[Bug 525909] Review Request: sysprof - A system-wide Linux profiler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=525909 Gianluca Sforna changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #12 from Gianluca Sforna 2009-11-04 02:45:30 EDT --- Package Change Request == Package Name: sysprof InitialCC: sandm...@daimi.au.dk Upstream would like to CCed on sysprof bugs using this address -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 524238] Review Request: libclaw - C++ Library Absolutely Wonderful
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=524238 Lubomir Rintel changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #8 from Lubomir Rintel 2009-11-04 02:02:32 EDT --- Thank you! New Package CVS Request === Package Name: libclaw Short Description: C++ Library Absolutely Wonderful Owners: lkundrak xavierb Branches: F-11 F-12 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 525914] Review Request: perl-Net-GitHub - Perl interface for github.com
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=525914 Chris Weyl changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Comment #7 from Chris Weyl 2009-11-04 01:53:27 EDT --- Thanks for the review! :-) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 521166] Review Request: OpenGTL - Graphics Transformation Languages
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=521166 --- Comment #14 from Rex Dieter 2009-11-04 01:28:34 EDT --- Well, builds on x86_64, ppc (at least), not so much, CMakeLists reports: llvm was build with PIC enabled, this is not surported on 32bits. Added ExcludeArch: ppc for now, until I can look closer at that. New scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1787453 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 521166] Review Request: OpenGTL - Graphics Transformation Languages
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=521166 --- Comment #13 from Rex Dieter 2009-11-04 01:20:18 EDT --- SPEC: http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/OpenGTL/OpenGTL.spec SRPM: http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/OpenGTL/OpenGTL-0.9.11-1.fc12.src.rpm f12 scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1787446 %changelog * Wed Nov 04 2009 Rex Dieter - 0.9.11-1 - OpenGTL-0.9.11 (this release supports llvm-2.6, woo!) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 532874] New: Review Request: xorg-x11-drv-wacom - Xorg X11 wacom input driver
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: xorg-x11-drv-wacom - Xorg X11 wacom input driver https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=532874 Summary: Review Request: xorg-x11-drv-wacom - Xorg X11 wacom input driver Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: peter.hutte...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Target Release: --- Spec URL: http://people.freedesktop.org/~whot/wacom.spec SRPM URL: http://people.freedesktop.org/~whot/xorg-x11-drv-wacom-0.10.0-1.fc12.src.rpm Description: X.Org X11 wacom input driver for Wacom tablets. Note: xorg-x11-drv-wacom is the forked linuxwacom driver now hosted on X.Org infrastructure (and maintained in git). This driver supports X servers 1.7 and newer while the linuxwacom driver goes into maintenance mode for X servers up to including 1.6. We currently maintain a patchset for linuxwacom to build against our X server, in the future linuxwacom will be declared obsolete by this driver. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 524437] Review Request: nss_updatedb - Maintains a local cache of network directory user and group 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=524437 Rahul Sundaram changed: What|Removed |Added CC||sunda...@redhat.com 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 530090] Review Request: emacs-goodies - Miscellaneous add-ons for Emacs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=530090 --- Comment #29 from Arun SAG 2009-11-04 00:43:20 EDT --- Either Add both licenses in COPYING file or use two files COPYING-GPLV2 COPYING-GPLV3; Its your choice ; -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 516522] Review Request: globus-nexus - Globus Toolkit - Nexus 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=516522 Steve Traylen changed: What|Removed |Added CC||steve.tray...@cern.ch Bug 516522 depends on bug 516521, which changed state. Bug 516521 Summary: Review Request: globus-mp - Globus Toolkit - Message Passing Library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=516521 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||ERRATA Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Bug 516522 depends on bug 516520, which changed state. Bug 516520 Summary: Review Request: globus-data-conversion - Globus Toolkit - Data Conversion https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=516520 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||ERRATA Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 532819] New: Review Request: gdouros-symbola-fonts - A symbol font
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: gdouros-symbola-fonts - A symbol font https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=532819 Summary: Review Request: gdouros-symbola-fonts - A symbol font Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: ozam...@flukkost.nu QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://ozamosi.fedorapeople.org/gdouros-symbola-fonts.spec SRPM URL: http://ozamosi.fedorapeople.org/gdouros-symbola-fonts-2.52-1.fc12.src.rpm Description: Symbola covers the following scripts and symbols supported by The Unicode Standard 5.2: Basic Latin, Latin-1 Supplement, Latin Extended-A, IPA Extensions, Spacing Modifier Letters, Greek and Coptic, Cyrillic, Cyrillic Supplementary, General Punctuation, Superscripts and Subscripts, Combining Diacritical Marks for Symbols, Letterlike Symbols, Number Forms, Arrows, Mathematical Operators, Miscellaneous Technical, Control Pictures, Optical Character Recognition, Box Drawing, Block Elements, Geometric Shapes, Miscellaneous Symbols, Dingbats, Miscellaneous Mathematical Symbols-A, Supplemental Arrows-A, Supplemental Arrows-B, Miscellaneous Mathematical Symbols-B, Supplemental Mathematical Operators, Miscellaneous Symbols and Arrows, Supplemental Punctuation, CJK Symbols and Punctuation, Yijing Hexagram Symbols, Vertical Forms, Combining Half Marks, CJK Compatibility Forms, Specials, Tai Xuan Jing Symbols, Counting Rod Numerals, Mathematical Alphanumeric Symbols, Mahjong Tile Symbols, Domino Tile Symbols. It was created by George Douros. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 532739] Review Request: emacs-cedet - Collection of Emacs Development Environment Tools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=532739 Xavier Maillard changed: What|Removed |Added CC||x...@gnu.org --- Comment #2 from Xavier Maillard 2009-11-03 17:30:51 EDT --- Perfect ! Tested it onto my rawhide setup. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 470696] Review Request: rubygem-passenger - Passenger Ruby on Rails deployment system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470696 Michael Stahnke changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mastah...@gmail.com --- Comment #53 from Michael Stahnke 2009-11-03 23:37:36 EDT --- So, October is over, and there still a ruby community eager to have passenger on Fedora/RHEL. Are we any closer to reaching an end to 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 530090] Review Request: emacs-goodies - Miscellaneous add-ons for Emacs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=530090 --- Comment #28 from Peter Galbraith 2009-11-03 23:37:05 EDT --- I don't know why the build is failing. Concerning the COPYING file, some are GPL-2-or-later and some are GPL-3-or-later. Should I use a COPYING file that includes both? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 477526] Review Request: rubygem-hpricot - A Fast, Enjoyable HTML Parser for Ruby
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477526 --- Comment #16 from Mamoru Tasaka 2009-11-03 23:34:25 EDT --- (In reply to comment #15) > Mamoru: Are you ok with kanarip maintaining this package for EL-5? Yes. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 516531] Review Request: globus-gass-cache-program - Globus Toolkit - Tools to manipulate local and remote GASS cache s
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=516531 Steve Traylen changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||516527 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 529517] Review Request: kcm_touchpad - Synaptics driver based touchpads kcontrol module
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=529517 --- Comment #7 from Ryan Rix 2009-11-03 16:55:18 EDT --- Updated. http://rrix.fedorapeople.org/kcm_touchpad/kcm_touchpad-0.3.0-1.fc12.src.rpm http://rrix.fedorapeople.org/kcm_touchpad/kcm_touchpad.spec http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1786723 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 492895] Review Request: xml-security-c - C++ Implementation of W3C security standards for XML
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=492895 --- Comment #19 from Kevin Fenzi 2009-11-03 16:56:19 EDT --- Anntti: Are you ok with Steve maintaining this for EL-4? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 532817] New: Review Request: gdouros-analecta-fonts - An eccleastic scripts font
