[Bug 579635] Review Request: ibus-table-xingyin - The structural and phonetic tables for IBus-Table
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=579635 Caius 'kaio' Chance changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|supercy...@163.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 579633] Review Request: ibus-table-xingyin - The structural and phonetic tables for IBus-Table
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=579633 Caius 'kaio' Chance changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||DUPLICATE --- Comment #1 from Caius 'kaio' Chance 2010-04-06 01:41:37 EDT --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 579635 *** -- Configure 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 579613] Review Request: ibus-table-cangcan - Cang Jie, Cantonese, and derived tables for IBus-Table
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=579613 Caius 'kaio' Chance 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 579635] Review Request: ibus-table-xingyin - The structural and phonetic tables for IBus-Table
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=579635 Caius 'kaio' Chance 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 579635] Review Request: ibus-table-xingyin - The structural and phonetic tables for IBus-Table
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=579635 --- Comment #1 from Caius 'kaio' Chance 2010-04-06 01:41:37 EDT --- *** Bug 579633 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 579635] New: Review Request: ibus-table-xingyin - The structural and phonetic tables for IBus-Table
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: ibus-table-xingyin - The structural and phonetic tables for IBus-Table https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=579635 Summary: Review Request: ibus-table-xingyin - The structural and phonetic tables for IBus-Table Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: ccha...@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://kaio.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/ibus-table-xingyin.spec SRPM URL: http://kaio.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/ibus-table-xingyin-1.3.0.20100406-1.fc12.src.rpm Description: The structural and phonetic tables for IBus-Table -- Configure 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 579635] Review Request: ibus-table-xingyin - The structural and phonetic tables for IBus-Table
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=579635 Caius 'kaio' Chance 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 579635] Review Request: ibus-table-xingyin - The structural and phonetic tables for IBus-Table
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=579635 Caius 'kaio' Chance changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||i18n -- Configure 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 579633] New: Review Request: ibus-table-xingyin - The structural and phonetic tables for IBus-Table
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: ibus-table-xingyin - The structural and phonetic tables for IBus-Table https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=579633 Summary: Review Request: ibus-table-xingyin - The structural and phonetic tables for IBus-Table Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: ccha...@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://kaio.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/ibus-table-xingyin.spec SRPM URL: http://kaio.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/ibus-table-xingyin-1.3.0.20100406-1.fc12.src.rpm Description: The structural and phonetic tables for IBus-Table -- Configure 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 579322] Review Request: perl-Log-Dispatchouli - Simple wrapper around Log::Dispatch
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=579322 Iain Arnell changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Iain Arnell 2010-04-06 01:16:52 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: perl-Log-Dispatchouli Short Description: Simple wrapper around Log::Dispatch Owners: iarnell Branches: F-11 F-12 F-13 InitialCC: perl-sig -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 579327] Review Request: perl-Perl-PrereqScanner - Tool to scan your Perl code for its prerequisites
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=579327 Iain Arnell changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Iain Arnell 2010-04-06 01:15:44 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: perl-Perl-PrereqScanner Short Description: Tool to scan your Perl code for its prerequisites Owners: iarnell Branches: F-11 F-12 F-13 InitialCC: perl-sig -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 579449] Review Request: emacs-common-riece - Yet Another IRC Client for Emacs and XEmacs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=579449 --- Comment #1 from Daiki Ueno 2010-04-06 01:04:23 EDT --- Fixed encoding of Japanese docs in -2: Spec URL: http://www.unixuser.org/~ueno/software/fedora/riece/emacs-common-riece.spec SRPM URL: http://www.unixuser.org/~ueno/software/fedora/riece/emacs-common-riece-6.1.0-2.fc13.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 574047] Review Request: mythes-ne - Nepali mythes thesaurus
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=574047 Parag AN(पराग) changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Parag AN(पराग) 2010-04-06 00:31:24 EDT --- koji build => http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2096689 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 453422] Review Request: songbird - Mozilla based multimedia player
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453422 --- Comment #131 from DuvJones 2010-04-06 00:33:57 EDT --- David... Thank you. -- Configure 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 579322] Review Request: perl-Log-Dispatchouli - Simple wrapper around Log::Dispatch
