[Bug 563673] Review Request: sil-abyssinica-fonts - SIL Abyssinica 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=563673 --- Comment #14 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com 2010-02-16 03:11:02 EST --- Pseudousers like fonts-sig are just for bug-tracking - they don't currently allow others access. :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 504050] Review Request: kdevplatform - Libraries for use by KDE development 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=504050 Michal Hlavinka mhlav...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mhlav...@redhat.com Flag||needinfo? --- Comment #10 from Michal Hlavinka mhlav...@redhat.com 2010-02-16 03:11:29 EST --- can't be installed file /usr/share/kde4/apps/cmake/modules/FindKDevPlatform.cmake from install of kdevplatform-0.9.95-0.3.beta5.fc12.x86_64 conflicts with file from package kdelibs-devel-6:4.4.0-4.fc12.x86_64 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 565764] New: Review Request: sugar-measure - Measure functionality for Sugar
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: sugar-measure - Measure functionality for Sugar https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=565764 Summary: Review Request: sugar-measure - Measure functionality for Sugar Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: ked...@marvell.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://kedars.fedorapeople.org/sugar-measure.spec SRPM URL: http://kedars.fedorapeople.org/sugar-measure-29-1.fc11.src.rpm Description: Hi, this is the Measure package for Sugar. It is a tool on the XO that allows kids to indulge in learning by doing. It provides an interface for the kids to connect sensors (light, heat, magnetic field etc) and view their signal. This is my first package thus I need a sponsor. I am a maintainer of Fedora-ARM. I have been working with rpm for a while as part of this. RPM Lint: # rpmlint /root/rpmbuild/SRPMS/sugar-measure-29-1.fc11.src.rpm sugar-measure.src: W: non-standard-group Sugar/Activities 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. # rpmlint /root/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/sugar-measure-29-1.fc11.noarch.rpm sugar-measure.noarch: W: non-standard-group Sugar/Activities sugar-measure.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/sugar/activities/Measure.activity/sensor_toolbar.py 0644 /usr/bin/python sugar-measure.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/sugar/activities/Measure.activity/drawwaveform.py 0644 /usr/bin/python sugar-measure.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/sugar/activities/Measure.activity/measure.py 0644 /usr/bin/python sugar-measure.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/sugar/activities/Measure.activity/toolbar_side.py 0644 /usr/bin/python sugar-measure.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/sugar/activities/Measure.activity/journal.py 0644 /usr/bin/python sugar-measure.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/sugar/activities/Measure.activity/audiograb.py 0644 /usr/bin/python sugar-measure.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/sugar/activities/Measure.activity/toolbar_top.py 0644 /usr/bin/python sugar-measure.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/sugar/activities/Measure.activity/sound_toolbar.py 0644 /usr/bin/python sugar-measure.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/sugar/activities/Measure.activity/activity/activity.info 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 9 errors, 1 warnings. Out of the above errors: 1. non-executable-script ones are seen because those files are included from other python scripts 2. script-without-shebang is seen because activity.info is not really a script but a file with various variable declarations. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 565764] Review Request: sugar-measure - Measure functionality for Sugar
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=565764 Kedar Sovani ked...@marvell.com 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 526855] Review Request: webacula - Web interface of a Bacula backup 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=526855 Yuri Timofeev tim4...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|atork...@gmail.com |ke...@tummy.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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 526855] Review Request: webacula - Web interface of a Bacula backup 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=526855 Yuri Timofeev tim4...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||Reopened Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED Resolution|NEXTRELEASE | Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #22 from Yuri Timofeev tim4...@gmail.com 2010-02-16 03:49:10 EST --- Package Change Request == Package Name: webacula New Branches: F-13 Owners: tim4dev -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 512170] Review Request: pidgin-sipe - Pidgin plugin for connecting to MS Communications Server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=512170 --- Comment #44 from Stefan Becker stefan.bec...@nokia.com 2010-02-16 04:19:48 EST --- FYI: 1.8.1 has just been released. It should fix all crashes reported against 1.8.0. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 565666] Review Request: darktable - Utility to organize and develop raw images
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=565666 Thomas Spura toms...@fedoraproject.org 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 565764] Review Request: sugar-measure - Measure functionality for Sugar
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=565764 Thomas Spura toms...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||toms...@fedoraproject.org --- Comment #1 from Thomas Spura toms...@fedoraproject.org 2010-02-16 04:43:38 EST --- Just a few comments, I'm no sponsor anyway: - Try running rpmlint -I $(warning/error) - $ rpmlint -I non-executable-script non-executable-script: This text file contains a shebang or is located in a path dedicated for executables, but lacks the executable bits and cannot thus be executed. If the file is meant to be an executable script, add the executable bits, otherwise remove the shebang or move the file elsewhere. - BuildRequires should be python-devel and not just python. BuildRequires python will be added automatic then. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 557021] Review Request: rubygem-merb-gen - Application and plugin generator scripts for Merb
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=557021
Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #6 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2010-02-16
05:08:17 EST ---
It is preferable that check test is executed under %_builddir
(i.e.
%check
pushd .%{geminstdir}
rake spec
) rather than %buildroot, however other things are okay.
---
This package (rubygem-merb-gen) is APPROVED by mtasaka
---
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/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 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2010-02-16 05:12:06 EST --- jarjar-0.9-5.fc12 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 12. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/jarjar-0.9-5.fc12 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/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 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2010-02-16 05:11:44 EST --- jarjar-0.9-5.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/jarjar-0.9-5.fc11 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 563177] Review Request: perl-Net-STOMP1 - STOMP object oriented module for Perl
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=563177 Steve Traylen steve.tray...@cern.ch changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |perl-Net-STOMP - STOMP |perl-Net-STOMP1 - STOMP |object oriented module for |object oriented module for |Perl|Perl -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 563177] Review Request: perl-Net-STOMP1 - STOMP object oriented module for Perl
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=563177 --- Comment #2 from Steve Traylen steve.tray...@cern.ch 2010-02-16 05:26:07 EST --- Spec URL: http://cern.ch/straylen/rpms/perl-Net-STOMP1/perl-Net-STOMP1.spec SRPM URL: http://cern.ch/straylen/rpms/perl-Net-STOMP1/perl-Net-STOMP1-0.6-2.fc12.src.rpm Description: This module provides an object oriented client interface to interact with servers supporting STOMP (Streaming Text Orientated Messaging Protocol). It supports the major features of messaging brokers: SSL, asynchronous I/O, receipts and transactions. Concerning the name change I have been in touch with upstream: This Net::STOMP is a complete rewrite of the existing Net::Stomp including API changes. In the future Net::Stomp with be declared unmaintained in CPAN and when this trickles down to Fedora/EPEL I can look at Obsoleting perl-Net-STOMP1 with perl-Net-STOMP. This will clearly take some time so would like perl-Net-STOMP1 reviewed for inclusion in the mean time. 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 563510] Review Request: php-xcache - yet another php cacher
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=563510 Timon timo...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #390236|0 |1 is obsolete|| --- Comment #18 from Timon timo...@gmail.com 2010-02-16 05:30:41 EST --- Created an attachment (id=394499) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=394499) php-xcache-1.3.0-4.fc12.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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 563510] Review Request: php-xcache - yet another php cacher
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=563510 Timon timo...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #390235|0 |1 is obsolete|| Flag|needinfo?(timo...@gmail.com | |) | --- Comment #17 from Timon timo...@gmail.com 2010-02-16 05:29:51 EST --- Created an attachment (id=394498) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=394498) php-xcache.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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 563510] Review Request: php-xcache - yet another php cacher
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=563510
--- Comment #19 from Timon timo...@gmail.com 2010-02-16 05:34:02 EST ---
(In reply to comment #15)
Quick notes
- don't understand why you try to register this as a pecl extension (%post /
%postun).
