[Bug 549286] Review Request: rubygem-merb-core - Lightweight Ruby-based MVC framework for web development
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=549286 --- Comment #6 from Matthew Kent mk...@magoazul.com 2009-12-31 04:01:29 EDT --- (In reply to comment #5) So would you tell me if rubygem-ruby-debug review request (or other rubygem dependencies) are currently the strict blocker for this review request or not? Nothing blocking right now. merb-core, as is, should be able to run applications with the listed dependencies in the spec file. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483250] Review Request: chordii - Print songbooks (lyrics + chords)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483250 Hans de Goede hdego...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review+ --- Comment #25 from Hans de Goede hdego...@redhat.com 2009-12-31 04:43:52 EDT --- (In reply to comment #23) Thanks for your patience! Thanks for your perseverance! Sorting out licensing issues like this always takes a long breath, so thank you for doing this. Given that the Legal issue was the one and only blocker: 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 551560] New: Review Request: simulavr - An AVR Simulator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: simulavr - An AVR Simulator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=551560 Summary: Review Request: simulavr - An AVR Simulator Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rhb...@n-dimensional.de QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://ndim.fedorapeople.org/packages/simulavr/0.1.2.6-5.fc11/simulavr.spec SRPM URL: http://ndim.fedorapeople.org/packages/simulavr/0.1.2.6-5.fc11/simulavr-0.1.2.6-5.fc11.src.rpm Description: A simulator for microcontrollers from Atmel's AVR series. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 551560] Review Request: simulavr - An AVR Simulator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=551560 --- Comment #1 from Hans Ulrich Niedermann rhb...@n-dimensional.de 2009-12-31 05:08:37 EDT --- More info on package, including list of files in RPMs, rpmlint output, and a build log: http://ndim.fedorapeople.org/packages/simulavr/0.1.2.6-5.fc11/ Koji scratch build of 0.1.2.6-5.fc11 for dist-f13: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1896525 Package source as git repo: http://fedorapeople.org/gitweb?p=ndim/public_git/simulavr-package.git;a=summary I will put later versions of the package into their respective subdirectories under http://ndim.fedorapeople.org/packages/simulavr/ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 551565] New: Review Request: rubygem-haml - Haml XHTML template language
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: rubygem-haml - Haml XHTML template language https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=551565 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-haml - Haml XHTML template language Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: kana...@kanarip.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://www.kanarip.com/custom/SPECS/rubygem-haml.spec SRPM URL: http://www.kanarip.com/custom/f12/SRPMS/rubygem-haml-2.2.16-1.fc12.src.rpm Description: Haml takes your gross, ugly templates and replaces them with veritable Haiku. Haml is the next step in generating views in your Rails application. Haml is a refreshing take that is meant to free us from the templating languages we have gotten used to. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 551565] Review Request: rubygem-haml - Haml XHTML template language
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=551565 Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||DUPLICATE --- Comment #1 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-12-31 07:32:14 EDT --- Oops... *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 543549 *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 528332] Review Request: GNUnet - Secure peer-to-peer networking 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=528332 --- Comment #3 from Alexander Kahl ak...@imttechnologies.com 2009-12-31 07:34:58 EDT --- Ping -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 543549] Review Request: rubygem-haml - XHTML/XML templating engine
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=543549 Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kana...@kanarip.com --- Comment #10 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-12-31 07:32:14 EDT --- *** Bug 551565 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 551587] New: Review Request: java-gnome - Java GNOME bindings
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: java-gnome - Java GNOME bindings https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=551587 Summary: Review Request: java-gnome - Java GNOME bindings Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: a...@root.snowtree.se QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://www.root.snowtree.se/abo/fedora/reviews/java-gnome/java-gnome.spec SRPM URL: http://www.root.snowtree.se/abo/fedora/reviews/java-gnome/java-gnome-4.0.14-1.fc12.src.rpm Description: %description These are the Java bindings for GTK and GNOME! Featuring a robust engineering design, completely generated internals, a lovingly crafted layer presenting the public API, and steadily increasing coverage of the underlying libraries. You can use java-gnome to develop sophisticated user interfaces for Linux applications so that they richly integrate with the GNOME Desktop while leveraging the power of the Java language and your expertise with 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 551587] Review Request: java-gnome - Java GNOME bindings