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=579322 Parag AN(पराग) changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||panem...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|panem...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Parag AN(पराग) 2010-04-06 00:27:12 EDT --- Review: + package builds in mock (rawhide i686). koji Build =>http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2093965 + rpmlint is silent for SRPM and for RPM. perl-Log-Dispatchouli.noarch: I: checking-url http://search.cpan.org/dist/Log-Dispatchouli/ (timeout 10 seconds) perl-Log-Dispatchouli.src: I: checking-url http://search.cpan.org/dist/Log-Dispatchouli/ (timeout 10 seconds) perl-Log-Dispatchouli.src: I: checking-url http://www.cpan.org/authors/id/R/RJ/RJBS/Log-Dispatchouli-1.100712.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds) 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. + source files match upstream url (sha1sum) f634b060963f7b3551cb98a4cba9a104c65c4405 Log-Dispatchouli-1.100712.tar.gz + package meets naming and packaging guidelines. + specfile is properly named, is cleanly written + Spec file is written in American English. + Spec file is legible. + dist tag is present. + license is open source-compatible. + License text is included in package. + %doc is present. + BuildRequires are proper. + %clean is present. + package installed properly. + Macro use appears rather consistent. + Package contains code, not content. + no headers or static libraries. + no .pc file present. + no -devel subpackage + no .la files. + no translations are available + Does owns the directories it creates. + no scriptlets present. + no duplicates in %files. + file permissions are appropriate. + make test gave All tests successful. Files=3, Tests=33, 0 wallclock secs ( 0.03 usr 0.00 sys + 0.23 cusr 0.02 csys = 0.28 CPU) + Package perl-Log-Dispatchouli-1.100712-1.fc14.noarch => Provides: perl(Log::Dispatchouli) = 1.100712 perl(Log::Dispatchouli::Proxy) = 1.100712 Requires: perl(Carp) perl(Log::Dispatch) perl(Params::Util) perl(Scalar::Util) perl(strict) perl(String::Flogger) perl(Try::Tiny) >= 0.04 perl(warnings) rpmlib(VersionedDependencies) <= 3.0.3-1 + Not a GUI application 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 579327] Review Request: perl-Perl-PrereqScanner - Tool to scan your Perl code for its prerequisites
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=579327 Parag AN(पराग) changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||panem...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|panem...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Parag AN(पराग) 2010-04-06 00:22:16 EDT --- Review: + package builds in mock (rawhide i686). koji Build =>http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2093995 + rpmlint is silent for SRPM and for RPM. perl-Perl-PrereqScanner.noarch: I: checking-url http://search.cpan.org/dist/Perl-PrereqScanner/ (timeout 10 seconds) perl-Perl-PrereqScanner.src: I: checking-url http://search.cpan.org/dist/Perl-PrereqScanner/ (timeout 10 seconds) perl-Perl-PrereqScanner.src: I: checking-url http://www.cpan.org/authors/id/J/JQ/JQUELIN/Perl-PrereqScanner-0.100830.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds) 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. + source files match upstream url (sha1sum) aef5256d1e54b2ccbeef1e40ce635616fc5b1fe5 Perl-PrereqScanner-0.100830.tar.gz + package meets naming and packaging guidelines. + specfile is properly named, is cleanly written + Spec file is written in American English. + Spec file is legible. + dist tag is present. + license is open source-compatible. + License text is included in package. + %doc is present. + %clean is present. + package installed properly. + Macro use appears rather consistent. + Package contains code, not content. + no headers or static libraries. + no .pc file present. + no -devel subpackage + no .la files. + no translations are available + Does owns the directories it creates. + no scriptlets present. + no duplicates in %files. + file permissions are appropriate. + make test gave All tests successful. Files=3, Tests=72, 0 wallclock secs ( 0.02 usr 0.02 sys + 0.43 cusr 0.06 csys = 0.53 CPU) + Package perl-Perl-PrereqScanner-0.100830-1.fc14.noarch => Provides: perl(Perl::PrereqScanner) = 0.100830 Requires: perl >= 0:5.008 perl(File::Spec::Functions) perl(FindBin) perl(lib) perl(List::Util) perl(namespace::autoclean) perl(Perl::PrereqScanner) perl(PPI) >= 1.205 perl(Scalar::Util) perl(strict) perl(Version::Requirements) >= 0.100630 perl(warnings) rpmlib(VersionedDependencies) <= 3.0.3-1 /usr/bin/perl + Not a GUI application Suggestions: 1) Remove following from SPEC BuildRequires: perl >= 0:5.008 2) Also, I think following can be removed BuildRequires: perl(PPI::Document) as following is already included BuildRequires: perl(PPI) >= 1.205 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 579613] Review Request: ibus-table-cangcan - Cang Jie, Cantonese, and derived tables for IBus-Table
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=579613 Caius 'kaio' Chance changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: -|Jie, Cantonese, and derived ||tables for IBus-Table -- Configure 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 579613] Review Request: ibus-table-cangcan - Cang Jie, Cantonese, and derived tables for IBus-Table
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=579613 Caius 'kaio' Chance changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|supercy...@163.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 579613] New: Review Request: -
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=579613 Summary: Review Request: - Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: ccha...@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://kaio.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/ibus-table-cangcan.spec SRPM URL: http://kaio.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/ibus-table-cangcan-1.3.0.20100406-1.fc12.src.rpm Description: Cang Jie, Cantonese, and their derived tables for IBus-Table. -- Configure 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 579613] Review Request: -
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=579613 Caius 'kaio' Chance changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||i18n 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 576482] Review Request: ghc-deepseq - Haskell library to fully evaluate data structures
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=576482 Jens Petersen changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #4 from Jens Petersen 2010-04-05 21:47:33 EDT --- cvs admin done -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 501101] Review Request: emacs-color-theme - elisp mode to customize emacs look and feel
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=501101 Jonathan Underwood changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jonathan.underw...@gmail.co ||m -- Configure 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 501101] Review Request: emacs-color-theme - elisp mode to customize emacs look and feel
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=501101
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Underwood
2010-04-05 21:42:05 EDT ---
The package needs updating to comply with the most recent emacs packaging
guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Emacs
Specifically, in the spec file:
1/ Remove the pkgconfig stuff
2/ Update the macros to use the new names eg %{emacs_version}->{_emacs_version}
etc
3/ Don't buildrequire emacs-el
4/ Add comments about the patches - have they been sent upstream, if so when.
Give URLs to upstream bugzilla or mailing list archives if appropriate
5/ Spec file legibility is compromised by having lines commented out,
particularly ones which begin with macros - commenting a macro may not always
disable it! Please remove the unneeded commented code lines from the spec file.