This is not a pecl extension, and you don't have the package.xml file required
for this.
- so, could also be removed
%global pecl_name xcache
Requires(post): %{__pecl}
Requires(postun): %{__pecl}
Provides: php-pecl(%{pecl_name}) = %{version}
I used php-pecl-apc as template.
fixed
- xcache.ini
zend_extension = /EXT_DIR/xcache.so
no need to give full path.
http://ru2.php.net/manual/en/ini.core.php#ini.zend-extension
Absolute path required.
- %defattr(-, root, root, 0755)
(-,root,root,-) must be enough. php script should be 644
This will remove a lot of rpmlint message
php-xcache.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/php-xcache/admin/...
fixed
- admin / coverager
You need to create a alias (httpd/conf.d) to give access to admin URL.
probably also need a writable dir for xcache.coveragedump_directory
If you don't want to make this available, don't install it, just add it in
%doc
Fixed. I move them to %doc.
- INSTALL
don't need this file in RPM
fixed
- Buildroot
is acceptable, but read
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRoot
fixed.
BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
(In reply to comment #16)
Can you post a updated spec file + src.rpm ?
php-xcache.spec: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=394498
php-xcache-1.3.0-4.fc12.src.rpm:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=394499
also can you include a koji scratch build ?
[ti...@timon rpmbuild]$ koji build --scratch dist-f12
SRPMS/php-xcache-1.3.0-4.fc12.src.rpm Uploading srpm:
SRPMS/php-xcache-1.3.0-4.fc12.src.rpm
[] 100% 00:00:05 107.71 KiB 21.09 KiB/sec
Created task: 1990279
Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1990279
None
Watching tasks (this may be safely interrupted)...
1990279 build (dist-f12, php-xcache-1.3.0-4.fc12.src.rpm): open
(x86-06.phx2.fedoraproject.org)
1990280 buildArch (php-xcache-1.3.0-4.fc12.src.rpm, ppc): free
1990281 buildArch (php-xcache-1.3.0-4.fc12.src.rpm, x86_64): free
1990280 buildArch (php-xcache-1.3.0-4.fc12.src.rpm, ppc): free - open
(ppc06.phx2.fedoraproject.org)
1990281 buildArch (php-xcache-1.3.0-4.fc12.src.rpm, x86_64): free - open
(xb-01.phx2.fedoraproject.org)
1990283 buildArch (php-xcache-1.3.0-4.fc12.src.rpm, i686): open
(x86-05.phx2.fedoraproject.org)
1990282 buildArch (php-xcache-1.3.0-4.fc12.src.rpm, ppc64): open
(ppc10.phx2.fedoraproject.org)
1990283 buildArch (php-xcache-1.3.0-4.fc12.src.rpm, i686): open
(x86-05.phx2.fedoraproject.org) - closed
0 free 4 open 1 done 0 failed
1990281 buildArch (php-xcache-1.3.0-4.fc12.src.rpm, x86_64): open
(xb-01.phx2.fedoraproject.org) - closed
0 free 3 open 2 done 0 failed
1990282 buildArch (php-xcache-1.3.0-4.fc12.src.rpm, ppc64): open
(ppc10.phx2.fedoraproject.org) - closed
0 free 2 open 3 done 0 failed
1990280 buildArch (php-xcache-1.3.0-4.fc12.src.rpm, ppc): open
(ppc06.phx2.fedoraproject.org) - closed
0 free 1 open 4 done 0 failed
1990279 build (dist-f12, php-xcache-1.3.0-4.fc12.src.rpm): open
(x86-06.phx2.fedoraproject.org) - closed
0 free 0 open 5 done 0 failed
1990279 build (dist-f12, php-xcache-1.3.0-4.fc12.src.rpm) completed
successfully
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 545408] Review Request: scantailor - post-processing tool for scanned pages
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=545408 --- Comment #5 from Jan Horak jho...@redhat.com 2010-02-16 05:46:36 EST --- Fixed everything what's required hopefully. Spec URL: http://xhorak.fedorapeople.org/scantailor.spec SRPM URL: http://xhorak.fedorapeople.org/scantailor-0.9.7.2-1.fc12.src.rpm Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1990260 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 562585] Review Request: ccd2iso - CloneCD image to ISO image file converter
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=562585 --- Comment #5 from Mohammed Safwat mohammed_elaf...@yahoo.com 2010-02-16 05:50:46 EST --- Created an attachment (id=394502) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=394502) new spec file to resolve the review findings Found it easier to attach the new spec file here, after resolving your remarks. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 562585] Review Request: ccd2iso - CloneCD image to ISO image file converter
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=562585
--- Comment #6 from Thomas Spura toms...@fedoraproject.org 2010-02-16
06:25:25 EST ---
Some other comments, I just noticed ;)
- better use 'make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT INSTALL=install -p'
This way the timestamps are preserved, when installing.
- rpmlint is not clean:
ccd2iso.src:51: W: macro-in-%changelog %{version}
Use %%{version} in the changelog, so this will not be considered as a macro.
This can be done, when a sponsor wants to sponsor you.
I think, you should wait for one and do some other informal reviews of other
packages.
See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/HowToGetSponsored#Reviewing_Packages
SPEC URL: http://tomspur.fedorapeople.org/other_review/ccd2iso.spec
SRPM URL:
http://tomspur.fedorapeople.org/other_review/ccd2iso-0.3-2.fc12.src.rpm
(Sponsor FYI: I get the source from the src.rpm he sended via mail and not via
spectool -g, so 'sources matches upstream' still needs to be verified.)
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 545408] Review Request: scantailor - post-processing tool for scanned pages
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=545408
Thomas Spura toms...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #6 from Thomas Spura toms...@fedoraproject.org 2010-02-16
06:41:42 EST ---
(In reply to comment #4)
- Please bump the release, when making changes the next time, so changes are
also visible.
Still not bumped :'(
- %files ok now
- debuginfo ok
SHOULD:
- Please delete ${RPM_BUILD_DIR}/${RPM_PACKAGE_NAME}-${RPM_PACKAGE_VERSION}/
everywhere, because this is not needed.
Or is there any reason, you use that, that I don't see atm?
