=510255 Mat Booth fed...@matbooth.co.uk changed: What|Removed |Added CC||fed...@matbooth.co.uk --- Comment #11 from Mat Booth fed...@matbooth.co.uk 2009-08-22 17:27:40 EDT --- Hi Victor, Are you going to build this package for 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 518315] Review Request: vanessa_logger - Generic logging layer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=518315 --- Comment #3 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) pa...@hubbitus.info 2009-08-22 17:39:23 EDT --- Colin Kissa, thank you. I fix them. http://hubbitus.net.ru/rpm/Fedora11/vanessa_logger/vanessa_logger-0.0.7-3.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 518318] Review Request: vanessa_socket - Simplify TCP/IP socket operations
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=518318 --- Comment #1 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) pa...@hubbitus.info 2009-08-22 17:40:30 EDT --- Small fix: http://hubbitus.net.ru/rpm/Fedora11/vanessa_socket/vanessa_socket-0.0.7-3.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 518316] Review Request: vanessa_adt - Library of Abstract Data Types
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=518316 --- Comment #1 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) pa...@hubbitus.info 2009-08-22 17:40:00 EDT --- Small fix: http://hubbitus.net.ru/rpm/Fedora11/vanessa_adt/vanessa_adt-0.0.7-4.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 518317] Review Request: perdition - Mail Retrieval Proxy
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=518317 --- Comment #1 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) pa...@hubbitus.info 2009-08-22 18:02:45 EDT --- Small fix: http://hubbitus.net.ru/rpm/Fedora11/perdition/perdition-1.17.1-3.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 #14 from D Haley my...@yahoo.com 2009-08-22 19:48:46 EDT --- Does not build in koji: F10: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1626400 F11: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1626402 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 518799] New: Review Request: gtk-splitter - A file splitter
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: gtk-splitter - A file splitter https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=518799 Summary: Review Request: gtk-splitter - A file splitter 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/gtk-splitter.spec SRPM URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/gtk-splitter-2.2.1-1.fc11.src.rpm Project URL: http://gtk-splitter.sourceforge.net/ Description: gtk-splitter can split files into smaller pieces and combine them back together. It can also generate a DOS batch file so that the split files can be combined on DOS/Windows systems. gtk-splitter is good for working around file limitations with floppy disks, email attachments, etc. Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1626394 rpmlint output: [...@laptop016 SRPMS]$ rpmlint gtk-splitter-2.2.1-1.fc11.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [...@laptop016 x86_64]$ rpmlint gtk-splitter* 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 475110] Review Request: monkeystudio - Free crossplatform Qt 4 IDE
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475110 --- Comment #19 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu 2009-08-22 20:03:33 EDT --- Oh fudge, something seems to have changed recently to cause build failures: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1626403 My first guess would be the recent qscintilla-2.4 update. Any ideas? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 518445] Review Request: moblin-panel-applications - Moblin Panel for launching 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=518445 Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE --- Comment #6 from Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com 2009-08-22 20:01:58 EDT --- In rawhide -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 488563] Review Request: pure - The Pure programming language
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=488563 --- Comment #12 from Michel Alexandre Salim michael.silva...@gmail.com 2009-08-22 20:38:57 EDT --- There was a problem with the earlier LLVM build, but it only affects PPC, so it can still be used to test Pure i686 or x86_64. Discussing with maintainer whether the ppc build is stable enough to ship or not. Upstream's make check does not actually return a non-zero value if a test fails. The spec is now updated to optionally do this, but it's disabled for now so we get RPMs out to test. One test is specifically disabled because, on Rawhide at least, it causes the pure interpreter to stop: $ pure -v test011.pure sscanf this %d; stdin, line 2: unhandled exception 'scanf_error ()' while evaluating 'sscanf this %d' sscanf this %g; stdin, line 3: unhandled exception 'scanf_error ()' while evaluating 'sscanf this %g' sscanf this %s; this *** glibc detected *** pure: malloc(): smallbin double linked list corrupted: 0x01e2f910 *** Some other tests fail, though in non-fatal ways. The failures are being tracked upstream: http://code.google.com/p/pure-lang/issues/detail?id=13#makechanges Peter, if you could attach the build log you get on Fedora 11, it'd be helpful, we can then narrow down whether the problem is with Rawhide or with either of LLVM or pure. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 510255] Review Request: cobertura - a Java tool for calculating the test coverage
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=510255 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-08-22 21:26:49 EDT --- cobertura-1.9-3.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/cobertura-1.9-3.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 510255] Review Request: cobertura - a Java tool for calculating the test coverage
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=510255 --- Comment #13 from Victor G. Vasilyev victor.vasil...@sun.com 2009-08-22 21:36:51 EDT --- Hi Mat, Please, test it and change its karma ( at least in bodhi :-) ). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 491490] Review Request: ghmm - A library with data structures and algorithms for Hidden Markov Models