In addition, note that color-theme is already included in the emacs-goodies
package which is already in Fedora. Personally I would like to see color-theme
packaged separately from the goodies collection (which contains a lot of nasty
elsip of low quality). Once this passes review you'll need to coordinate with
the emacs-goodies package owner to remove the color theme stuff from that
package.
Formal Review:
Key:
[X] All is OK.
[A] Needs action
[A] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
the review.
--->See comment #8 for things that need fixing.
[X] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
.
[X] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [2] .
[A] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
---> See the points above
[X] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines .
[A] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
--->color-theme.el states that the files is GPLv2+, but the spec file says
GPLv2. This needs clarifying.
[X]MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package must be included in %doc.[4]
[X] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [5]
[A] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [6]
---> See point above about removing the commented out lines
[X] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no
upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL
Guidelines for how to deal with this.
Packaged source md5sum:
a4de73c236a6af11ab378bfe18dabcca color-theme-6.6.0.tar.gz
Upstream md5sum:
a4de73c236a6af11ab378bfe18dabcca color-theme-6.6.0.tar.gz
[X] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture. [7]
[X] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line. [8]
[X] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for
any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
[X] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.[9]
[X] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library
files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must
call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [10]
[X] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.[11]
[X] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker. [12]
[X] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not
create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
create that directory. [13]
[X] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file's %files listings. [14]
[X] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
%defattr(...) line. [15]
[A] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [16]
> Please use the correct macros from the most recent Emacs add-on packaging
guidelines
[X] MUST:
[Bug 501101] Review Request: emacs-color-theme - elisp mode to customize emacs look and feel
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=501101 Jonathan Underwood changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jonathan.underw...@gmail.co ||m --- Comment #8 from Jonathan Underwood 2010-04-05 21:17:52 EDT --- Rebuilding packages in mock works fine. rpmlint output on resulting packages: $ rpmlint *.rpm emacs-color-theme.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US customizations -> customization, customization's, customization s emacs-color-theme.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US customizations -> customization, customization's, customization s > These can be ignored. emacs-color-theme.src:15: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 14, tab: line 15) -> This needs fixing (untabify the spec file) emacs-color-theme-el.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Elisp -> Lisp, Elise, Elisa emacs-color-theme-el.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US elisp -> lisp, e lisp, Elise --> Ignore these emacs-color-theme-el.noarch: W: no-documentation ---> This is fine, ignore. 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 576482] Review Request: ghc-deepseq - Haskell library to fully evaluate data structures
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=576482 Jens Petersen changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Jens Petersen 2010-04-05 20:52:53 EDT --- Thanks for reviewing, Bryan. New Package CVS Request === Package Name: ghc-deepseq Short Description: Haskell library to fully evaluate data structures Owners: petersen Branches: F-13 InitialCC: bos, haskell-sig -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 470547] Review Request: emacs-semi - MIME rendering library for Emacs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470547 Jonathan Underwood changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jonathan.underw...@gmail.co ||m -- Configure 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 470547] Review Request: emacs-semi - MIME rendering library for Emacs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470547
--- Comment #14 from Jonathan Underwood
2010-04-05 20:29:14 EDT ---
Also, the spec file needs updating to comply with the latest Emacs add-on
packaging guidelines. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Emacs
Specifically, these changes need to be made to the spec file.
1/ the pkgconfig stuff can be removed
2/the emacs specific macros need to be changed accordingly eg %{emacs_version}
should now be %{_emacs_version} etc
3/ No need to buildrequire emacs-el
4/ Comments need adding to the spec file about the patches - have these been
sent upstream? If so, supply a date, an email archive url or a bugzilla url.
5/ BuildRoot is no longer needed - remove.
6/ In install, remove the rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
7/ Fix up the changelog entry to properly comply with the guidelines
Once these are done I'll finish the review.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 470547] Review Request: emacs-semi - MIME rendering library for Emacs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470547 Jonathan Underwood changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jonathan.underw...@gmail.co ||m --- Comment #13 from Jonathan Underwood 2010-04-05 20:22:26 EDT --- Rebuild of packages in Comment #12 inside mock succeeds. rpmlint output on resulting rpms: emacs-semi.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog [1.14.6-1] ['1.14.6-1.fc14', '1.14.6-1'] --> Needs fixing emacs-semi.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/emacs-semi-1.14.6/ChangeLog emacs-semi.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/emacs-semi-1.14.6/README.en emacs-semi.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/emacs-semi-1.14.6/VERSION ---> These need fixing using iconv in %prep emacs-semi.noarch: W: empty-%post emacs-semi.noarch: W: empty-%preun ---> Remove these sections emacs-semi-el.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Elisp -> Lisp, Elise, Elisa emacs-semi-el.