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: gdouros-analecta-fonts - An eccleastic scripts font https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=532817 Summary: Review Request: gdouros-analecta-fonts - An eccleastic scripts font Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: ozam...@flukkost.nu QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://ozamosi.fedorapeople.org/gdouros-analecta-fonts.spec SRPM URL: http://ozamosi.fedorapeople.org/gdouros-analecta-fonts-2.52-1.fc12.src.rpm Description: Analecta is an ecclesiastic scripts font, covering Basic Latin, Greek and Coptic, some Punctuation and other Symbols, Coptic, typographica varia, Specials, Gothic and Deseret. It was created by George Douros. rpmlint gives a no-documentation warning. Upstream distributes no documentation. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 532231] Review Request: gdouros-akkadian-fonts - A font for Sumero-Akkadian cuneiform
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=532231 Robin Sonefors changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Robin Sonefors 2009-11-03 16:50:55 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: gdouros-akkadian-fonts Short Description: A font for Sumero-Akkadian cuneiform Owners: ozamosi Branches: F11 F12 InitialCC: fonts-sig -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 528003] Review Request: Xinha - Javascript library for making textarea's WYSIWYG
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=528003 --- Comment #14 from Kevin Fenzi 2009-11-03 14:19:49 EDT --- Should the name here be 'xinha' (ie, lower case) as that seems to be what the package name is per the 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 225617] Merge Review: bitmap-fonts
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225617 Pravin Satpute changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|needinfo?(psatp...@redhat.c | |om) | --- Comment #29 from Pravin Satpute 2009-11-03 23:03:00 EDT --- i will resolve the above problem, will try to resolve it else will drop it. is anything to do more from my side? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 530090] Review Request: emacs-goodies - Miscellaneous add-ons for Emacs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=530090 --- Comment #27 from Arun SAG 2009-11-03 23:01:09 EDT --- (In reply to comment #24) > Ok, great. > > Let me know about what you'd like concerning the "verbatim copy of the > license" > at some point. I suppose I could add copies of the various GPL flavors used > in > the top directory of the tar ball. yes, please add a COPYING file on top level directory of emacs-goodies 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 532816] New: Review Request: gdouros-alexander-fonts - A Greek typeface inspired by Alexander Wilson
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: gdouros-alexander-fonts - A Greek typeface inspired by Alexander Wilson https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=532816 Summary: Review Request: gdouros-alexander-fonts - A Greek typeface inspired by Alexander Wilson Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: ozam...@flukkost.nu QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://ozamosi.fedorapeople.org/gdouros-alexander-fonts.spec SRPM URL: http://ozamosi.fedorapeople.org/gdouros-alexander-fonts-3.01-1.fc12.src.rpm Description: A text typeface using the Greek letters designed by Alexander Wilson (1714-1786), a Scottish doctor, astronomer, and typefounder, who established a typefoundry in Glasgow in 1744. The type was especially designed for an edition of Homer’s epics, published in 1756-8 by Andrew and Robert Foulis, printers to the University of Glasgow. A modern revival, Wilson Greek, was designed by Matthew Carter in 1995. Peter S. Baker is also using Wilson’s Greek type in his Junicode font for medieval scholars (2007). Latin and Cyrillic are based on a Garamond typeface. The font covers the Windows Glyph List, IPA Extensions, Greek Extended, Ancient Greek Numbers, Byzantine and Ancient Greek Musical Notation, various typographic extras and several Open Type features (Case-Sensitive Forms, Small Capitals, Subscript, Superscript, Numerators, Denominators, Fractions, Old Style Figures, Historical Forms, Stylistic Alternates, Ligatures). It was created by George Douros. rpmlint gives a no-documentation warning. Upstream distributes no documentation. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 530754] Review Request: scour - A script to clean SVG files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=530754 --- Comment #7 from Kevin Kofler 2009-11-03 18:55:42 EDT --- There's no need to split the package into several subpackages, and splitting %files with comments is also not needed. It's enough to use "and" in the License tag and to add a comment above it saying e.g.: # svg_regex.py is BSD, the rest is ASL 2.0 See also: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios According to that guideline page, it is sufficient to EITHER split %files with comments specifying the license OR use a comment like the above OR refer to a %doc file which tells what part is under what license (such files are sometimes shipped by upstream, in which case it's enough to reference them). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 530090] Review Request: emacs-goodies - Miscellaneous add-ons for Emacs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=530090 --- Comment #26 from Arun SAG 2009-11-03 22:43:31 EDT --- Yes, tried to build the package with mock 0.9.17 ; Mock hangs; It seems to be executing '/usr/bin/idn --quiet --idna-to-ascii --usestd3asciirules' with gnus-filterhist.el ; Killed idn, then everything went well; Don't know the reason yet for this issue; @PSG you have anything to say 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 532813] Review Request: gummi - A simple LaTeX 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=532813 Christoph Wickert changed: What|Removed |Added CC||cwick...@fedoraproject.org --- Comment #2 from Christoph Wickert 2009-11-03 18:51:25 EDT --- Please add "Publishing" as additional category during desktop-file-install to allow nested menus. While we are at it: Please finish bug 510376 before requesting new reviews. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 531912] Review Request: perl-Net-ARP - Create and Send ARP Packets
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=531912 --- Comment #4 from BJ Dierkes 2009-11-03 17:50:53 EDT --- My mistake, I had changed the name of the spec but must have been after that version of the .src.rpm was built. I had originally used pure_install but had some errors, I can't remember what though. This time seemed fine so I have reverted to pure_install. I believe all above issues are now resolved. http://5dollarwhitebox.org/tmp/perl-Net-ARP.spec http://5dollarwhitebox.org/tmp/perl-Net-ARP-1.0.6-2.src.rpm [wdier...@220805-mock00 perl-Net-ARP]$ rpmlint SPECS/perl-Net-ARP.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Thanks Ruben. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 285801] Review Request: simias - Collection-Oriented Data Storage
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=285801 Steve Traylen changed: What|Removed |Added CC||steve.tray...@cern.ch --- Comment #28 from Steve Traylen 2009-11-03 18:49:21 EDT --- Hi Chris. build fails with a checking pkg-config is at least version 0.9.0... yes checking for LIBFLAIM... yes checking for UUID... configure: error: Package requirements (uuid) were not met: No package 'uuid' found -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 532664] Review Request: saxon9 - Java XPath, XSLT 2.0 and XQuery implementation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=532664 Lubomir Rintel changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: saxon8 -|Review Request: saxon9 - |Version 8 of Java XPath,|Java XPath, XSLT 2.0 and |XSLT 2.0 and XQuery |XQuery implementation |implementation | --- Comment #6 from Lubomir Rintel 2009-11-03 15:15:44 EDT --- So, making this a purely saxon9 review. scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1785185 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 285801] Review Request: simias - Collection-Oriented Data Storage
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=285801 Jason Tibbitts changed: What|Removed |Added Status Whiteboard||BuildFails -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 532368] Review Request: ns-bola-fonts A Sans Font