- Moving resources/icons/COPYING around should be done in %prep
#
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.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 565811] Review Request: rubygem-rest-client - Simple REST client 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=565811 Michal Fojtik mfoj...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Platform|All |noarch Version|rawhide |12 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 565811] New: Review Request: rubygem-rest-client - Simple REST client for Ruby
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-rest-client - Simple REST client for Ruby https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=565811 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-rest-client - Simple REST client for Ruby Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: mfoj...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Target Release: --- Spec URL: http://mifo.sk/rubygem-rest_client.spec SRPM URL: http://mifo.sk/rubygem-rest-client-1.3.1-1.fc12.src.rpm Description: A simple Simple HTTP and REST client for Ruby, inspired by the Sinatra microframework style of specifying actions: get, put, post, delete. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 556489] Review Request: erlang-esasl - Simple Authentication and Security Layer (SASL) support for Erlang
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=556489 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2010-02-16 07:33:06 EST --- erlang-esasl-0.1-4.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/erlang-esasl-0.1-4.el5 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 556489] Review Request: erlang-esasl - Simple Authentication and Security Layer (SASL) support for Erlang
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=556489 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2010-02-16 07:33:01 EST --- erlang-esasl-0.1-4.fc12 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 12. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/erlang-esasl-0.1-4.fc12 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 538172] Review Request: pyactivemq - Python wrapper around activemq-cpp for messaging
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=538172 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2010-02-16 08:12:51 EST --- pyactivemq-0.1.0-2.20100214svn209.fc12 has been pushed to the Fedora 12 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update pyactivemq'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F12/FEDORA-2010-1878 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 512170] Review Request: pidgin-sipe - Pidgin plugin for connecting to MS Communications Server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=512170 --- Comment #46 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2010-02-16 08:21:34 EST --- pidgin-sipe-1.8.1-1.fc12 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 12. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F12/FEDORA-2010-1593 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 512170] Review Request: pidgin-sipe - Pidgin plugin for connecting to MS Communications Server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=512170 --- Comment #45 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2010-02-16 08:20:14 EST --- pidgin-sipe-1.8.1-1.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F11/FEDORA-2010-1585 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 545408] Review Request: scantailor - post-processing tool for scanned pages
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=545408
--- Comment #7 from Jan Horak jho...@redhat.com 2010-02-16 08:31:41 EST ---
Thanks for prompt answer and review. Sorry, about version bump. I didn't get
it. I thought that you mean to do koji scratch build.
A ${RPM_BUILD_DIR}/${RPM_PACKAGE_NAME}-${RPM_PACKAGE_VERSION} is no longer
required.
Spec URL: http://xhorak.fedorapeople.org/scantailor.spec
SRPM URL: http://xhorak.fedorapeople.org/scantailor-0.9.7.2-2.fc12.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.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 545408] Review Request: scantailor - post-processing tool for scanned pages
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=545408 Jan Horak jho...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #8 from Jan Horak jho...@redhat.com 2010-02-16 08:36:11 EST --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: scantailor Short Description: An interactive post-processing tool for scanned pages Owners: xhorak Branches: 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 565838] New: Review Request: gource - Software version control visualization
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: gource - Software version control visualization https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=565838 Summary: Review Request: gource - Software version control visualization Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: jrez...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Target Release: --- Spec URL: http://rezza.hofyland.cz/fedora/packages/gource/gource.spec SRPM URL: http://rezza.hofyland.cz/fedora/packages/gource/gource-0.24-1.fc12.src.rpm Description: Gource is a software version control visualization tool. Software projects are displayed by Gource as an animated tree with the root directory of the project at its centre. Directories appear as branches with files as leaves. Developers can be seen working on the tree at the times they contributed to the project. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 565838] Review Request: gource - Software version control visualization
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=565838 Ondrej Vasik ova...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||ova...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ova...@redhat.com Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 565838] Review Request: gource - Software version control visualization
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=565838 --- Comment #1 from Jaroslav Reznik jrez...@redhat.com 2010-02-16 09:04:13 EST --- Scratch build http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1990779 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 565844] Review Request: intellij-idea - IntelliJ IDEA Community Edition IDE
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=565844 --- Comment #1 from Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk 2010-02-16 09:22:30 EST --- It may be helpful for the reviewer to skip through this: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/IntelliJ_IDEA -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 237336] Review Request: perl-Crypt-OpenSSL-X509 -- Perl OpenSSL bindings for X509 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=237336 --- Comment #15 from Wes Hardaker wjhns...@hardakers.net 2010-02-16 09:29:24 EST --- FYI according to the docs the flag needed to be set to ? not + to get it to show up in their queue. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 565844] Review Request: intellij-idea - IntelliJ IDEA Community Edition IDE
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=565844 Michal Fojtik mfoj...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mfoj...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mfoj...@redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 565838] Review Request: gource - Software version control visualization
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=565838
Ondrej Vasik ova...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Ondrej Vasik ova...@redhat.com 2010-02-16 09:30:00 EST ---
Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable
+ MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
the review
Sources used when checking:
$ md5sum gource.spec
7024fd6a16c447c0939c310eef75582f gource.spec
$ md5sum gource-0.24-1.fc12.src.rpm
80b49f89a0c51ba70128063c446d710e gource-0.24-1.fc12.src.rpm
$ rpmlint -v *
gource-debuginfo.i686: I: checking
gource.src: I: checking
gource.i686: I: checking
3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
$ rpmlint --version
rpmlint version 0.91 Copyright (C) 1999-2007 Frederic Lepied, Mandriva
+ MUST: package 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 licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines
+ MUST: The License field in the package spec file matches 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. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task
From srpm:
$ md5sum gource-0.24.tar.gz
f896ebc6efbe3deed47dccf6c768dba5 gource-0.24.tar.gz
From upstream:
md5sum gource-0.24.tar.gz.
f896ebc6efbe3deed47dccf6c768dba5 gource-0.24.tar.gz
= MATCHES
+ MUST: The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture
- tested on i686, no problems
0 MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch
+ MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines
0 MUST: The spec file handles locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro
0 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.