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US elisp -> lisp, e lisp, Elise ---> False positives, safe to ignore emacs-semi-el.noarch: W: no-documentation ---> False positive, ignore 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 470545] Review Request: emacs-wl - Wanderlust, an advanced mail client for Emacs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470545 Jonathan Underwood changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jonathan.underw...@gmail.co ||m --- Comment #7 from Jonathan Underwood 2010-04-05 20:13:24 EDT --- I started to review this by first doing a build in mock, however that fails: + cd /builddir/build/BUILD/wl-2.15.6 + make LISPDIR=/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/emacs-wl-2.15.6-1.fc14.x86_64//usr/share/emacs/site-lisp PIXMAPDIR=/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/emacs-wl-2.15.6-1.fc14.x86_64//usr/share/pixmaps/wl emacs -batch -q -no-site-file -l WL-MK -f compile-wl-package \ /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/emacs-wl-2.15.6-1.fc14.x86_64//usr/share/emacs/site-lisp /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/emacs-wl-2.15.6-1.fc14.x86_64//usr/share/pixmaps/wl Loading /builddir/build/BUILD/wl-2.15.6/WL-CFG... Cannot open load file: install make: *** [elc] Error 255 error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.k61Uqr (%install) RPM build errors: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.k61Uqr (%install) Child returncode was: 1 EXCEPTION: Command failed. See logs for output. # ['bash', '--login', '-c', 'rpmbuild -bb --target x86_64 --nodeps builddir/build/SPECS/emacs-wl.spec'] Traceback (most recent call last): File "/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/mock/trace_decorator.py", line 70, in trace result = func(*args, **kw) -- Configure 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 579593] Review Request: python3-cherrypy - Pythonic, object-oriented web development framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=579593 Dave Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||530636(Python3F13) --- Comment #1 from Dave Malcolm 2010-04-05 19:51:03 EDT --- rpmlint output: python3-cherrypy.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Pythonic -> Python, Polyphonic, Phonically python3-cherrypy.src: W: invalid-url Source0: CherryPy-r2567.tar.gz python3-cherrypy.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Pythonic -> Python, Polyphonic, Phonically 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. "Pythonic" is a commonly-used word within the Python community, and see the specfile for the reasons for the nonstandard source URL. Scratch building in Koji here: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2096462 -- Configure 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 579593] New: Review Request: python3-cherrypy - Pythonic, object-oriented web development framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: python3-cherrypy - Pythonic, object-oriented web development framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=579593 Summary: Review Request: python3-cherrypy - Pythonic, object-oriented web development framework Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: dmalc...@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://dmalcolm.fedorapeople.org/python3-packaging/python3-cherrypy/python3-cherrypy.spec SRPM URL: http://dmalcolm.fedorapeople.org/python3-packaging/python3-cherrypy/python3-cherrypy-3.2.0-0.rc1.r2567.fc14.src.rpm Description: This is a python3 version of python-cherrypy. Upstream are releasing separate tarballs for Python 2 and Python 3 (from separate SVN branches), so this is a separate specfile for the Python 3 branch. I based the package on python-cherrypy.spec, but I had to make a number of changes to make it work (see the specfile). -- Configure 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 526916] Review Request: orc - The Oil Runtime Compiler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=526916
--- Comment #25 from Fabian Deutsch 2010-04-05 19:29:15
EDT ---
Thanks for those lengthy replies :)
(In reply to comment #24)
> (In reply to comment #23)
...
> > > - Installed binary in devel: %{_bindir}/orcc
done.
I created a separate package -compiler
> > > SHOULD:
> > > - doc subpackage can be set as noarch as it's rather big (450ko)
> >
> > How can I establish this? %ifdef noarch?
> You can use:
> BuildArch: noarch
> Within the %package -doc section. But this only work with newer Fedora.
done
> > > - It should be possible to avoid usage of generated header in the API:
> > > orc/orc-stdint.h:#define _STDINT_HAVE_STDINT_H 1
done
Spec and srpm:
http://www.informatik.uni-bremen.de/~fabiand/fedora/orc/2/orc.spec
http://www.informatik.uni-bremen.de/~fabiand/fedora/orc/2/orc-0.4.4-2.fc14.src.rpm
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2096454
--
Configure 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 570424] Review Request: transmission-remote-cli - A console client for the Transmission BitTorrent client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=570424 --- Comment #10 from Christoph Wickert 2010-04-05 19:23:00 EDT --- You are right, it's up to the packager, but here are some more things I'd like to point out: The versioning of the package is IMO wrong. The release 0.1git... indicates that it is a pre-release and a final version is still to come, but upstream does no releases and uses git only for hosting. Thus the package can simply be called 0.5.5-3 On the other hand the spec lacks a comment how to regenerate the exact source that was used. Upstream is already at 0.56 now, so there should be a comment how to get 0.5.5. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Using_Revision_Control VCS keys would be nice too, although they are not yet ratified by FESCo. See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Walters/Packaging_VCS_key_proposal Last but not least the requires for transmission-deamon should IMHO be versioned since the program only supports >= 1.80 but we have older versions in the 'everything' repos. -- Configure 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 570424] Review Request: transmission-remote-cli - A console client for the Transmission BitTorrent client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=570424 --- Comment #9 from Rahul Sundaram 2010-04-05 19:11:55 EDT --- The RPM packages in Fedora are only meant for Fedora. I don't see the point in cluttering the spec file but that is left to the packager. I am only opposing any claims that is *required* anymore. In fact, even a %clean is not necessary anymore in Fedora 13. The rpmlint warnings can be ignored. -- Configure 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 570424] Review Request: transmission-remote-cli - A console client for the Transmission BitTorrent client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=570424
Christoph Wickert changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||cwick...@fedoraproject.org
--- Comment #8 from Christoph Wickert 2010-04-05
18:55:14 EDT ---
Although the BuildRoot tag and cleaning the buildroot are no longer stricktly
necessary, what is wrong with having these two lines in the spec and making it
work on more platforms?