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=551587 --- Comment #1 from Alexander Boström a...@root.snowtree.se 2009-12-31 08:23:36 EDT --- I'm trying to take over from where bug 438452 stalled. $ rpmlint java-gnome-4.0.14-1.fc12.src.rpm java-gnome-4.0.14-1.fc12.x86_64.rpm java-gnome-debuginfo-4.0.14-1.fc12.x86_64.rpm java-gnome-javadoc-4.0.14-1.fc12.x86_64.rpm java-gnome.spec 4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. I've asked on fedora-legal-list about how to handle the exception in the license. I've also asked upstream to include a COPYING 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 551587] Review Request: java-gnome - Java GNOME bindings
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=551587 Alexander Boström a...@root.snowtree.se changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 438452] Review Request: java-gnome: Java GNOME bindings
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=438452 --- Comment #18 from Alexander Boström a...@root.snowtree.se 2009-12-31 08:23:04 EDT --- I submitted an updated package in a new review request: bug 551587 I guess this one should be marked a dup. of the new one unless Colin Walters feels like picking it up again (in which case I'll close my request). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483250] Review Request: chordii - Print songbooks (lyrics + chords)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483250 Johan Vromans jvrom...@squirrel.nl changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #26 from Johan Vromans jvrom...@squirrel.nl 2009-12-31 08:25:47 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: chordii Short Description: Utility to print songsbooks (lyrics + chords) Owners: sciurius Branches: F-11 F-12 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 551587] Review Request: java-gnome - Java GNOME bindings
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=551587
--- Comment #2 from Alexander Boström a...@root.snowtree.se 2009-12-31
08:24:27 EDT ---
Quoting https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=438452#c14 here:
I'm also not sure whether to care that the gcc invocations don't use
$RPM_OPT_FLAGS and that make doesn't use %{?_smp_mflags}.
I think optflags are used properly now.
[-] If the project name and the commonly used JAR filename differ, a symbolic
link with the usual name must also be provided.
If I understand this guideline correctly, the jar file generated by
this package should be called java-gnome.jar, with gtk.jar as a
symbolic link.
It now installs java-gnome-4.0.14.jar and a bunch of symlinks.
[?] Since this package builds with OpenJDK, I'm not sure about the status
of the GCJ guidelines. Probably not applicable ...
java-gnome upstream has stopped supporting gcj.
[-] There are conflicting guidelines about JNI -- on the one hand, it says
that
They're still confusing, but I'm following the definitions under Guideline
and ignoring what's under Rationale.
Quoting https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=438452#c15 here:
Calling any of the jars delivered by this rpm as java-gnome.jar would make
little sense and confuse people.
Yeah, I'm also hesitant about inventing a name java-gnome.jar that upstream
doesn't use, but I'm doing just that now anyway.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 539469] Review Request: OpenSRF - Open Scalable Request 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=539469 Bug 539469 depends on bug 539472, which changed state. Bug 539472 Summary: Review Request: libmemcache - C API to memcached https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=539472 What|Old Value |New Value Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||DEFERRED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 539472] Review Request: libmemcache - C API to memcached
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=539472 Jeroen van Meeuwen kana...@kanarip.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||DEFERRED --- Comment #4 from Jeroen van Meeuwen kana...@kanarip.com 2009-12-31 08:23:28 EDT --- OpenSRF has been ported to use libmemcached instead. Closing deferred. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 544384] Review Request: report - Incident reporting 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=544384 Gavin Romig-Koch ga...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 544384] Review Request: report - Incident reporting 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=544384 --- Comment #9 from Gavin Romig-Koch ga...@redhat.com 2009-12-31 10:22:21 EDT --- Thanks everyone for your help and support. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 537971] Review Request: ghc-mmap - Haskell binding to mmap
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=537971
Lorenzo Villani lvill...@binaryhelix.net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ON_DEV
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Lorenzo Villani lvill...@binaryhelix.net 2009-12-31
11:01:11 EDT ---
Please ignore numbers in square brackets.
# MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
the review.
[lvill...@normandy tmp]$ rpmlint
/home/lvillani/devel/rpm/rpms/x86_64/ghc-mmap-devel-0.4.1-1.fc12.x86_64.rpm
/home/lvillani/devel/rpm/rpms/x86_64/ghc-mmap-doc-0.4.1-1.fc12.x86_64.rpm
/home/lvillani/devel/rpm/rpms/x86_64/ghc-mmap-prof-0.4.1-1.fc12.x86_64.rpm
ghc-mmap-0.4.1-1.fc12.src.rpm
ghc-mmap-prof.x86_64: E: devel-dependency ghc-mmap-devel
ghc-mmap-prof.x86_64: W: no-documentation
ghc-mmap-prof.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/ghc-6.10.4/mmap-0.4.1/libHSmmap-0.4.1_p.a
ghc-mmap.src: W: strange-permission mmap-0.4.1.tar.gz 0600
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings.