0 MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries
+ 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
+ MUST: 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: Package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files
listings
+ MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. 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
+ MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content
0 MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage
+ MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime
of the application
0 MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package
0 MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package
0 MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'
0 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
0 MUST: 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 must be
removed in the spec if they are built
0 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
Package looks sane. APPROVED.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this
[Bug 543425] Review Request: gource - Software version control visualization
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=543425 Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jrez...@redhat.com --- Comment #30 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2010-02-16 09:38:29 EST --- *** Bug 565838 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 565838] Review Request: gource - Software version control visualization
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=565838 Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||DUPLICATE --- Comment #3 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2010-02-16 09:38:29 EST --- Sorry... *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 543425 *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 565838] Review Request: gource - Software version control visualization
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=565838 Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 565838] Review Request: gource - Software version control visualization
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=565838 --- Comment #4 from Ondrej Vasik ova...@redhat.com 2010-02-16 09:53:28 EST --- Ah, sorry... haven't checked dups... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 543425] Review Request: gource - Software version control visualization
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=543425 --- Comment #31 from Jaroslav Reznik jrez...@redhat.com 2010-02-16 09:58:50 EST --- Ops, sorry for duplicate but I've just checked F12 yum search to find if the package exists. What's the current status? There are no builds yet. Any problem I can help with? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 543425] Review Request: gource - Software version control visualization
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=543425 --- Comment #32 from Ondrej Vasik ova...@redhat.com 2010-02-16 10:00:31 EST --- Sorry for duplicate review, anyway - this one imho should add and ship at least %doc COPYING README THANKS ChangeLog -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 565858] New: Review Request: rubygem-thin - A thin and fast web server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: rubygem-thin - A thin and fast web server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=565858 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-thin - A thin and fast web server Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: mfoj...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Target Release: --- Spec URL: http://mifo.sk/rubygem-thin.spec SRPM URL: http://mifo.sk/rubygem-thin-1.2.5-1.fc12.src.rpm Description: Thin is a Ruby web server that glues together 3 of the best Ruby libraries in web history: - The Mongrel parser, the root of Mongrel speed and security - Event Machine, a network I/O library with extremely high scalability, performance and stability - Rack, a minimal interface between webservers and Ruby frameworks Which makes it, with all humility, the most secure, stable, fast and extensible Ruby web server bundled in an easy to use gem for your own pleasure. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 546451] Review Request: php-pear-HTML-Template-IT - Simple template API.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=546451 --- Comment #3 from David Hannequin david.hanneq...@gmail.com 2010-02-16 10:09:54 EST --- Hello, Sorry for my late reply. You will find the url of the new file and SRPM below: Spec URL: http://hvad.fedorapeople.org/fedora/php-pear-HTML-Template-IT/php-pear-HTML-Template-IT.spec SRPM URL: http://hvad.fedorapeople.org/fedora/php-pear-HTML-Template-IT/php-pear-HTML-Template-IT-1.2.1-2.src.rpm Otherwise please keep the rpm as much as possible in order to then make the rpm NagiosQL. Best regards -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 551763] Review Request: lua-sec - Lua binding for OpenSSL 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=551763 --- Comment #2 from Adam Goode a...@spicenitz.org 2010-02-16 10:35:33 EST --- There seems to be a lot of duplicate code from luasocket here. Do you think it is possible to figure out if some of it can be removed (since luasec depends on luasocket anyway), or at least figure out how much code is duplicated? I mention this because of this: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 565811] Review Request: rubygem-rest-client - Simple REST client 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=565811 Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp --- Comment #5 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2010-02-16 10:44:16 EST --- Quick notes: - README.rdoc says that license is under MIT - build.log says there is some duplicate %files entry, please fix this (this is a MUST item) https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DuplicateFiles - Now we prefer to use %global over %define https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#.25global_preferred_over_.25define - Please use %geminstdir macro in %files list because you have explicitly defined 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 565858] Review Request: rubygem-thin - A thin and fast web 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=565858 Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp --- Comment #1 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2010-02-16 10:56:24 EST --- Some quick notes - build fails, at least BR: ruby-devel is needed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1990997 - C extension modules should be installed under %ruby_sitearch, not under %geminstdir https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Ruby#Ruby_packages_with_binary_content.2Fshared_libraries - To create debuginfo rpms correctly, you once have to install gem file under %_builddir (i.e. you cannot install this gem file under %buildroot directory, otherwise creating debuginfo rpm fails: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Ruby#Ruby_Gem_with_extension_libraries_written_in_C - As this gem contains spec/ directory, please add %check section and execute some test program (like $ rake spec ) there. - Please use defined %geminstdir macro in %files - CHANGELOG COPYING README (and usually also Rakefile) should correctly marked as %doc. Also benchmark/ example/ spec/ tasks/ directories can perhaps be marked as %doc. - ext/ directory are to compile C extention module (thin_parser.so) and need not be packaged into binary rpm. - It seems that license tag should be MIT and BSD and (Ruby or GPLv2), however I will recheck this later. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 543425] Review Request: gource - Software version control visualization
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=543425 --- Comment #33 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2010-02-16 11:00:59 EST --- (In reply to comment #32) Sorry for duplicate review, anyway - this one imho should add and ship at least %doc COPYING README THANKS ChangeLog Oops, sorry for overlooking this. Siddhesh, please add this when importing this package into Fedora CVS. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/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 #9 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2010-02-16 11:33:10 EST --- ping 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 560457] Review Request: pyutil - A collection of mature utilities for Python programmers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=560457 Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #12 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2010-02-16 11:43:07 EST --- Okay. - This package (pyutil) is APPROVED by mtasaka - -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 521716] Review Request: python-zfec - A fast erasure codec with python 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=521716 --- Comment #6 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2010-02-16 11:44:51 EST --- FYI I approved pyutil and python-zbase. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 565902] New: Review Request: csync - a bidirectional file synchronizer for roaming home directories
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: csync - a bidirectional file synchronizer for roaming home directories https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=565902 Summary: Review Request: csync - a bidirectional file synchronizer for roaming home directories Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: a...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://www.cynapses.org/tmp/rpm/csync.spec SRPM URL: http://www.cynapses.org/tmp/rpm/csync-0.44.0-1.src.rpm Description: csync is an implementation of a file synchronizer which provides the feature of roaming home directories for Linux clients. csync makes use of libsmbclient in Samba/Windows environments. This is my first package and I'm looking for a sponsor. I'm the developer of csync. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 565902] Review Request: csync - a bidirectional file synchronizer for roaming home directories
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=565902 Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rdie...@math.unl.edu 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 521716] Review Request: python-zfec - A fast erasure codec with python 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=521716 Thomas Spura toms...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #8 from Thomas Spura toms...@fedoraproject.org 2010-02-16 12:02:21 EST --- (In reply to comment #6) FYI I approved pyutil and python-zbase. Thank you. # 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 540996] Review Request: rubygem-ffi - Foreign Function Interface package 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=540996
Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Comment #7 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2010-02-16
12:30:28 EST ---
Well,
* Latest version
- $ gem list -r ffi returns that the latest version is 0.6.2.