If you really want to save a few letters, I suggest to replace
install -Dpm 644 %{SOURCE1} %{buildroot}%{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}/README.md
and
%doc %{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}/README.md
with a simple
%doc %{SOURCE1}
--
Configure 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 571225] Review Request: petit - Log analysis tool for syslog, Apache and raw log files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=571225
Dominic Hopf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Dominic Hopf 2010-04-05 18:39:49
EDT ---
$ rpmbuild -bs petit.spec
Erstellt: /home/dmaphy/rpmbuild/SRPMS/petit-1.0.0-1.fc12.src.rpm
$ rpmlint petit-1.0.0-1.fc12.src.rpm
petit.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) syslog -> systole, slogan,
syllogism
petit.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US syslog -> systole, slogan,
syllogism
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
As you wrote before, this warnings can safely be ignored. :)
$ rpmlint petit-1.0.0-1.fc12.noarch.rpm
petit.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) syslog -> systole, slogan,
syllogism
petit.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US syslog -> systole,
slogan, syllogism
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
See above.
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
[x] Specfile name matches %{name}.spec
[x] Package seems to meet Packaging Guidelines
[x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary RPMs on at least one
supported architecture.
Tested on: Fedora 12/x86_64
[x] Rpmlint output:
source RPM: see above
binary RPM: see above
[x] Package is not relocatable.
[x] License in specfile matches actual License and meets Licensing Guidelines
License: GPLv3+
[x] License file is included in %doc.
[x] Specfile is legible and written in AE
[x] Sourcefile in the Package is the same as provided in the mentioned Source
SHA1SUM of Source: c9bec12d98b692e198d2c4715216aa590055128a
[x] Package compiles successfully
[x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires
[-] Specfile handles locales properly
[-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required
[x] Package owns directorys it creates
[-] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x] Package does not list a file more than once in the %files listing
[x] %files section includes %defattr and permissions are set properly
[x] %clean section is there and contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x] Macros are consistently used
[x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage
[x] Program runs properly without files listed in %doc
[-] Header files are in a -devel package
[-] Static libraries are in a -static package
[-] Package requires pkgconfig if .pc files are present
[-] .so-files are put into a -devel subpackage
[-] Subpackages include fully versioned dependency for the base package
[-] Any libtool archives (*.la) are removed
[-] contains desktop file (%{name}.desktop) if it is a GUI application
[x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x] $RPM_BUILD_ROOT is removed at beginning of %install
[-] Filenames are encoded in UTF-8
=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
[?] Package contains latest upstream version
[x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-] non-English translations for description and summary
[x] Package builds in mock
Tested on: F12/x86_64
[-] Package should compile and build into binary RPMs on all supported
architectures.
package is noarch
[x] Program runs
[-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-] pkgconfig (*.pc) files are placed in a -devel package
[-] require package providing a file instead of the file itself
no files outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin are required
Issues to point out:
- It's better to list the manpage as '%{_mandir}/man1/petit.1.*' to prevent
problems in case the compress algorithm changes. Well, this is not blocking
the review but I'd like to see it fixed before you request CVS access.
- I could not find out if there is any newer upstream version of petit than
1.0.0,
the website doesn't provide information about that or I completely missed
it.
Also, svn update of the sources within the tarball is not possible.
- Removing the .svn dirs should be upstreams job, right before putting sources
into a tarball. You might want to contact upstream to suggest 'svn export'
before releasing. :)
Your package looks good anyway and is APPROVED.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 579573] New: Review Request: x2goclient - Graphical client for use with the X2Go network based computing environment
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: x2goclient - Graphical client for use with the X2Go network based computing environment https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=579573 Summary: Review Request: x2goclient - Graphical client for use with the X2Go network based computing environment Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: keij...@stone-it.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://leon.fedorapeople.org/files/x2goclient/x2goclient.spec SRPM URL: http://leon.fedorapeople.org/files/x2goclient/x2goclient-3.01-5.1.fc12.src.rpm Description: This client will be able to connect to X2Go server(s) and start, stop, resume and terminate (running) desktop sessions. X2Go Client stores different server connections and may automatically request authentication data from LDAP directories. -- Configure 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 570424] Review Request: transmission-remote-cli - A console client for the Transmission BitTorrent client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=570424 --- Comment #7 from Rahul Sundaram 2010-04-05 17:06:38 EDT --- Actually, rpmlint needs to be updated and a bug report filed against it already. Cleaning up the buuldroot is completely unnecessary and is done automatically by newer versions of RPM a clearly indicated in the guidelines. To quote, "The provided buildroot will automatically be cleaned before commands in %install are called." The rpmlint warning only applies to EPEL and not to Fedora anymore. -- Configure 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 569099] Review Request: rubygem-parseconfig - Ruby Configuration File Parser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=569099 --- Comment #6 from BJ Dierkes 2010-04-05 16:59:02 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: rubygem-parseconfig Short Description: Ruby Configuration File Parser Owners: derks Branches: F-12 F-13 EL-5 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 542765] Review Request: libghemical - Libraries for the Ghemical chemistry package
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=542765 --- Comment #8 from Carl Byington 2010-04-05 16:58:51 EDT --- exit in library - yes, that seems to be the way they wrote the code, and I don't see that changing since there are a LOT of such calls. data files license - the amber and tripos data files are public domain, and used in a many other chemistry packages. I will check with upstream, but I doubt there is a more explicit license. I added a bit of description for the libghemical package. Removed unnecessary build-requires. rpmlint undefined-non-weak-symbol vs. unused-direct-shlib-dependency : for an example, if we don't add -ldl, then we get dlopen as an undefined-non-weak-symbol. If we do add -ldl, we get unused-direct-shlib-dependency for dlopen.so. I have opted to prevent the undefined-non-weak-symbol errors. The upstream autoconf packaging does not seem to pickup the proper mpqc libraries, unless we override 'make LIBS=', which overrides everything. Unless we want to redo the whole autoconf package, overriding LIBS= seems to work. http://www.five-ten-sg.com/libghemical.spec http://www.five-ten-sg.com/libghemical-2.99.1-13.fc12.src.rpm http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2096296 -- Configure 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 569099] Review Request: rubygem-parseconfig - Ruby Configuration File Parser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=569099 BJ Dierkes changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 570424] Review Request: transmission-remote-cli - A console client for the Transmission BitTorrent client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=570424
Dominic Hopf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review?, |fedora-review+
|needinfo?(dma...@fedoraproj |
|ect.org)|
--- Comment #6 from Dominic Hopf 2010-04-05 16:43:17
EDT ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> > [!] %{buildroot} is removed at beginning of %install
> According to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag,
> cleaning up of buildroot isn't required from Fedora 10 onwards.