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=491490 D Haley my...@yahoo.com changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||Reopened Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED Resolution|WONTFIX | --- Comment #7 from D Haley my...@yahoo.com 2009-08-22 22:31:34 EDT --- I have notified upstream of the licencing and rpmlint issues, and am happy to complete this package (provided someone else reviews of course :) ). I have also found that their unit tests fail on my machine, and have notified upstream: #Upstream has been notified of exit() calls. #https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detailaid=2842844group_id=67094atid=516866 #Upstream has been notified of licencing issues #https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detailaid=2842854group_id=67094atid=516866 #Upstream has been notfied of unit test problems #https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detailaid=2842847group_id=67094atid=516867 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 475065] Review Request: givaro - C++ library for arithmetic and algebraic computations
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475065 --- Comment #18 from D Haley my...@yahoo.com 2009-08-22 23:04:23 EDT --- Hi Conrad, I have notified upstream via email wrt. to the exit call. They now provide versioned tarballs at the following location: http://www-lmc.imag.fr/CASYS/LOGICIELS/givaro/Downloads/: Dear Prof. Roch and Gautier, Recently givaro has been submitted for package review[1] for inclusion in the Fedora linux repositories. However small error was noticed during an automated source-code check. As a requirement of packaging, upstream (you) must be notified of this error. File src/kernel/zpz/givzpz16table1.C is included in a shared library (libgivaro.so), and Line 46 makes a call to the exit() function. Calling exit() in a shared library results in incorrect de-allocation of system resources. If it is possible to update this file in the next version of givaro to not use exit(), this would be most helpful. [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475065 Kind Regards. D. Haley === -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 475065] Review Request: givaro - C++ library for arithmetic and algebraic computations
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475065 --- Comment #19 from Conrad Meyer kon...@tylerc.org 2009-08-22 23:08:49 EDT --- Hi, I also no longer have time for this package. If you would like to take it, you are quite welcome. Otherwise, it should be 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 516869] Review Request: perl-Search-Xapian - Xapian perl bindings
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=516869 Rakesh Pandit rpan...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Rakesh Pandit rpan...@redhat.com 2009-08-22 23:47:20 EDT --- Included all suggested changes: http://rakesh.fedorapeople.org/spec/perl-Search-Xapian.spec http://rakesh.fedorapeople.org/srpm/perl-Search-Xapian-1.0.11.0-5.fc11.src.rpm Thanks, New Package CVS Request === Package Name: perl-Search-Xapian Short Description: Xapian perl bindings Owners: rakesh Branches: F-10 F-11 F-12 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 507410] Review Request: yum-download-order - Yum plugin to order downloading of packages
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=507410 --- Comment #14 from Rakesh Pandit rpan...@redhat.com 2009-08-23 00:12:05 EDT --- Included them, SPEC: http://rakesh.fedorapeople.org/spec/yum-download-order.spec SRPM: http://rakesh.fedorapeople.org/srpm/yum-download-order-0.1-4.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 457279] Review Request: cerebro - Cerebro provides mesh network services and presence information
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=457279 --- Comment #31 from Rakesh Pandit rpan...@redhat.com 2009-08-23 00:14:01 EDT --- ping, may you start cvs procedure ? :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 475065] Review Request: givaro - C++ library for arithmetic and algebraic computations
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475065 --- Comment #20 from D Haley my...@yahoo.com 2009-08-23 00:32:59 EDT --- I'm happy to try to push this through -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 475065] Review Request: givaro - C++ library for arithmetic and algebraic computations
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475065 --- Comment #21 from Conrad Meyer kon...@tylerc.org 2009-08-23 00:38:54 EDT --- Ok, sounds good! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 475065] Review Request: givaro - C++ library for arithmetic and algebraic computations
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475065
--- Comment #22 from D Haley my...@yahoo.com 2009-08-23 01:34:12 EDT ---
SPEC URL: http://dhd.selfip.com/427e/givaro.spec
SRPM URL: http://dhd.selfip.com/427e/givaro-3.2.15-0.1.rc1.fc10.src.rpm
F10: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1626651
F11: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1626660
rpmlint:
$ rpmlint `cat tmp`
givaro.i386: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib/libgivaro.so.0.0.4
e...@glibc_2.0
givaro-devel.i386: W: no-documentation
givaro-devel.i386: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/givaro/givaro-makefile
0644
givaro-static.i386: W: no-documentation
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings.
$ cat tmp
/home/makerpm/rpmbuild/SRPMS/givaro-3.2.15-0.1.rc1.fc10.src.rpm
/home/makerpm/rpmbuild/RPMS/i386/givaro-3.2.15-0.1.rc1.fc10.i386.rpm
/home/makerpm/rpmbuild/RPMS/i386/givaro-devel-3.2.15-0.1.rc1.fc10.i386.rpm
/home/makerpm/rpmbuild/RPMS/i386/givaro-static-3.2.15-0.1.rc1.fc10.i386.rpm
/home/makerpm/rpmbuild/RPMS/i386/givaro-debuginfo-3.2.15-0.1.rc1.fc10.i386.rpm
Notes:
*Upstream has been notified about GPL headers, and as above, exit() usage
*Tarball has been re-downloaded from new download area on givaro website
*makefile has been placed into %{_datadir}/%{name}/
*Trailing slashes have been added
*givaro-config.in has been patched to produce correct output in case of
multiple flags
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 475065] Review Request: givaro - C++ library for arithmetic and algebraic computations
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475065
--- Comment #23 from D Haley my...@yahoo.com 2009-08-23 01:39:35 EDT ---
Whoops. Sorry for the noise, but I have fixed that E, with sed -i 's|#!
/bin/sh||' $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/%{name}/givaro-makefile in my current
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 518473] Review Request: odf-converter-integrator - Convert Office 2007 (OOXML) files for OpenOffice.or
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=518473 Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||lemen...@gmail.com Flag|fedora-review? | --- Comment #2 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com 2009-08-23 01:38:42 EDT --- Please, do not raise fedora-review flag by yourself - it would be done by the Reviewer of 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