* Duplicate files
- build.log shows:
---
6047 warning: File listed twice:
/usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/ffi-0.5.4/LICENSE
6048 warning: File listed twice:
/usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/ffi-0.5.4/README.rdoc
---
Please fix these (note that these files should be marked
as %doc , so %doc %{geminstdir}/README.rdoc line (and so on)
should not be removed)
! Note
- Please change the release number every time you modify your srpm
(when version number does not change) to avoid confusion.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 565916] New: Review Request: php-ezc-Graph - A component for creating pie charts, line graphs and other kinds of diagrams
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: php-ezc-Graph - A component for creating pie charts, line graphs and other kinds of diagrams https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=565916 Summary: Review Request: php-ezc-Graph - A component for creating pie charts, line graphs and other kinds of diagrams Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: fed...@famillecollet.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://remi.fedorapeople.org/php-ezc-Graph.spec SRPM URL: http://remi.fedorapeople.org/php-ezc-Graph-1.5-1.remi.src.rpm Description: The Graph component enables you to create line, pie and bar charts. The output driver mechanism allows you to create different image types from each chart, and the available renderers make the chart output customizable from simple two-dimensional charts to beautiful three-dimensional data projections. rpmlint is silent: php-ezc-Graph.src: I: checking php-ezc-Graph.noarch: I: checking 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. koji scratch build (F-13) http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1991307 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 562388] Review Request: pisg - IRC statistics generator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=562388 Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp --- Comment #9 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2010-02-16 12:37:04 EST --- Well, while I have not checked this package yet, however http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/HowToGetSponsored shows that once you are sponsored, you have the right to review other submitters' review requests and approve the packages formally. For this reason, the person who want to be sponsored (like you) are required to show that you have an understanding of the process and of the packaging guidelines. Usually there are two ways to show this. A. submit other review requests with enough quality. B. Do a pre-review of other person's review request (at the time you are not sponsored, you cannot do a formal review) So please submit another review request or do at least one pre-review of other person's review request, and write the bug number on this bug report. Fedora package collection review requests which are waiting for someone to review can be checked on my wiki page: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Mtasaka#B._Review_request_tickets (Check No one is reviewing) Review guidelines are described mainly on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 547974] Review Request: ibus-skk - Japanese Simple Kana Kanji IME for ibus
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=547974 --- Comment #18 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2010-02-16 12:39:04 EST --- ping again? To clarify the current status: - NOTE: Before being sponsored: This package will be accepted with another few (or no) work. But before I accept this package, someone (I am a candidate) must sponsor you. Once you are sponsored, you have the right to review other submitters' review requests and approve the packages formally. For this reason, the person who want to be sponsored (like you) are required to show that you have an understanding of the process and of the packaging guidelines as is described on : http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/HowToGetSponsored Usually there are two ways to show this. A. submit other review requests with enough quality. B. Do a pre-review of other person's review request (at the time you are not sponsored, you cannot do a formal review) When you have submitted a new review request or have pre-reviewed other person's review request, please write the bug number on this bug report so that I can check your comments or review request. Fedora package collection review requests which are waiting for someone to review can be checked on my wiki page: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Mtasaka#B._Review_request_tickets (Check No one is reviewing) Review guidelines are described mainly on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 562388] Review Request: pisg - IRC statistics generator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=562388 --- Comment #10 from Jens Maucher je...@fedoraproject.org 2010-02-16 12:46:02 EST --- Mamoru-san, thanks a lot for the links. A few days ago i submitted an other review request, but with no answer at this time. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 562504] Review Request: mpi4py - Python bindings of the Message Passing Interface (MPI)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=562504 --- Comment #14 from Thomas Spura toms...@fedoraproject.org 2010-02-16 13:14:41 EST --- (In reply to comment #13) Hi, I'm the author of mpi4py and a Fedora user since the project started. I would like to make some comments on the way mpi4py is being packaged and propose some cleanups in the spec file. I could not find you in FAS, so I assume, you are not in the packager group. If so, you could co-maintain this package (or I co-maintain it ;) ). 1) Please DO NOT REMOVE all empty pyx/pxd files! Didn't know that about the cython support. Atm, I just use python. I deleted that part. 2) I would remove the whole 'docs/source/slides' directory. BTW, the contents of 'docs/source/usrman' are the reST sources from which the 'docs/usrman/*' HTML documentation (and 'docs/mpi4py.pdf') are generated (using Sphinx and Latex)... So perhaps the whole directory 'docs/source' could be removed, though the almost-plain-text reST sources at 'docs/source/usrman' could be handy. docs/source deleted. 3) mpi4py's custom, distutils-based buildsystem (conf/mpidistutils.py) already handles MPI compiler wrappers mpicc/mpicxx (as long as they can be found in $PATH), so there is not need to export CC=mpicc CXX=mpicxx. According to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/MPI that should be there. Furthermore this does not destroy something, so I leave it there, untill Jussi disagrees. 4) mpi4py DO SUPPORT Python 3. Moreover, the testsuite should also run and all tests pass. Of course, about half the tests will not run because of missing numpy, but the other half will use Python's builtin array.array instances. Yes, unfortunately there were some issues on the buildsystem with the tests. The mpich tests can't be run, because of the mpd issue, so I'll run them here locally and try to run the rest olso on the buildsystem, but they failed completely: It looks like orte_init failed for some reason; your parallel process is likely to abort. There are many reasons that a parallel process can fail during orte_init; some of which are due to configuration or environment problems. This failure appears to be an internal failure; here's some additional information (which may only be relevant to an Open MPI developer): orte_plm_base_select failed -- Returned value Not found (-13) instead of ORTE_SUCCESS - Disabled completely. Furthermore the testsuite runs just fine on my system. Thanks for your suggestions and infomations :) Spec URL: http://tomspur.fedorapeople.org/review/mpi4py.spec SRPM URL: http://tomspur.fedorapeople.org/review/mpi4py-1.2-6.fc12.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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 237336] Review Request: perl-Crypt-OpenSSL-X509 -- Perl OpenSSL bindings for X509 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=237336 Wes Hardaker wjhns...@hardakers.net changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #17 from Wes Hardaker wjhns...@hardakers.net 2010-02-16 13:24:03 EST --- Package Change Request == Package Name: perl-Crypt-OpenSSL-X509 New Branches: EL-4 EL-5 Owners: hardaker -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 561448] Review Request: jffi - Java Foreign Function Interface
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561448
Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp
--- Comment #1 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2010-02-16
13:37:25 EST ---
Some initial notes:
* Using %{version}
- Using %{version} in Source0 is useful (especially when version is
upgraded):
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL#Using_.25.7Bversion.7D
* EVR (Epoch-Version-Release) specific java dependency
- I guess you want BR: java-devel = 1:1.6.0 if you want Java OpenJDK
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Java#BuildRequires_and_Requires
- And for consistency I guess java Requires (not BuildRequires) should
also be EVR specific.
* Fedora specific compilation flags
- Fedora specific compilation flags are not honored.
---
100 -build-native-library:
101 [exec] cc -m32 -O2 -fno-omit-frame-pointer -fno-strict-aliasing
-DNDEBUG -W -Werror -Wall -Wno-unused -Wno-parentheses -Wundef
-I/builddir/build/BUILD/jffi-0.6.2/build/jni
-I/builddir/build/BUILD/jffi-0.6.2/build/jni/jni
-I/builddir/build/BUILD/jffi-0.6.2/jni
-I/builddir/build/BUILD/jffi-0.6.2/jni/jffi -fPIC
-I/usr/lib/jvm/java-1.6.0-openjdk-1.6.0.0/jre/../include
-I/usr/lib/jvm/java-1.6.0-openjdk-1.6.0.0/jre/../include/linux
-I/usr/lib/libffi-3.0.9/include -D_REENTRANT -D_LARGEFILE64_SOURCE
-D_GNU_SOURCE -pthread -march=i586 -mtune=generic -c
/builddir/build/BUILD/jffi-0.6.2/jni/jffi/Array.c -o
/builddir/build/BUILD/jffi-0.6.2/build/jni/jffi/Array.o
---
You can check the current compilation flags by
$ rpm --eval %optflags
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Compiler_flags
* jni-containing jar file location
- This jar file uses jni and should be installed under %_libdir/%name
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Java#Packaging_JAR_files_that_use_JNI
* Using ln
- For this please see my comment on bug 561482.