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=532368 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2009-11-03 16:05:44 EDT --- Will look at this one when Tiza is finished -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 230262] Review Request: jss - Java Security Services (JSS)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=230262 Michael Stahnke changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mastah...@gmail.com Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #24 from Michael Stahnke 2009-11-03 15:55:33 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: jss Short Description: Java Security Services (JSS) is a java native interface which provides a bridge for java-based applications to use native Network Security Services (NSS). Owners: stahnma Branches: EL4 EL5 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 532739] Review Request: emacs-cedet - Collection of Emacs Development Environment Tools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=532739 --- Comment #3 from Karel Klíč 2009-11-03 18:57:01 EDT --- Spec URL: http://kklic.fedorapeople.org/emacs-cedet.spec SRPM URL: http://kklic.fedorapeople.org/emacs-cedet-1.0-0.2.pre6.fc11.src.rpm I found an error during my testing. Please check attached version. * Wed Nov 4 2009 Karel Klic - 1.0-0.2.pre6 - Install ezimage.el in the main package, because it is probed by the code. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 532813] New: Review Request: gummi - A simple LaTeX editor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: gummi - A simple LaTeX editor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=532813 Summary: Review Request: gummi - A simple LaTeX editor 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/gummi.spec SRPM URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/gummi-0.4.2-1.fc11.src.rpm Project URL: http://gummi.midnightcoding.org Description: Gummi is a LaTeX editor written in the Python programming language using the PyGTK interface toolkit. It was designed with simplicity and the novice user in mind, but also offers features that speak to the more advanced user. Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1786646 rpmlint output: [...@laptop016 SRPMS]$ rpmlint gummi-0.4.2-1.fc11.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [...@laptop016 noarch]$ rpmlint gummi-0.4.2-1.fc11.noarch.rpm 1 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 532699] Review Request: ClanLib1 - Cross platform C++ game 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=532699
Xavier Bachelot changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||xav...@bachelot.org
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|xav...@bachelot.org
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Xavier Bachelot 2009-11-03 19:16:15
EDT ---
ClanLib1 review:
+:ok, =:needs attention, -:needs fixing. n/a:not applicable.
MUST Items:
[+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package.
ClanLib1.i386: W: obsolete-not-provided ClanLib
ClanLib1.i386: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib/libclanGL.so.1.0.0
e...@glibc_2.0
ClanLib1-devel.i386: W: obsolete-not-provided ClanLib-devel
ClanLib1-devel.i386: W: file-not-utf8
/usr/share/doc/ClanLib1-devel-1.0.0/html/Tutorial/TicTacToe/tictactoe.zip
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
1st warning is OK.
2nd warning is an upstream bug, not a packaging bug, so OK.
3rd warning is OK, just like 1st is.
4th warning is bogus, this is a zip file, not a text file.
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}
[+] 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.
281e64a463155474d0f1270686286811
[+] MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one supported architecture.
[n/a] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch.
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires
[n/a] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using
the %find_lang macro.
[+] 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.
[n/a] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must
state this fact in the request for review
[+] 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 package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
[+] 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).
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros
section of Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissible content. This is
described in detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines.
[n/a] 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.
[n/a] 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.
[n/a] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the
%install section.
[+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
[+] 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:
[Bug 530880] Review Request: ns-tiza-fonts - A Slab-Serif Font
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=530880 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo?(john.brown...@gma ||il.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 532057] Review Request: eclipse-jgit - Eclipse JGit
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=532057 --- Comment #5 from Andrew Overholt 2009-11-03 15:00:42 EDT --- - naming fine X please fix the release to follow: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#PreReleasePackages Peter is right that there should be a 1. before the "git..." - licensing fine (EDL is BSD) - macros fine - locations good - %files fine - simplicity = good :) X rpmlint output clean except directory permission error: 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. eclipse-jgit.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /usr/share/eclipse/dropins/jgit/eclipse/features/org.eclipse.jgit_0.6.0.200911031418 0775 A standard directory should have permission set to 0755. If you get this message, it means that you have wrong directory permissions in some dirs included in your package. 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 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 532523] Review request: jarjar - Jar Jar Links
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=532523 Steve Traylen changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||steve.tray...@cern.ch AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|steve.tray...@cern.ch 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 532779] Review Request: gtraffic - Simple traffic usage counter for mobile broadband connections
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=532779 Christoph Wickert changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||cwick...@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 531912] Review Request: perl-Net-ARP - Create and Send ARP Packets
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=531912 BJ Dierkes changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from BJ Dierkes 2009-11-03 19:26:07 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: perl-Net-ARP Short Description: Create and Send ARP Packets Owners: derks Branches: F-11 F-12 EL-5 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 530754] Review Request: scour - A script to clean SVG files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=530754 --- Comment #6 from Thomas Spura 2009-11-03 14:58:11 EDT --- Here is an exemple for the license issue: bug #532590 current SPEC: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SPECS/yaws.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 532699] Review Request: ClanLib1 - Cross platform C++ game 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=532699 Xavier Bachelot changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Xavier Bachelot 2009-11-03 19:33:34 EDT --- > I still need to check the upgrade path. At least, I need to understand why > 'yum > localinstall ClanLib1' doesn't try to remove the older ClanLib package. The > Obsoletes: look fine to me though. > Works fine when the package is in a local repo. > Nitpick, you might want to change the suffix for Source1 and Patch[01] from > ClanLib to ClanLib1 to avoid conflict with the files included in the current > current ClanLib package. Also, patches aren't referencing upstream bugs, as > required for some time by the guidelines. Don't know if it's a must or a > should, I need to check that too. This is a "should' 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 526595] Review Request: zikula-module-filterutil - Pagesetter like filter rules for Zikula
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=526595 Nick Bebout changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution||CURRENTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 521724] Review Request: perl-Makefile-DOM - Simple DOM parser for Makefiles
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=521724 Nick Bebout changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||CURRENTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 516517] Review Request: globus-gridftp-server - Globus Toolkit - Globus GridFTP Server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=516517 Steve Traylen changed: What|Removed |Added CC||steve.tray...@cern.ch Bug 516517 depends on bug 516516, which changed state. Bug 516516 Summary: Review Request: globus-gridftp-server-control - Globus Toolkit - Globus GridFTP Server Library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=516516 What|Old Value |New Value Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Resolution||ERRATA Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Bug 516517 depends on bug 516514, which changed state. Bug 516514 Summary: Review Request: globus-authz - Globus Toolkit - Globus authz library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=516514 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||ERRATA Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Bug 516517 depends on bug 516515, which changed state. Bug 516515 Summary: Review Request: globus-gfork - Globus Toolkit - GFork https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=516515 What|Old Value |New Value Status|ASSIGNED|ON_QA Resolution||ERRATA Status|ON_QA |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 519483] Review Request: zikula-module-pagemaster - Creates pages with dynamic content like news, articles, etc