- These are all expected errors: OK
# MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
- OK
# MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [2] .
- OK
# MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
- OK
# MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines .
- BSD (3 clause) License: ok
# MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license. [3]
- BSD is a valid short name for 3-clause BSD 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.[4]
- OK
# MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [5]
- OK
# MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [6]
- OK
# MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no
upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL
Guidelines for how to deal with this.
[lvill...@normandy tmp]$ md5sum mmap-0.4.1.tar.gz mmap-0.4.1.tar.gz.1
2ebe9772a0efd0a6febfbc67c02faab2 mmap-0.4.1.tar.gz
2ebe9772a0efd0a6febfbc67c02faab2 mmap-0.4.1.tar.gz.1
(.1 comes from upstream) - OK
# MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture. [7]
- OK
# MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line. [8]
- OK
# MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
- OK
# MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.[9]
- OK
# MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library
files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must
call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [10]
- No shared libraries: OK
# MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.[11]
- OK
# MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker. [12]
- OK
# 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. [13]
- OK
# MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings. [14]
- OK
# MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
%defattr(...) line. [15]
- OK
# MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [16]
- OK
# MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [17]
- OK
# MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [18]
- OK
# MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc
[Bug 537979] Review Request: ghc-hashed-storage - Hashed file storage support
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=537979
Lorenzo Villani lvill...@binaryhelix.net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Lorenzo Villani lvill...@binaryhelix.net 2009-12-31
11:24:08 EDT ---
Ignore numbers in square brackets.
# MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
the review.[1]
Unable to build the package locally with the required version of mmap. Can you
try to bump the spec to build a newer version?
# MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
OK
# MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [2] .
OK
# MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
OK
# MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines .
BSD (3 clause) is a valid license.
# MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license. [3]
BSD is a valid short name for the 3-clause 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.[4]
OK
# MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [5]
OK
# MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [6]
OK
# MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no
upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL
Guidelines for how to deal with this.
[lvill...@normandy tmp]$ md5sum hashed-storage-0.3.9.tar.gz
hashed-storage-0.3.9.tar.gz.1
8310b334aa0464f7a72d27c45b042dfd hashed-storage-0.3.9.tar.gz
8310b334aa0464f7a72d27c45b042dfd hashed-storage-0.3.9.tar.gz.1
(.1 is the tarball downloaded from upstream website)
OK.
# MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture. [7]
Unable to build package.
# MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line. [8]
Unable to build package.
# MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
NOT OK: The specfile is missing a dependency on ghc-mmap-{devel,prof}
# MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.[9]
Unable to build package.
# MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library
files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must
call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [10]
Static libraries: OK
# MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.[11]
Unable to build package.
# MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker. [12]
OK
# 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. [13]
Unable to build package.
# MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings. [14]
OK
# MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
%defattr(...) line. [15]
OK
# MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [16]
OK
# MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [17]
OK
# MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [18]
OK
# MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition
of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to
size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). [19]
OK
# MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime
of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the
[Bug 544869] Review Request: udunits2 - A library for manipulating units of physical quantities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=544869
Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||or...@cora.nwra.com
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|or...@cora.nwra.com
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com 2009-12-31 12:14:47
EDT ---
* rpmlint
udunits2.i686: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib/libudunits2.so.0.0.0
e...@glibc_2.0
A number to UCAR libraries do this - often only when a certain flag is set.
Probably worth pinging upstream about though. Not blocking the review though.