* Documents
- COPYING file (i.e. GPLv3 license text) should be also added to %doc.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 565945] Review Request: pam_csync - a PAM module to provide Roaming Home Directories
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=565945 Andreas Schneider a...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||565902 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 565945] New: Review Request: pam_csync - a PAM module to provide Roaming Home Directories
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: pam_csync - a PAM module to provide Roaming Home Directories https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=565945 Summary: Review Request: pam_csync - a PAM module to provide Roaming Home Directories Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: a...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://www.cynapses.org/tmp/rpm/pam_csync.spec SRPM URL: http://www.cynapses.org/tmp/rpm/pam_csync-0.42.0-1.fc12.src.rpm Description: This is a PAM module to provide roaming home directories for a user session. The authentication module verifies the identity of a user and triggers a synchronization with the server on the first login and the last logout. This requires bug #565902 to be accepted first. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 565902] Review Request: csync - a bidirectional file synchronizer for roaming home directories
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=565902 Andreas Schneider a...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||565945 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 565945] Review Request: pam_csync - a PAM module to provide Roaming Home Directories
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=565945 Andreas Schneider a...@redhat.com 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 455541] Review Request: dojo - javascript 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=455541 Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW AssignedTo|lemen...@gmail.com |nob...@fedoraproject.org Flag|fedora-review? | --- Comment #8 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com 2010-02-16 14:45:47 EST --- Anton, are you interested in reviewing this? If yes, then, please re-assign this ticket to yourself, since I still can't find time for reviewing. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 565902] Review Request: csync - a bidirectional file synchronizer for roaming home directories
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=565902
--- Comment #3 from Kevin Kofler ke...@tigcc.ticalc.org 2010-02-16 14:50:09
EST ---
There are still a few suseisms there. ;-)
* # norootforbuild is redundant and not used by anything around here, our
build system (Koji) never builds as root. I'd suggest removing that magic
comment (though it is not required as we don't have guidelines for comments ;-)
).
* While you fixed the main package's License tag, the License tags for the
subpackages are still bad (not compliant to Fedora guidelines). This is a MUST
fix.
* The cmake invocation should use the %cmake macro. This one also definitely
needs to be fixed.
* While %__make, %__rm, %{__mkdir} and the like are acceptable, we generally
just write make, rm, mkdir etc., those macros which expand to full paths are
not really necessary. (But this is not a must.)
* We don't systematically split out lib* subpackages, but in this case I guess
it makes sense. The most common naming convention for those subpackages in
Fedora is of the csync-libs form, but libcsync is OK as a name in this case.
(So IMHO that item is fine here, this was just informative.)
(Note: this is not a full review, just the stuff I noticed at first glance.)
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 565902] Review Request: csync - a bidirectional file synchronizer for roaming home directories
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=565902 --- Comment #4 from Kevin Kofler ke...@tigcc.ticalc.org 2010-02-16 14:55:24 EST --- PS: using our macros like %cmake is a SHOULD item in the guidelines, but you need to have a good reason not to use them if you don't, so in the absence of such a reason, please use the macro. :-) (And yes, this and the (usual) non-use of the %__ type macros is what I meant with differences in macro usage on IRC.) As for your question: rpmbuild -bs --nodeps specfile mock -r dist-arch SRPM where dist is e.g. fedora-13, arch is the basearch (i386, x86_64) and SRPM is what rpmbuild just produced. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 530473] Review Request: lessfs - Lessfs is an inline data deduplicating filesystem.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=530473 --- Comment #31 from Adam Miller maxamill...@fedoraproject.org 2010-02-16 15:09:15 EST --- Spec URL: http://maxamillion.fedorapeople.org/lessfs.spec SRPM URL: http://maxamillion.fedorapeople.org/lessfs-1.0.0-6.fc12.src.rpm I took into consideration the suggestion that we move to a /etc/lessfs/sample.cfg and applied that in this version of the spec file. 5) I have added a comment to the effect that the patch is fedora specific, and s far as the note about the patch being sent upstream, I only mailed direct from me to the upstream developer (afaik, its just one person) so I am unable to post a link to the effect. -AdamM -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 469931] Review Request: ipmiutil - IPMI Management Utilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=469931 --- Comment #24 from Terje Røsten terje...@phys.ntnu.no 2010-02-16 15:30:11 EST --- Okay, I believe I understand things a bit better now. Please post a updated spec when 2.6 is out and I will have fresh look. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 561761] Review Request: perl-HTML-Entities-Numbered - Conversion of numbered HTML entities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561761
--- Comment #8 from Xavier Bachelot xav...@bachelot.org 2010-02-16 15:42:50
EST ---
Imported and building in all requested branches.
(In reply to comment #5)
Not blockers, but:
Replacing PERL_INSTALL_ROOT with DESTDIR would seem to be a good idea, given
the recent fun along those lines :)
I don't get the reference, can you point me in the right direction, please ?
Think about including %{?perl_default_filter} by default, even if just pro
forma. It won't hurt anything and might save some pain down the line.
I'm about to add that to the devel branch, then probably to F-12 and F-11 too.
Not sure yet if the macro is available in EPEL.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 469931] Review Request: ipmiutil - IPMI Management Utilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=469931 --- Comment #25 from Andy Cress arcr...@users.sourceforge.net 2010-02-16 15:51:40 EST --- I have found that I need some input about this. I could simply remove the command scripts for hwreset,sensor,etc. with appropriate warning to legacy users that they are now defunct, but renaming the man pages is the issue where I need input. In renaming the man pages my proposal is to name it to match the meta-command subfunction with a prefix, and using i as the prefix makes sense to me, given that we don't want it to be too long to type. Below is the result. I need to know if that is sufficiently unique or not before I go through and proliferate the new naming scheme. There are previous examples in other projects of this type of prefix, for example the SCSI list utility is named 'slist'. old name new name existing meta-command referred to -- -- -- ipmiutil.8 ipmiutil.8 (ipmiutil) alarms.8 ialarms.8(ipmiutil alarms) bmcconfig.8iconfig.8(ipmiutil config) bmchealth.8ihealth.8(ipmiutil health) fruconfig.8ifru.8 (ipmiutil fru) getevent.8 igetevent.8 (ipmiutil getevent) hwreset.8 ireset.8 (ipmiutil reset) icmd.8 icmd.8 (ipmiutil cmd) idiscover.8idiscover.8 (ipmiutil discover) ievents.8 ievents.8(ipmiutil events) isolconsole.8 isol.8 (ipmiutil sol) pefconfig.8ilan.8 (ipmiutil lan) sensor.8 isensor.8(ipmiutil sensor) showsel.8 isel.8 (ipmiutil sel) tmconfig.8 iserial.8(ipmiutil serial) wdt.8 iwdt.8 (ipmiutil wdt) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 521716] Review Request: python-zfec - A fast erasure codec with python 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=521716 Ruben Kerkhof ru...@rubenkerkhof.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #9 from Ruben Kerkhof ru...@rubenkerkhof.com 2010-02-16 15:57:20 EST --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: python-zfec Short Description: A fast erasure codec with python bindings Owners: ruben Branches: F-12 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 565902] Review Request: csync - a bidirectional file synchronizer for roaming home directories
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=565902 --- Comment #5 from Andreas Schneider a...@redhat.com 2010-02-16 16:02:01 EST --- Thanks for the comments, fixed and uploaded. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 564520] Review Request: frama-c - Framework for source code analysis of C software
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=564520
--- Comment #9 from David A. Wheeler dwhee...@dwheeler.com 2010-02-16
16:09:31 EST ---
I've started to walk through the Fedora Guidelines and comparing with this
draft package. Here are some more comments.