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=519483 Bug 519483 depends on bug 526595, which changed state. Bug 526595 Summary: Review Request: zikula-module-filterutil - Pagesetter like filter rules for Zikula https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=526595 What|Old Value |New Value Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution||CURRENTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 521723] Review Request: perl-Makefile-Parser - Simple parser for Makefiles
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=521723 Bug 521723 depends on bug 521724, which changed state. Bug 521724 Summary: Review Request: perl-Makefile-DOM - Simple DOM parser for Makefiles https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=521724 What|Old Value |New Value Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||CURRENTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 519483] Review Request: zikula-module-pagemaster - Creates pages with dynamic content like news, articles, etc
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=519483 Nick Bebout changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution||CURRENTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 516517] Review Request: globus-gridftp-server - Globus Toolkit - Globus GridFTP Server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=516517 Steve Traylen changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|steve.tray...@cern.ch Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Steve Traylen 2009-11-03 18:24:14 EDT --- Review of globus-gridftp-server Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1786926 almost: rpmlint $ rpmlint SPECS/globus-gridftp-server.spec \ RPMS/x86_64/globus-gridftp-server-* \ SRPMS/globus-gridftp-server-3.17-1.fc12.src.rpm globus-gridftp-server.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libglobus_gridftp_server.so.0.3.17 e...@glibc_2.2.5 globus-gridftp-server.x86_64: W: no-documentation globus-gridftp-server-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation globus-gridftp-server-progs.x86_64: W: no-documentation 5 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. yes: package named as per-globus. yes: spec file correct. yes: globus guidelines good. yes: ASL 2.0 in .spec yes: contents is also ASL 2.0 yes: GLOBUS_LICEENSE include. yes: english .spec yes: legible spec. yes: upstream matches. $ md5sum globus_gridftp_server-3.17.tar.gz ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES/globus_gridftp_server-3.17.tar.gz 4f1b25af2672acd1f9eaee3e6a6be40e globus_gridftp_server-3.17.tar.gz 4f1b25af2672acd1f9eaee3e6a6be40e /home/steve/rpmbuild/SOURCES/globus_gridftp_server-3.17.tar.gz yes: compiles , see koji above. yes: builds on all archs. yes: builds on all archs. yes: build dependencies sane. yes: no locales anyway. yes: ldoconfig called correctly. yes: no statics. yes: owns all directories. yes: no duplicate files. yes: all %defattr. yes: %clean is cleaned. yes: contains code. yes: no large docs anyway. yes: doc not needed. yes: headers are in devel. yes: pkgconfig required. yes: devel does require base explicitly. yes: no gui. yes: owns all files or directories or pulls them in. yes: %install is cleaned. yes: utf8. At last a package that actually does something useful :-) Can you submit a bug upstream on 0 exit from lib and I'll approve. Steve -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 497001] Review Request: auto-nng - A software for analysis and classification of data, using AI NN
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=497001 --- Comment #10 from Jason Tibbitts 2009-11-03 14:34:44 EDT --- You need to set the fedora-cvs flag to '?' if you want the CVS admins to see your request. Also, please don't CC me on tickets I 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 516531] Review Request: globus-gass-cache-program - Globus Toolkit - Tools to manipulate local and remote GASS cache s
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=516531 Bug 516531 depends on bug 516519, which changed state. Bug 516519 Summary: Review Request: globus-gram-client - Globus Toolkit - GRAM Client Library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=516519 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 521569] Review Request: perl-Locale-Maketext-Gettext - Joins the gettext and Maketext frameworks
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=521569 Nick Bebout changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED CC||n...@fedoraproject.org Resolution||CURRENTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 521723] Review Request: perl-Makefile-Parser - Simple parser for Makefiles
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=521723 Nick Bebout changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||CURRENTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 532231] Review Request: gdouros-akkadian-fonts - A font for Sumero-Akkadian cuneiform
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=532231 Kevin Fenzi changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #3 from Kevin Fenzi 2009-11-03 16:53:27 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 497001] Review Request: auto-nng - A software for analysis and classification of data, using AI NN
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=497001 Kevin Fenzi changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #12 from Kevin Fenzi 2009-11-03 16:54:26 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 532779] New: Review Request: gtraffic - Simple traffic usage counter for mobile broadband connections
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: gtraffic - Simple traffic usage counter for mobile broadband connections https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=532779 Summary: Review Request: gtraffic - Simple traffic usage counter for mobile broadband connections Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: toms...@fedoraproject.org QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://tomspur.fedorapeople.org/review/gtraffic.spec SRPM URL: http://tomspur.fedorapeople.org/review/gtraffic-1.01-2.fc11.src.rpm Description: gtraffic is a very quick and simple network traffic counter. It has the ability to manually change the used traffic, for example if used between two computers. It features a reset, so the usage can be reset at required intervals. This utility will only work with network manager and a mobile broadband connection, otherwise no data will be counted. __ $ rpmlint gtraffic.spec gtraffic-1.01-2.fc11.src.rpm noarch/gtraffic-1.01-2.fc11.noarch.rpm 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. __ Builds in Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1786420 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 516522] Review Request: globus-nexus - Globus Toolkit - Nexus 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=516522 Steve Traylen changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|steve.tray...@cern.ch Flag||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Steve Traylen 2009-11-03 17:48:43 EDT --- Review of globus-nexus: Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1786846 yes: rpmlint $ rpmlint SPECS/globus-nexus.spec RPMS/x86_64/globus-nexus-* SRPMS/globus-nexus-6.7-1.fc12.src.rpm globus-nexus-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. yes: package named as per-globus. yes: spec file correct. yes: globus guidelines good. yes: ASL 2.0 in .spec yes: contents is also ASL 2.0 yes: GLOBUS_LICEENSE include. yes: english .spec yes: legible spec. yes: upstream matches. $ diff --brief --recursive gt4.2.1-all-source-installer/source-trees/nexus/source ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES/globus_nexus-6.7 Only in /home/steve/rpmbuild/SOURCES/globus_nexus-6.7: GLOBUS_LICENSE which is expected. yes: compiles , see koji above. yes: builds on all archs. yes: builds on all archs. yes: build dependencies sane. yes: no locales anyway. yes: ldoconfig called correctly. yes: no statics. yes: owns all directories. yes: no duplicate files. yes: all %defattr. yes: %clean is cleaned. yes: contains code. yes: no large docs anyway. yes: doc not needed. yes: headers are in devel. yes: pkgconfig required. yes: devel does require base explicitly. yes: no gui. yes: owns all files or directories or pulls them in. yes: %install is cleaned. yes: utf8. just libs all easy. APPROVED. Steve -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 526263] Review Request: l7-protocols - Protocol definitions files for l7-filter
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=526263 --- Comment #4 from Christoph Wickert 2009-11-03 19:47:54 EDT --- Marcus, what happened to your server? All the files are returning 404. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 526311] Review Request: mysql-mmm - Multi-Master Replication Manager for MySQL
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=526311 --- Comment #10 from BJ Dierkes 2009-11-03 19:06:06 EDT --- This has been updated due to source change upstream, as well as a number of added patches/changes to clean up a few things: http://5dollarwhitebox.org/tmp/mysql-mmm.spec http://5dollarwhitebox.org/tmp/mysql-mmm-2.0.10-1.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 526126] Review Request: python3 - Python 3.x (backwards incompatible version)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=526126
--- Comment #42 from Toshio Ernie Kuratomi 2009-11-03
20:24:50 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #41)
> Re (ii), is there a standard way for a -devel package to drop macros into a
> directory (e.g. /usr/lib/rpm ) in such a way that rpm will automatically use
> them? Is this acceptable practice?