Satya, the mentioned guideline just allows you to omit the BuildRoot-tag at the
beginning of the file. This is not the same as the %{buildroot} macro or the
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT variable. rpmlint still claims, that the 'rm -rf %{buildroot}'
command at the beginning of the %install section is missing. It wouldn't if it
really was obsolete. Please add it before requesting CVS access. :)
> > [!] Package contains latest upstream version
> > * While checking the sha1sum I noted there were some changes on the code
> > just
> > today, maybe you want to update the file and the release tag accordingly
> > then?
> Corrected.
>
> > [!] Package builds in mock
> > Tested on: F12/x86_64; see my note concerning README.md below
> > * The installation of the README.md is not okay yet. The file actually would
> > get installed in /, which obviuously is not the right place for
> > documentation
> > files.
> --snip--
> Corrected
>
> > * You should write down in your ChangeLog what you actually changed in the
> > package or rather in the specfile
> Corrected
>
> > * The release number should always begin with 0.
> --snip--
> Corrected.
>
>
> The updated spec file may be found at:
> http://sundaram.fedorapeople.org/packages/transmission-remote-cli.spec
>
> And the updated SRPM is at:
> http://sundaram.fedorapeople.org/packages/transmission-remote-cli-0.5.5-0.3.20100310git.fc12.src.rpm
Thanks very much for correcting the mentioned isssues and for your patience.
I'm sorry I was a bit stressed the last weeks and had lot of things to do at
work, which caused my delayed answer to this issue. Except the mentioned issue
with the %install section, your package looks good now and is APPROVED.
Remember to add the 'rm -rf %{buildroot}' to the %install section before
requesting the CVS 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 569099] Review Request: rubygem-parseconfig - Ruby Configuration File Parser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=569099 Mamoru Tasaka changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Mamoru Tasaka 2010-04-05 16:37:17 EDT --- Okay. - This package (rubygem-parseconfig) 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 569099] Review Request: rubygem-parseconfig - Ruby Configuration File Parser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=569099 --- Comment #4 from BJ Dierkes 2010-04-05 16:22:20 EDT --- Right on: SPEC: http://5dollarwhitebox.org/tmp/rubygem-parseconfig.spec SRPMS: http://5dollarwhitebox.org/tmp/rubygem-parseconfig-0.5.2-3.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 579389] Review Request: perl-HTTP-Parser-XS - A fast, primitive HTTP request parser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=579389
Steve Traylen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||steve.tray...@cern.ch
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|steve.tray...@cern.ch
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Steve Traylen 2010-04-05 16:15:57
EDT ---
Review: perl-HTTP-Parser-XS
Date:April 5th 2010
Mock Build: F14 x86_64 okay.
* PASS: rpmlint output
$ rpmlint RPMS/x86_64/perl-HTTP-Parser-XS-* SPECS/perl-HTTP-Parser-XS.spec
SRPMS/perl-HTTP-Parser-XS-0.07-1.fc13.src.rpm
perl-HTTP-Parser-XS-tests.x86_64: W: no-documentation
4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
* PASS: Named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
yes perl
* PASS: spec file name same as base package %{name}.
yes perl
* PASS: Packaging Guidelines.
* PASS: Approved license in .spec file.
perl
* PASS: License on Source code.
The README is clear but META.yml contains
license: ~
maybe a note could be passed to upsteam.
* PASS: Include LICENSE file or similar if it exist.
* PASS: Written in American English.
* PASS: Spec file legible.
* PASS: Included source must match upstream source.
$ md5sum HTTP-Parser-XS-0.07.tar.gz ../SOURCES/HTTP-Parser-XS-0.07.tar.gz
890711d599f036fe613b3c8589000a10 HTTP-Parser-XS-0.07.tar.gz
890711d599f036fe613b3c8589000a10 ../SOURCES/HTTP-Parser-XS-0.07.tar.gz
* PASS: Build on one architecture.
mock build
* PASS: Not building on an architecture must highlighted.
mock build
* PASS: Build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.
mock build
* PASS: Handle locales properly.