* naming - okay
* NamingGuidelines
* licensing - MIT
* osi approved? yes
* included? yes
* correct mentioned in specfile? yes
specfile
* American English - yes
* legible - yes
* BuildRequires - good
* Locales - NA
* shared libraries: ldconfig - yes
* %clean section with rm -rf ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT} - yes
* macros - consistent
* sources - checksums match upstream
* relocatable? Prefix: /usr? - NA
* files and directories - good
* owns all created directories - yes
* all files listed in %files - yes
* permissions? - good
* deffattr? - yes
* no .la files - yes
* no conflicts with other packets - checked okay with udunits
* -devel - yes
* headers - yes
* static libraries - NA
* .so without suffix when .so.suffix existent - nope
* .pc files - NA
* permissable content - yes
* doc - yes
* large doc in -doc package - NA
* must not affect runtime - good
* mock build - yes
* sane scriptlets - yes
* subpackages with fully versioned dependency - yes
Looks good. Approved.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 550594] Review request: themonospot-base - core component of Themonospot suite
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=550594 --- Comment #10 from Armando Basile hmandevt...@gmail.com 2009-12-31 12:30:24 EDT --- SPEC URL: http://www.integrazioneweb.com/repository/SPECS/fedora/themonospot-base.spec SRPM URL: http://www.integrazioneweb.com/repository/SRPMS/fedora/themonospot-base-0.8.2-2.fc12.src.rpm changes: - added mono-devel as BuildRequires (to detect mono dependency automatically) - removed mono-core from BuildRequires and Requires - removed pkgconfig from BuildRequires - added themonospot to Obsoletes -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 550600] Review Request: themonospot-gui-gtk - Gtk gui to scan multimedia files using Themonospot
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=550600 --- Comment #5 from Armando Basile hmandevt...@gmail.com 2009-12-31 14:10:42 EDT --- SPEC URL: http://www.integrazioneweb.com/repository/SPECS/fedora/themonospot-gui-gtk.spec SRPM URL: http://www.integrazioneweb.com/repository/SRPMS/fedora/themonospot-gui-gtk-0.2.2-1.fc12.src.rpm changed: - bug fix: scan process without plugin installed - only mono-devel and desktop-file-utils as BuildRequire -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 550601] Review Request: themonospot-gui-qt - Qt gui to scan multimedia files using Themonospot
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=550601 --- Comment #3 from Armando Basile hmandevt...@gmail.com 2009-12-31 14:40:08 EDT --- SPEC URL: http://www.integrazioneweb.com/repository/SPECS/fedora/themonospot-gui-qt.spec SRPM URL: http://www.integrazioneweb.com/repository/SRPMS/fedora/themonospot-gui-qt-0.1.3-2.fc12.src.rpm changes: - only mono-devel and desktop-file-utils as BuildRequire -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 550598] Review Request: themonospot-plugin-mkv - manage Matroska container
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=550598 --- Comment #4 from Armando Basile hmandevt...@gmail.com 2009-12-31 14:41:12 EDT --- SPEC URL: http://www.integrazioneweb.com/repository/SPECS/fedora/themonospot-plugin-mkv.spec SRPM URL: http://www.integrazioneweb.com/repository/SRPMS/fedora/themonospot-plugin-mkv-0.1.1-2.fc12.src.rpm changes: - only mono-devel as BuildRequire -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 550599] Review Request: themonospot-console - console application to scan multimedia 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=550599 --- Comment #7 from Armando Basile hmandevt...@gmail.com 2009-12-31 14:43:52 EDT --- SPEC URL: http://www.integrazioneweb.com/repository/SPECS/fedora/themonospot-console.spec SRPM URL: http://www.integrazioneweb.com/repository/SRPMS/fedora/themonospot-console-0.1.1-2.fc12.src.rpm changes: - only mono-devel as BuildRequire -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 550597] Review Request: themonospot-plugin-avi - manage Avi container
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=550597 --- Comment #4 from Armando Basile hmandevt...@gmail.com 2009-12-31 14:41:47 EDT --- SPEC URL: http://www.integrazioneweb.com/repository/SPECS/fedora/themonospot-plugin-avi.spec SRPM URL: http://www.integrazioneweb.com/repository/SRPMS/fedora/themonospot-plugin-avi-0.1.1-2.fc12.src.rpm changes: - only mono-devel as BuildRequire -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 550600] Review Request: themonospot-gui-gtk - Gtk gui to scan multimedia files using Themonospot
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=550600 --- Comment #6 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-12-31 21:08:51 EDT --- Well, while Requires: gtk-sharp2 themonospot-base mono-core can be removed with BuildRequires: mono-devel, BuildRequires: gtk-sharp2-devel themonospot-base-devel are still needed (and same on other themonospot-foo packages) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 551651] New: Review Request: ArpON - Arp handler inspection
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: ArpON - Arp handler inspection https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=551651 Summary: Review Request: ArpON - Arp handler inspection Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: saga...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://sagarun.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/ArpON.spec SRPM URL: http://sagarun.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/ArpON-1.90-1.fc12.src.rpm Description: ArpON (Arp handler inspectiON) is a portable handler daemon It has a lot of features and it makes Arp a bit safer. It uses static arp inspection and dynamic arp inspection as two kinds of anti arp poisoning techniques. koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1897321 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