Yes. Create the macros in a file named macros.python3 (and macros.python for
the python2 macros) and drop them into %{_sysconfdir}/rpm/.
For instance, /etc/rpm/macros.perl in the perl-devel file.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 516527] Review Request: globus-gass-server-ez - Globus Toolkit - Globus Gass Server_ez
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=516527 Steve Traylen changed: What|Removed |Added CC||steve.tray...@cern.ch AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|steve.tray...@cern.ch Flag||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Steve Traylen 2009-11-03 17:19:30 EDT --- Review of globus-gass-server-ez: Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1786494 yes: rpmlint $ rpmlint SPECS/globus-gass-server-ez.spec \ RPMS/x86_64/globus-gass-server-ez-* \ SRPMS/globus-gass-server-ez-2.5-1.fc12.src.rpm globus-gass-server-ez-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation globus-gass-server-ez-progs.x86_64: W: no-documentation 5 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. yes: package named as per-globus. yes: spec file correct. yes: globus guidelines good. yes: ASL 2.0 in .spec yes: contents is also ASL 2.0 yes: GLOBUS_LICEENSE include. yes: english .spec yes: legible spec. yes: upstream matches. $ diff --recursive --brief globus_gass_server_ez-2.5 ~/globus/gt4.2.1-all-source-installer/source-trees/gass/server_ez/source/ Only in globus_gass_server_ez-2.5: GLOBUS_LICENSE which is expected. yes: compiles , see koji above. yes: builds on all archs. yes: builds on all archs. yes: build dependencies sane. yes: no locales anyway. yes: ldoconfig called correctly. yes: no statics. yes: owns all directories. yes: no duplicate files. yes: all %defattr. yes: %clean is cleaned. yes: contains code. yes: no large docs anyway. yes: doc not needed. yes: headers are in devel. yes: pkgconfig required. yes: devel does require base explicitly. yes: no gui. yes: owns all files or directories or pulls them in. yes: %install is cleaned. yes: utf8. yes it's a very boring package. APPROVED. Steve -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 532779] Review Request: gtraffic - Simple traffic usage counter for mobile broadband connections
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=532779
--- Comment #1 from Christoph Wickert 2009-11-03
19:44:31 EDT ---
REVIEW for 7f6282bd6420f2ac611fd5a33e7b28a1 gtraffic-1.01-2.fc11.src.rpm
OK - MUST: rpmlint silent
OK - MUST: named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
OK - MUST: spec file name matches the base package %{name}
OK - MUST: package meets the Packaging Guidelines
OK - MUST: Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines: GPLv3+
OK - MUST: License field in spec file matches the actual license
N/A - MUST: license file included in %doc
OK - MUST: spec is in American English
OK - MUST: spec is legible
OK - MUST: sources match the upstream source by MD5
4e3b45e8bbc7c111ee277944da754f80
OK - MUST: successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on all arches
OK - MUST: all build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires
N/A - MUST: handles locales properly with %find_lang
N/A - MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared
library files in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig
in %post and %postun
N/A - MUST: Not designed to be relocatable (none)
OK - MUST: owns all directories that it creates
OK - MUST: no duplicate files in the %files listing
OK - MUST: Permissions on files are set properly, includes %defattr(...)
OK - MUST: package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}
OK - MUST: consistently uses macros
OK - MUST: package contains code
N/A - MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage
OK - MUST: Files included as %doc do not affect the runtime of the application
N/A - MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package
N/A - MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package
N/A - MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'
N/A - MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix, then library
files that end in .so must go in a -devel package
N/A - MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully
versioned dependency
OK - MUST: The package does not contain any .la libtool archives
OK - MUST: The package contains a GUI application and includes a
%{name}.desktop file, and that file is properly installed with
desktop-file-install in the %install section.
OK - MUST: packages does not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
OK - MUST: at the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot}
OK - MUST: all filenames valid UTF-8
SHOULD Items:
N/A - SHOULD: Source package includes license text(s) as a separate file
N/A - SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file
should contain translations for supported Non-English languages
OK - SHOULD: builds in mock
OK - SHOULD: compiles and builds into binary rpms on all supported
architectures
OK - SHOULD: functions as described
N/A - SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane
N/A - SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency
N/A - SHOULD: pkgconfig(.pc) files should be placed in a -devel pkg
N/A - SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin,
/sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the
file instead of the file itself.