The %files list isn't right. It ends with:
%exclude %{_datadir}/frama-c
which makes these lines pointless:
%{_datadir}/frama-c/why
%{_datadir}/frama-c/manuals
Basically, %{_datadir}/frama-c/why and ../manuals don't get packaged at all.
The file list in -devel don't look right at all to me; they look like examples
but NOT code necessary for developers depending on frama-c.
(See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:OCaml for more on OCaml -devel
packages.)
I suggest re-examining the %files list, so that they get split more cleanly
*AND* so that there's a -doc subpackage.
Strictly speaking, what you're packaging is Frama-C Beryllium 2 not
Beryllium.
This package contains a GUI, so there should be a .desktop file.
The Makefile uses $(CP) everywhere, but its definition (in
share/Makefile.common) doesn't preserve timestamps (this impacts the 'make
install' in the -devel package in particular). You need to try to preserve
timestamps. One way would be to modify share/Makefile.common so that:
CP = cp -f
becomes:
CP = cp -f --preserve=timestamps
Have you tried passing the SMP flags, e.g.:
make %{?_smp_mflags}
if that FAILS, then that should be documented, otherwise you should try to
build using SMP.
Thanks for working on this package, I really appreciate 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.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 565844] Review Request: intellij-idea - IntelliJ IDEA Community Edition IDE
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=565844 --- Comment #3 from Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk 2010-02-16 16:32:37 EST --- \o/ built http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1991863 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 469931] Review Request: ipmiutil - IPMI Management Utilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=469931 --- Comment #26 from Terje Røsten terje...@phys.ntnu.no 2010-02-16 16:29:23 EST --- sounds reasonable to me, the alternative is the git way (git-foo, git-bar ..etc), however git has the advantage of being short itself. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 523715] Review Request: logiweb - a system for electronic distribution of mathematics
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=523715 --- Comment #21 from Klaus Grue g...@diku.dk 2010-02-16 16:55:03 EST --- In all likelihood, the problem with http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1980267 is that bash stack size is limited. The only way I have managed to provoke a Program stack overflow is to issue ulimit -s 1 and then build the RPM. That makes my build fail at the same step as the Koji build above. ulimit -s 10 works. I use ulimit -s unlimited. Forget Comment 20 where I spoke about allocating more stack. The makefiles allocate plenty Lisp stack, which is unrelated to the program stack problem. All this happens to be in line with CLISP documentation: http://clisp.cons.org/impnotes/faq.html#faq-stack Googling for koji and ulimit I found no more than http://koji.rutgers.edu/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1671 --- Now I have two questions: Do you happen to know if koji limits the bash stack size (i.e. the number printed by ulimit -s). If yes, do you know a way that I can increase the bash stack size under Koji? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 566014] New: seabios - packaging issues
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: seabios - packaging issues https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=566014 Summary: seabios - packaging issues Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: seabios AssignedTo: jfor...@redhat.com ReportedBy: nott...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, d...@danny.cz, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com, ville.sky...@iki.fi, fedora-virt-ma...@redhat.com, jfor...@redhat.com Depends on: 553706 Blocks: 496968 Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Target Release: --- Clone Of: 553706 seabios-debuginfo is empty, $RPM_OPT_FLAGS are not used, and things appear to be explicitly stripped during build before find-debuginfo.sh has a chance of doing its job. At least V=1 should be added to the make line in %build to make these apparent from build logs. Maybe this package is special enough so usual -debuginfo stuff is not applicable (and if not, -debuginfo should be explicitly disabled). But not honoring $RPM_OPT_FLAGS needs a comment in the specfile in case it's intentional, See bug 496968 for more info. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 566014] seabios - packaging issues
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=566014 Bug 566014 depends on bug 553706, which changed state. Bug 553706 Summary: Review Request: seabios - Open-source legacy BIOS implementation https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=553706 What|Old Value |New Value Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 562330] Review Request: libnih - Lightweight application development 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=562330 Casey Dahlin cdah...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #13 from Casey Dahlin cdah...@redhat.com 2010-02-16 17:09:37 EST --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: libnih Short Description: lightweight application development library Owners: sadmac Branches: F-12 InitialCC: plautrba notting -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 523715] Review Request: logiweb - a system for electronic distribution of mathematics
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=523715 --- Comment #22 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2010-02-16 19:47:26 EST --- Well, explicitly calling $ ulimit -s unlimited makes build proceed a bit longer: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1992518 This time observes a different build failure. Would you look into this? By the way it seems Requires: texlive-latex, dvipdfm should be BuildRequires. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 556988] Review Request: ibus-fbterm - IBus front-end for fbterm.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=556988 Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||peter...@redhat.com --- Comment #10 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com 2010-02-16 20:16:26 EST --- I am not sure about the %post and %postun scripts. Just noticed this new policy: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Privilege_escalation_policy This probably also applies to fbterm itself (and other consoles). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 494695] Review Request: qutim - Multiplatform Instant Messenger on Qt4
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=494695
Christoph Wickert cwick...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||cwick...@fedoraproject.org
--- Comment #41 from Christoph Wickert cwick...@fedoraproject.org 2010-02-16
20:13:35 EST ---
The spec could be more readable if it was formatted properly. Please use line
breaks at 80 charakters, especially in the descriptions. Otherwise they are
hard to read on a terminal or in the PackageKit UI.
The name of the tag is URL, not Url.
The group of the -devel package should be Development/Libraries instead of
Applications/Internet. For the other subpackages you can omit the group tag
because it is the same than the one from the base package.
%descriptions should end with a dot. Exclamation marks are even worse than the
missing dots.
There are a lot of linguistic and grammar errors in the English descriptions.
The icon cache scriptlets are outdated, please use the latest version from
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets#Icon_Cache
Omit --add-category=Network from desktop-file-install because this is already
in the file.
Please preserve timestamps during %install,
install -p -m 644 icons/%{name}.png ...