None present
* PASS: ldconfig must be called on shared libs.
None present.
* PASS: No bundled copies of system libraries.
None present.
* PASS: Package must state why relocatable if relocatable.
Not relocatable.
* PASS: A package must own all directories that it creates
Yes.
* PASS: No duplicate files in %files listings.
None
* PASS: Permissions on files must be set properly. %defattr
* PASS: %clean section contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
* PASS: Each package must consistently use macros.
* PASS: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
* PASS: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
None present.
* PASS: %doc must not affect the runtime of the application.
* PASS: Header files must be in a -devel package.
none present.
* PASS: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
none present.
* PASS: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'
none present.
* PASS: devel packages must require the exact base package
* PASS: No .la libtool archives
* PASS: GUI apps should have %{name}.desktop file
None
* PASS: No files or directories already owned by other packages.
None
* PASS: %install must run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
* PASS: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
Comments:
1) Presumably the "tests" subpackage could be noarch. Only makes
sense to fix if it can be done in a generic way of course.
2) The license is clear in the README but the META.yml contains
license: ~
maybe a note upstream asking them to fix would be good.
APPROVED.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 578886] Review Request: likewise-open - Join to Active Directory and securely authenticate users.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=578886 --- Comment #4 from Scott Salley 2010-04-05 16:16:53 EDT --- Spec URL: http://archives.likewiseopen.org/~ssalley/likewise-open.spec SRPM URL: http://archives.likewiseopen.org/~ssalley/likewise-open-5.4.0.42111-1.fc12.src.rpm I wasn't aware of archives.likewise.com and our IT manager had forgotten about it (it is run by another employee). I also wasn't aware of the older ticket; I've reviewed the comments there and tried to make this a decent package. I've also removed the OpenLDAP and Kerberos components from this package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ 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 Armando Basile changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #25 from Armando Basile 2010-04-05 15:56:04 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: themonospot-gui-qt Short Description: Qt gui to scan multimedia files using themonospot-base component Owners: hman-it Branches: F-11 F-12 F-13 InitialCC: mtasaka Cvsextras Commits: yes -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 569099] Review Request: rubygem-parseconfig - Ruby Configuration File Parser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=569099 --- Comment #3 from Mamoru Tasaka 2010-04-05 15:56:15 EDT --- Well, - Now "# This URL always changes" comment is not needed. - build.log shows: 56 Processing files: rubygem-parseconfig-0.5.2-2.fc13.noarch 57 warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/parseconfig-0.5.2/Changelog 58 warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/parseconfig-0.5.2/LICENSE 59 warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/parseconfig-0.5.2/README 60 warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/parseconfig-0.5.2/demo.conf 61 warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/parseconfig-0.5.2/demo.rb Please make it sure that every file and directory is listed only once. -- Configure 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 578994] Review Request: abinit - Full-featured atomic-scale first-principles simulation 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=578994 --- Comment #4 from Jussi Lehtola 2010-04-05 15:48:16 EDT --- The first issues that come to mind: - Explicit requires are banned by Packaging Guidelines - BuildRequires are missing. Need at least: BuildRequires: gcc-gfortran BuildRequires: lapack-devel - There are some other programs and libraries that are supported by abinit and are already in Fedora (for instance wannier90). Relevant buildrequires need to be added and the configure switches turned on. - Some thought could be put in packaging the supported addons that aren't yet in Fedora (for instance bigdft). - This program supports MPI, so the MPI versions should also be packaged (MPI guidelines). This part can be a bit rough, at least it is very likely to make the spec file very hard to read. ** What is your interest in packaging abinit? Do you use it yourself? Have you made any other submission yet? -- Configure 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 578994] Review Request: abinit - Full-featured atomic-scale first-principles simulation 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=578994
--- Comment #5 from Jussi Lehtola 2010-04-05 15:50:55
EDT ---
Oh, and a few other things:
- Get rid of commented lines that are empty.
- Please don't use macros for standard commands. Even though rpm has macros
such as %__mv, %__cp, %__make and so on, IMHO they just make the spec file
harder to read.
- Don't use %makeinstall, it's forbidden in the packaging guidelines. Use
make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot}
or
make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT
instead.