Other items:
OK - latest stable version
OK - SourceURL valid
N/A - Compiler flags ok
N/A - Debuginfo complete
Issues:
- Missing Requires: gnome-python2-gconf (this will also pull in all other deps
such as pygtk2)
- require NetworkManager (or even NetworkManager-gnome)
- Description: change "network manager" to "NetworkManager"
- I'm not really happy with %{_bindir}/trafficd. How about renaming it to
gtrafficd? Just an idea and only if it doesn't cause too much trouble.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 285801] Review Request: simias - Collection-Oriented Data Storage
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=285801 --- Comment #29 from Steve Traylen 2009-11-03 19:01:41 EDT --- There definitely some Apache licensed code in there as well e.g simias-1.6/src/core/Simias.log4net/src so some reviewing of the licensing is needed. but also log4net is in Fedora already though I've not checked if this actually the same thing. Also it looks like the private gsoap is being used again? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 516527] Review Request: globus-gass-server-ez - Globus Toolkit - Globus Gass Server_ez
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=516527 Steve Traylen changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||516531 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 497001] Review Request: auto-nng - A software for analysis and classification of data, using AI NN
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=497001 Fabian Deutsch changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #11 from Fabian Deutsch 2009-11-03 14:46:05 EDT --- Thanks for your hints. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 516527] Review Request: globus-gass-server-ez - Globus Toolkit - Globus Gass Server_ez
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=516527 Steve Traylen changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||516535 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 528003] Review Request: xinha - Javascript library for making textarea's WYSIWYG
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=528003 Toshio Ernie Kuratomi changed: What|Removed |Added CC||a.bad...@gmail.com Summary|Review Request: Xinha - |Review Request: xinha - |Javascript library for |Javascript library for |making textarea's WYSIWYG |making textarea's WYSIWYG Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #16 from Toshio Ernie Kuratomi 2009-11-03 15:17:08 EDT --- cvs done. Sorry for not marking this when I did that. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225617] Merge Review: bitmap-fonts
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225617 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo?(psatp...@redhat.c ||om) --- Comment #28 from Nicolas Mailhot 2009-11-03 14:28:52 EDT --- Please lift the NEEDINFO when you're ready to pass to the next stage -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 532231] Review Request: gdouros-akkadian-fonts - A font for Sumero-Akkadian cuneiform
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=532231 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ozam...@flukkost.nu Flag||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2009-11-03 14:27:04 EDT --- Nothing to say here, clean font and clean packaging ᚸᚸᚸ APPROVED ᚸᚸᚸ You can now continue from http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Font_package_lifecycle#3.a Nice work. repo-font-audit notes the font could be extended easily to cover more 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 428226] Review Request: idm-console-framework: Core console package used by Fedora Directory Server and other IDM projects
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=428226 Kevin Fenzi changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #10 from Kevin Fenzi 2009-11-03 14:17:26 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 492895] Review Request: xml-security-c - C++ Implementation of W3C security standards for XML
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=492895 Steve Traylen changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #18 from Steve Traylen 2009-11-03 14:15:08 EDT --- Package Change Request == Package Name: xml-security-c New Branches: EL-4 Owners: stevetraylen anttix -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 531912] Review Request: perl-Net-ARP - Create and Send ARP Packets
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=531912
--- Comment #3 from Ruben Kerkhof 2009-11-03 16:53:53
EDT ---
Ah, thanks!
The normal procedure is for you to update the release field in the spec file,
and post a link to the updated spec and srpm here.
You haven't addressed the first issue yet (rm -rf %{buildroot})
Just a few more comments:
-
/usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/5.10.0/x86_64-linux-thread-multi/auto/Net/ARP/ARP.bs
is an empty file and I don't think it's needed.
- Rename the .spec to perl-Net-ARP.spec (with capitals R and P). The spec has
to have the same name as the package. (rpmlint also complains about this when
you run it on the src.rpm).
- Why not make pure_install?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 532315] Review Request: nanoxml - Small XML parser for Java
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=532315 Kevin Fenzi changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #7 from Kevin Fenzi 2009-11-03 14:11:54 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 523343] Review Request: zikula-module-EZComments - Simple Zikula module that provides comment functions to other modules
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=523343 Kevin Fenzi changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #16 from Kevin Fenzi 2009-11-03 14:13:32 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 526564] Review Request: unittest - C++ unit testing 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=526564
Thomas Spura changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|toms...@fedoraproject.org
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Comment #8 from Thomas Spura 2009-11-03
16:37:02 EDT ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines
[x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture.
Tested on:
[] devel/i386
[] devel/x86_64
[] F11/i386
[x] F11/x86_64
___
[!] Rpmlint output:
$ rpmlint unittest.spec unittest-0.50-62.4.fc11.src.rpm x86_64/*
unittest.spec:40: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %prep %{__sed} -i
's|@libdir@|%{buildroot}%{_libdir}|g' Makefile.in
unittest.spec:44: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %build make %{?_smp_mflags}
libdir=%{buildroot}%{_libdir}
unittest.spec:69: W: macro-in-%changelog %doc
unittest.src:40: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %prep %{__sed} -i
's|@libdir@|%{buildroot}%{_libdir}|g' Makefile.in
unittest.src:44: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %build make %{?_smp_mflags}
libdir=%{buildroot}%{_libdir}
unittest.src:69: W: macro-in-%changelog %doc
unittest-debuginfo.x86_64: E: empty-debuginfo-package
3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 6 warnings.
- For the empty-debuginfo-package, please add a
%global debug_package %{nil}
- for the macro-in-%changelog: replace %doc with %%doc
- The other ones are ok.
_
[x] Buildroot is correct
(%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n))
[x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type: BSD
[x] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package is included in %doc.
[x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
Upstream source: 6eaa2823620c2e21fc745bd8da6a26b2
Build source:6eaa2823620c2e21fc745bd8da6a26b2
[x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch
[x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[-] The spec file handles locales properly.
[-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x] Package must own all directories that it creates.
[-] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x] Permissions on files are set properly.
[x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}.
[x] Package consistently uses macros.
[x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present.
[-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
__
[!] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
-devel should require : %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
I believe, it's usefull to also add a
Requires: %{name}-devel = %{version}-%{release}
to the main package, because most users would just run a
'yum install unittest'
__
[-] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
[-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
[x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
[x] Latest version is packaged.
[-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1786671
[x] Package functions as described (no hardware to test with).
There is a testsuite for this.
___
TODO:
- use %global instead %define in first line
- rpmlint:
* For the empty-debuginfo-package
[Bug 516535] Review Request: globus-gram-job-manager-scripts - Globus Toolkit - GRAM Job ManagerScripts
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=516535 Steve Traylen changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||516527 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 531912] Review Request: perl-Net-ARP - Create and Send ARP Packets
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=531912 Ruben Kerkhof changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Ruben Kerkhof 2009-11-03 19:08:32 EDT --- Thanks, everything looks fine now. This package is 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 530880] Review Request: ns-tiza-fonts - A Slab-Serif Font
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=530880
Nicolas Mailhot changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|nicolas.mail...@laposte.net
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2009-11-03
15:12:57 EDT ---
Hi Edward,
1. You seem to have based your packaging on an old (pre-fedora-11) template.
Please rebase on the fonts template found in fontpackages-devel. It will
considerably simplify your packaging and do more things such as generating rpm
metadata for the font auto-installer
2. description:
inspired on ⇒ inspired by ?