...
make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot} INSTALL=install -p
see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Timestamps
Please use %global instead of %define, see
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#.25global_preferred_over_.25define
Just a hint, this is commented out currently.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 556988] Review Request: ibus-fbterm - IBus front-end for fbterm
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=556988 Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: ibus-fbterm |Review Request: ibus-fbterm |- IBus front-end for|- IBus front-end for fbterm |fbterm. | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 564520] Review Request: frama-c - Framework for source code analysis of C software
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=564520 --- Comment #10 from Alan Dunn amd...@gmail.com 2010-02-16 20:34:05 EST --- (In reply to comment #5) Regarding the upstream version naming convention... I agree with you, the upstream naming convention is awful (e.g., Beryllium). This is an odd duck, and I'd like to hear others' comments. I looked over the Fedora policy, here, on version numbers: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Package_Version The policy focuses on the situations where non-numeric version identifiers are Pre-release packages (e.g., alpha), Post-release packages (e.g., 1.3a), snapshots, and Jpackage-derived packages. None of these situations applies. In this case, we have a group that gives alphabetic names to versions, and you'd have to know the periodic table to know which is newer. We *could* use a MMDD system, but that is a little awkward. Translating the element names into their numeric atomic number (number of protons) isn't a bad idea at all, but I think you should use 0. as the prefix instead of 1.. This means that Beryllium would become 0.4. That way, if they switch to a more conventional version numbering system in the future, we can switch to it without using epochs. In addition, I think you should add the word beryllium to the release name, so that people can easily figure out which one they have. I'd be curious to hear others' thoughts on version/release naming. So, to clarify, you're suggesting a release of something like 2.beryllium? (The other way around would affect EVR comparisons, no?) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 564520] Review Request: frama-c - Framework for source code analysis of C software
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=564520
--- Comment #11 from Alan Dunn amd...@gmail.com 2010-02-16 20:54:38 EST ---
(In reply to comment #9)
I've started to walk through the Fedora Guidelines and comparing with this
draft package. Here are some more comments.
The %files list isn't right. It ends with:
%exclude %{_datadir}/frama-c
That is a mistake on my part.
which makes these lines pointless:
%{_datadir}/frama-c/why
%{_datadir}/frama-c/manuals
Basically, %{_datadir}/frama-c/why and ../manuals don't get packaged at all.
The file list in -devel don't look right at all to me; they look like examples
but NOT code necessary for developers depending on frama-c.
(See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:OCaml for more on OCaml -devel
packages.)
I suggest re-examining the %files list, so that they get split more cleanly
*AND* so that there's a -doc subpackage.
What I wanted to put in there was the code that is necessary to compile plugins
with Frama-C. At minimum, the Makefiles in that group are necessary, and I
thought that the extra files in there were necessary for plugin compilation,
but this appears to be untrue - I will need to re-examine exactly what is
necessary for plugin compilation. (It may well be more of the files as in a
conventional OCaml package, but to begin with I purposely did not package this
like an OCaml library because I thought one would not need some of the Frama-C
files.)
I suppose the documentation is large enough to require a doc package.
Strictly speaking, what you're packaging is Frama-C Beryllium 2 not
Beryllium.
True.
This package contains a GUI, so there should be a .desktop file.
Also true.
The Makefile uses $(CP) everywhere, but its definition (in
share/Makefile.common) doesn't preserve timestamps (this impacts the 'make
install' in the -devel package in particular). You need to try to preserve
timestamps. One way would be to modify share/Makefile.common so that:
CP = cp -f
becomes:
CP = cp -f --preserve=timestamps
Have you tried passing the SMP flags, e.g.:
make %{?_smp_mflags}
if that FAILS, then that should be documented, otherwise you should try to
build using SMP.
I'll make these last two changes as well.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 547974] Review Request: ibus-skk - Japanese Simple Kana Kanji IME for ibus
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=547974 Daiki Ueno u...@unixuser.org changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|needinfo?(u...@unixuser.org | |) | --- Comment #19 from Daiki Ueno u...@unixuser.org 2010-02-16 21:20:33 EST --- Sorry for late response. I'll certainly follow the convention to become a fedora packager. I had wondered which package I can work on - currently I'm thinking of packaging cocot, a terminfo-aware code conversion program: http://vmi.jp/software/cygwin/cocot.html Anyway, thanks for the detail information. I'll soon update the current status. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 565376] Review Request: qstardict - StarDict clone written in Qt4
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=565376 --- Comment #4 from Cheese Lee cheese...@126.com 2010-02-16 22:30:02 EST --- Thank you! URLs updated again. (In reply to comment #3) update-desktop-database is needed only if your desktop file has MimeType, so you can remove it from spec. %post update-desktop-database /dev/null ||: %postun if [ $1 -eq 0 ] ; then update-desktop-database /dev/null ||: fi -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 558057] Review Request: ghc-binary - Haskell binary serialisation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=558057 Conrad Meyer kon...@tylerc.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kon...@tylerc.org AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|kon...@tylerc.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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 547974] Review Request: ibus-skk - Japanese Simple Kana Kanji IME for ibus
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=547974 --- Comment #20 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2010-02-16 23:54:12 EST --- (In reply to comment #19) I had wondered which package I can work on - currently I'm thinking of packaging cocot, a terminfo-aware code conversion program: http://vmi.jp/software/cygwin/cocot.html No problem. When you submit a review request for this, please let us know on 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 557021] Review Request: rubygem-merb-gen - Application and plugin generator scripts for Merb
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=557021 Matthew Kent mk...@magoazul.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Matthew Kent mk...@magoazul.com 2010-02-16 23:58:47 EST --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: rubygem-merb-gen Short Description: Application and plugin generator scripts for Merb Owners: mkent 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 557021] Review Request: rubygem-merb-gen - Application and plugin generator scripts for Merb
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=557021 --- Comment #8 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2010-02-17 00:13:59 EST --- Now F-13 is branched. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 565764] Review Request: sugar-measure - Measure functionality for Sugar
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=565764 --- Comment #2 from Kedar Sovani ked...@marvell.com 2010-02-17 00:39:14 EST --- (In reply to comment #1) Just a few comments, I'm no sponsor anyway: sure, Thanks! - Try running rpmlint -I $(warning/error) - $ rpmlint -I non-executable-script non-executable-script: This text file contains a shebang or is located in a path dedicated for executables, but lacks the executable bits and cannot thus be executed. If the file is meant to be an executable script, add the executable bits, otherwise remove the shebang or move the file elsewhere. Yes, I meant that I believe both the type of errors above are false-positives in this case. Is there any spec-file workaround for those? - BuildRequires should be python-devel and not just python. BuildRequires python will be added automatic then. Hmm... Actually it doesn't really need python-devel in this case, just python is sufficient. Here is a koji scratch build. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1992656 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 555653] Review Request: ghc-haskeline - Haskell command-line interface for user input
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=555653 Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Comment #9 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com 2010-02-17 01:21:42 EST --- in the end I built -2.1, shrug. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 555653] Review Request: ghc-haskeline - Haskell command-line interface for user input
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=555653 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2010-02-17 01:48:25 EST --- ghc-haskeline-0.6.2.1-2.1.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ghc-haskeline-0.6.2.1-2.1.fc13 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 564557] Review Request: gfs-goschen-fonts - A 19th century Greek typeface
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=564557 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2010-02-17 01:58:14 EST --- gfs-goschen-fonts-20100203-1.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gfs-goschen-fonts-20100203-1.fc13 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 556308] Review Request: paratype-pt-sans-fonts - A pan-Cyrillic typeface
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=556308 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2010-02-17 02:00:22 EST --- paratype-pt-sans-fonts-20100112-2.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/paratype-pt-sans-fonts-20100112-2.fc13 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