accent marks ⇒ diacritics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diacritic
ASCII ⇒ basic latin http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U.pdf
3. summary: you need to find a short statement that describes the font without
using its name (the font name is already included in the package name, and
every package manager will display the package name next to the summary)
4. repo-font-audit notes your rpm is not including font metadata (due to the
previously mentioned bad template choice) and that the font could be easily
extended to cover more scripts (to relay upstream)
af(1) { 0149 }
az-az(8) { 011e 011f 0130 0131 015e 015f 018f 0259 }
bin(6) { 0300 0301 1eb8 1eb9 1ecc 1ecd }
bm(8) { 014a 014b 0186 0190 019d 0254 025b 0272 }
ca(2) { 013f 0140 }
co(5) { 00c6 00e6 0152 0153 0178 }
crh(6) { 011e 011f 0130 0131 015e 015f }
csb(8) { 0104 0105 0141 0142 0143 0144 017b 017c }
da(2) { 00c6 00e6 }
de(1) { 00df }
et(4) { 0160 0161 017d 017e }
fi(4) { 0160 0161 017d 017e }
fo(3) { 00c6 00e6 00f0 }
fr(5) { 00c6 00e6 0152 0153 0178 }
fy(1) { 00df }
gn(4) { 0129 0169 1ebd 1ef9 }
ha(8) { 0181 018a 0198 0199 01b3 01b4 0253 0257 }
hu(4) { 0150 0151 0170 0171 }
hz(5) { 032f 1e12 1e13 1e4a 1e4b }
ig(6) { 1eca 1ecb 1ecc 1ecd 1ee4 1ee5 }
is(5) { 00c6 00de 00e6 00f0 00fe }
ki(4) { 0128 0129 0168 0169 }
kl(7) { 00c6 00e6 0128 0129 0138 0168 0169 }
kr(4) { 018e 01dd 024c 024d }
ku-tr(2) { 015e 015f }
lb(1) { 00df }
lg(2) { 014a 014b }
ln(9) { 011a 011b 0186 0190 0254 025b 0301 0302 030c }
mt(8) { 010a 010b 0120 0121 0126 0127 017b 017c }
na(2) { 0168 0169 }
nb(2) { 00c6 00e6 }
nds(1) { 00df }
nn(2) { 00c6 00e6 }
no(2) { 00c6 00e6 }
nso(2) { 0160 0161 }
ny(2) { 0174 0175 }
qu(1) { 02c8 }
ro(6) { 0102 0103 0218 0219 021a 021b }
sco(4) { 01b7 021c 021d 0292 }
shs(1) { 0313 }
sm(1) { 02bb }tig(221)
tk(6) { 0147 0148 015e 015f 017d 017e }
tn(2) { 0160 0161 }
to(1) { 02bb }
tr(6) { 011e 011f 0130 0131 015e 015f }vi(110) vo(0)
vot(4) { 0160 0161 017d 017e }
wo(2) { 014a 014b }
5. the OFL license joined to the file claims the author reserves the name as
"Tiza Chalk", but the name the font declares is just "Tiza", so maybe upstream
did a mistake here. It's very unusual to reserve a name different from the name
the font declares. If upstream decides the font is Tiza Chalk after all you'll
have to rename the package which is much easier to do before inclusion in
Fedora (also need to update the fontconfig rules, but this part is easy)
6. Please ask upstream to update the licensing info in the font file next time
they update it (the font file still claims its licensing is CC-By, not OFL)
7. It would probably also be a good idea to check fontlint, though its messages
are clear as mud as usual
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 532813] Review Request: gummi - A simple LaTeX 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=532813
Thomas Spura changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||toms...@fedoraproject.org
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|toms...@fedoraproject.org
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Thomas Spura 2009-11-03
18:20:47 EDT ---
Why do you have:
BuildRequires: gtk2-devel
BuildRequires: gnome-python2
BuildRequires: gnome-python2-extras
BuildRequires: pango
BuildRequires: pygtksourceview
It builds without them:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1786917
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines
[x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture.
Tested on:
[] devel/i386
[] devel/x86_64
[] F11/i386
[x] F11/x86_64
[x] Rpmlint output:
$ rpmlint gummi.spec gummi-0.4.2-1.fc11.src.rpm
noarch/gummi-0.4.2-1.fc11.noarch.rpm
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[x] Buildroot is correct
(%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n))
[x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type: MIT
__
[!] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package is included in %doc.
The license file is in /gummi/docs/LICENSE, but not in %doc
__
[x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[?] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
Upstream source: e71a4c66ed3eed6e8072033f67decf13
Build source:e71a4c66ed3eed6e8072033f67decf13
[x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch
___
[!] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
See above.
___
[-] The spec file handles locales properly.
[-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x] Package must own all directories that it creates.
[-] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x] Permissions on files are set properly.
[x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}.
[x] Package consistently uses macros.
[x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present.
[-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[-] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
[x] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
[x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
[x] Latest version is packaged.
[-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x] Package functions as described (no hardware to test with).
[-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct.
Issues:
- License file not in %doc
- too much BR
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 230262] Review Request: jss - Java Security Services (JSS)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=230262 Kevin Fenzi changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #25 from Kevin Fenzi 2009-11-03 16:55:14 EDT --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 492895] Review Request: xml-security-c - C++ Implementation of W3C security standards for XML
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=492895 --- Comment #20 from Steve Traylen 2009-11-03 17:03:41 EDT --- Hi Kevin, Should have been more verbose. After discussion I am joint owner for all releases and this has been been requested and approved via pkgdb. Quoting from Anntti's mail. Do You want to co-maintain the xml-security-c package? This way you could prepare that branch Yourself and probably get a faster result. I'm happy to do this. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 532818] New: Review Request: gdouros-musica-fonts - A font for musical symbols
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: gdouros-musica-fonts - A font for musical symbols https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=532818 Summary: Review Request: gdouros-musica-fonts - A font for musical symbols Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: ozam...@flukkost.nu QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://ozamosi.fedorapeople.org/gdouros-musica-fonts.spec SRPM URL: http://ozamosi.fedorapeople.org/gdouros-musica-fonts-2.52-1.fc12.src.rpm Description: Musica covers the following scripts and symbols supported by The Unicode Standard 5.2: Basic Latin, Greek and Coptic, some Punctuation and other Symbols, Byzantine Musical Symbols, (Western) Musical Symbols, Archaic Greek Musical Notation. It was created by George Douros. rpmlint gives a no-documentation warning. Upstream distributes no documentation. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 525914] Review Request: perl-Net-GitHub - Perl interface for github.com
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=525914 Kevin Fenzi changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #6 from Kevin Fenzi 2009-11-03 14:12:39 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 516527] Review Request: globus-gass-server-ez - Globus Toolkit - Globus Gass Server_ez
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=516527 Steve Traylen changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 477526] Review Request: rubygem-hpricot - A Fast, Enjoyable HTML Parser for Ruby
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477526 --- Comment #15 from Kevin Fenzi 2009-11-03 14:19:15 EDT --- Mamoru: Are you ok with kanarip maintaining this package for 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 526876] Review Request: php-pecl-gmagick - Provides a wrapper to the GraphicsMagick 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=526876 Kevin Fenzi changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #10 from Kevin Fenzi 2009-11-03 14:11:08 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 531040] Review Request: jsMath-fonts - A collection of Math symbol fonts
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=531040 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|nicolas.mail...@laposte.net Flag||fedora-review?, ||needinfo?(rdie...@math.unl. ||edu) --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2009-11-03 16:04:25 EDT --- 1. Please use a lowercase package name as per Fedora font packaging guidelines http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:FontsPolicy#Naming 2. Please use the font packaging templates in fontpackages-devel as per Fedora font packaging guidelines http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:FontsPolicy#Technical_implementation (otherwise no font metadata will be generated at build time; note that it won't work on mixed case packages) 3. Please check what repo-font-audit says about your package, a. install fontpackages-tools from http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=139320 b. put your rpms in a dir c. run createrepo on it d. run repo-font-audit test file://absolute-path-to-the-dir it will catch this kind of mistake (also identify other problems that need to be relayed upstream) 4. the font splitup and naming seems a giant pre-unicode pre-wws mess. the different files are probably all parts of the same font family, except they're not properly named and their symbols not properly mapped at the right unicode points (granted, some math codepoints are only being standardised today thanks to the nice work of the stix project). For this reason, it's probably better to suff all the files in the same package, and not create a subpackage for each of them (you gotta love when upstreams decide to create their own non-standard conventions to confuse everyone else) 5. a fontconfig file would be nice, if only to document the font should be put at a very low priority in fontconfig stacks (but since fontconfig relies on font naming, and this font naming is weird, that may not be sufficient) 6. Please check with spot this font is not on his TEX blacklist 7. When there is no obvious version in a font set we usually use the timestamp of the most recent font file in the archive upstream released as version 8. Other font packages use User Interface/X as group (which is arguably not ideal, but not worth creating inconsistencies with other packages) 9. If you wanted to package this for non-fedora distros such as epel, it'd probably be more effective to push fontpackages there than add conditionals in specs. Pushing fontpackages is not difficult you only need to : 1. put back in the spec templates the warts that could be removed in Fedora thanks to recent rpm enhancements 2. check the yum-utils is recent enough to run repo-font-audit (else remove this part) 3. check the fontconfig is recent enough to accept split config files in /etc/fonts/conf.d (else remove the fontconfig templates) fontpackages has few deps, only the templates included in it depend on particular enhancements and need "porting" -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 532739] Review Request: emacs-cedet - Collection of Emacs Development Environment Tools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=532739 Jason Tibbitts changed: What|Removed |Added CC||beol...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Jason Tibbitts 2009-11-03 13:52:52 EDT --- *** Bug 490352 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 531912] Review Request: perl-Net-ARP - Create and Send ARP Packets
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=531912 --- Comment #2 from BJ Dierkes 2009-11-03 13:38:20 EDT --- Both have been resolved. Scratch build is at: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1785686 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226639] Merge Review: xorg-x11-fonts
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226639 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo?(mc...@redhat.com) --- Comment #5 from Nicolas Mailhot 2009-11-03 13:37:26 EDT --- Please remove the needinfo when this bug is ready to move -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 532635] Review Request: rurple - A Python Learning Environment
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=532635 --- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla 2009-11-03 13:06:00 EDT --- Issues from full review: See #4. License tag should be GPLv2+ Should really be named rur-ple IMHO. The tarball is rurple, but the project is rur-ple. It's up to you, just my $0.02. Otherwise it looks good. Re: #5 You could always make a copy or the base material to a hidden folder in the user's home, so they'd each have their own copy. Check out cylindrix in CVS and see what's been done there. Assuming my reading of your code snippet is correct, you might not even need to do that. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 507083] Review Request: poco - C++ class libraries for network-centric 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=507083 Michal Schmidt 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 524238] Review Request: libclaw - C++ Library Absolutely Wonderful
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=524238
Xavier Bachelot changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|xav...@bachelot.org
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Comment #7 from Xavier Bachelot 2009-11-03 20:20:09
EDT ---
libclaw review :
+:ok, =:needs attention, -:needs fixing. n/a:not applicable
MUST Items:
[+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package.
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}
[+] 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.
b5e9902c85e6ba7213ce4bde75574b7b
[+] MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one supported architecture.
[n/a] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch.
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires
[n/a] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using
the %find_lang macro.
[+] 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.
[n/a] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must
state this fact in the request for review
[+] 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 package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
[+] 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).
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros
section of Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissible content. This is
described in detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines.
[n/a] 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.
[n/a] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[n/a] 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.
[n/a] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the
%install section.
[+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
[+] 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:
[n/a] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[n/a] SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file
should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[n/a] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all
supported architectures.
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as de
[Bug 532739] Review Request: emacs-cedet - Collection of Emacs Development Environment Tools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=532739 --- Comment #4 from Xavier Maillard 2009-11-03 19:35:07 EDT --- There is another glitch: emacs -q --no-init-file M-x ede-new RET Make RET => Cannot open load file: semantic-ede-grammar If I install the emacs-decet-el it works. Thank you for packaging 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 532635] Review Request: rurple - A Python Learning Environment
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=532635 --- Comment #7 from Paulo Roma Cavalcanti 2009-11-03 18:59:40 EDT --- Jon, I did what you asked: I created an script that copies the data to .rurple. Same URLs. Regarding the package name, I do not know. It seems easier for me to remember "yum install rurple", than having an extra "-" in the name. But we can choose the name at the end of the revision. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 507083] Review Request: poco - C++ class libraries for network-centric 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=507083
--- Comment #11 from Michal Schmidt 2009-11-03 13:44:24
EDT ---
Maxim,
For now I have just a couple of suggestions:
- Please do not use the "-s" option for make. Full logs from the compilation
should always be present in Koji builds.
- You don't have to use perl to do simple substitutions. sed is capable enough
and it's always present in the buildroots. For example:
sed -i.orig -e 's|$(INSTALLDIR)/lib\b|$(INSTALLDIR)/%{_lib}|g' Makefile
The other two substitutions use the same script, so they can even be merged
into a single sed invocation.
Oh, and %{_libdir} is nicer than /usr/%{_lib}.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 531541] Review Request: rho - An SSH system profiler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=531541 --- Comment #4 from Adrian Likins 2009-11-03 13:02:27 EDT --- version 0.0.12 avaiable at http://alikins.fedorapeople.org/files/rho/ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 530090] Review Request: emacs-goodies - Miscellaneous add-ons for Emacs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=530090 --- Comment #25 from Jochen Schmitt 2009-11-03 13:23:39 EDT --- (In reply to comment #19) > I have re-uploaded the source rpm; Found md5 mismatch; Please recheck mock > build; Thanks I have re-downloaded the package and retry to mack a mock build without any success. Best Regards: Jochen Schmitt -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 507083] Review Request: poco - C++ class libraries for network-centric 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=507083 Peter Lemenkov 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 526126] Review Request: python3 - Python 3.x (backwards incompatible version)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=526126 --- Comment #41 from Dave Malcolm 2009-11-03 13:56:50 EDT --- Thanks; I've addressed most of the above; here's the latest work-in-progress: Updated specfile: http://dmalcolm.fedorapeople.org/python3.spec Updated SRPM: http://dmalcolm.fedorapeople.org/python3-3.1.1-8.fc11.src.rpm Diff between 3.1.1-7 and 3.1.1-8: http://dmalcolm.fedorapeople.org/python3-from-3.1.1-7-to-3.1.1-8.diff rpmlint results are as before. Still to do: (i) analysis of shebang files still (ii) installation of rpm macros (iii) anything else I've missed Re (ii), is there a standard way for a -devel package to drop macros into a directory (e.g. /usr/lib/rpm ) in such a way that rpm will automatically use them? Is this acceptable practice? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