--
Configure 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 #24 from Mamoru Tasaka 2010-04-05 15:39:11 EDT --- Please add request for F-13 and set fedora-cvs flag to ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ 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 #23 from Armando Basile 2010-04-05 15:06:19 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: themonospot-gui-qt Short Description: Qt gui to scan multimedia files using themonospot-base component Owners: hman-it Branches: F-11 F-12 InitialCC: mtasaka Cvsextras Commits: yes -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 569099] Review Request: rubygem-parseconfig - Ruby Configuration File Parser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=569099 --- Comment #2 from BJ Dierkes 2010-04-05 15:06:05 EDT --- Thank you for the feedback. I think I've corrected everything: Spec URL: http://5dollarwhitebox.org/tmp/rubygem-parseconfig.spec SRPM URL: http://5dollarwhitebox.org/tmp/rubygem-parseconfig-0.5.2-2.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 570810] Review Request: rubygem-net-dns - Pure Ruby DNS 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=570810 Mamoru Tasaka changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Mamoru Tasaka 2010-04-05 14:32:00 EDT --- Some notes: * Unused / defined macros - %ruby_sitelib seems to be used nowhere - As %geminstdir is defined, please use this macro in %files when applicable. * %define -> %global - We now prefer to use %global instead of %define https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#.25global_preferred_over_.25define * License - When the software says "This is distributed under the same license Ruby is", the license tag on Fedora should be "GPLv2 or Ruby" * (Build)Requires - "Requires: rubygem(rcov)" is not needed. --- BuildRequires: rubygems Requires: rubygems Requires: ruby(rubygems) --- - Please use one style for (Build)Requires: rubygems * Duplicate %files entry --- 57 Processing files: rubygem-net-dns-0.6.1-1.fc13.noarch 58 warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/net-dns-0.6.1/AUTHORS.rdoc 59 warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/net-dns-0.6.1/CHANGELOG.rdoc 60 warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/net-dns-0.6.1/README.rdoc 61 warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/net-dns-0.6.1/THANKS.rdoc --- - Please make it sure that every directory / file is listed only once. * %check - As this gem contains test/ directory, please add %check section and execute some test programs there. -- Configure 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 574342] Review Request: rubygem-xmpp4r-simple - A simplified Jabber client 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=574342 Mark Chappell changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Mark Chappell 2010-04-05 13:32:47 EDT --- re: %changelog - will do New Package CVS Request === Package Name: rubygem-xmpp4r-simple Short Description: A simplified Jabber client library Owners: tremble Branches: F-12 F-13 EL-5 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 569198] Review Request: rubygem-rmail - A MIME mail parsing and generation 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=569198
Mamoru Tasaka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp
--- Comment #1 from Mamoru Tasaka 2010-04-05
13:30:13 EDT ---
! Notes
- Please be familiar with rpmlint (available in "rpmlint" binary
rpm) and check your srpm / rebuilt binary rpm / installed rpm
with rpmlint.
Some initial comments
* spec file name
- The name of this spec file must be "rubygem-rmail.spec"
( see: $ rpmlint -I invalid-spec-name )
* %define -> %global
- We now prefer to use %global instead of %define:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#.25global_preferred_over_.25define
* Group
- We usually choose "Development/Languages" for rubygem related packages.
* License
- This package is under "BSD"
* Requires/BuildRequires fix
--
16 Requires: rubygems
17 BuildRequires: ruby(rubygems)
33 Requires:ruby(rubygems)
--
- You use both "rubygems" and "ruby(rubygems)" (Build)Requires. Please
choose one style ( note that "BuildRequires: rubygem(rake)" should
be as it is )
--
23 %package -n ruby-%{gemname}
27 Provides: ruby(%{gemname})= %{version}-%{release}
--
- With this line ruby-rmail has "Provides: ruby(rmail)=" and
"Provides: 1.0.0-1.fc??" and this is not expected.
( see: $ rpmlint -I comparison-operator-in-deptoken )
? non-gem compatibility package
- Would you explain why non-gem compatibility package is needed for this
package?
* Directory ownership issue
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#File_and_Directory_Ownership
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/UnownedDirectories#Forgetting_to_Include_a_Toplevel_Directory
- The following directories themselves are not owned by any packages:
---
%{geminstdir}
%{geminstdir}/lib
---
* script without executable permission including shebang
---
rubygem-rmail-doc.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rmail-1.0.0/test/runtests.rb 0644L /usr/bin/env
rubygem-rmail-doc.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rmail-1.0.0/test/testtestbase.rb 0644L /usr/bin/env
rubygem-rmail-doc.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rmail-1.0.0/test/testmboxreader.rb 0644L
/usr/bin/env
rubygem-rmail-doc.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rmail-1.0.0/test/testmessage.rb 0644L /usr/bin/env
...
...
---
- These scripts need not have shebangs.
--
Configure 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 568833] Review Request: OpenLP - Church projection 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=568833 --- Comment #16 from TR Bentley 2010-04-05 13:20:11 EDT --- Updated for new code version Spec File : http://trb143.fedorapeople.org/OpenLP.spec Source RPM File : http://trb143.fedorapeople.org/OpenLP-1.9.1.1-1.src.rpm Comments from above review. Run rpmlint to remove errors apart from spelling of openoffice.org and a grumble about version numbers. Fixed UTF-8 error to make UTF-8 Moved executable file to correct directory. Add Icons dependency. Notes. Translations will come with alpha2 dist tag added as suggested. openlp.pyw is needed for windows tried to rename in spec file and got access violations. Any suggestions for a fix? -- Configure 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 574342] Review Request: rubygem-xmpp4r-simple - A simplified Jabber client 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=574342 --- Comment #4 from Mamoru Tasaka 2010-04-05 13:18:53 EDT --- Forgot to mention that please fix %changelog entry when importing 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 579514] New: Review Request: pyaudio - Python bindings for PortAudio
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: pyaudio - Python bindings for PortAudio https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=579514 Summary: Review Request: pyaudio - Python bindings for PortAudio Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: c...@plauener.de QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://chkr.fedorapeople.org/review/pyaudio.spec SRPM URL: http://chkr.fedorapeople.org/review/pyaudio-0.2.3-1.fc11.src.rpm Description: PyAudio provides Python bindings for PortAudio, the cross-platform audio I/O library. Using PyAudio, you can easily use Python to play and record audio on a variety of platforms. -- Configure 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 578290] Review Request: mj - Mah-Jong program with network option
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=578290 --- Comment #2 from Göran Uddeborg 2010-04-05 12:19:05 EDT --- I realized the scriptlets I used were not quite following the current packaging standards. I've made a slightly updated version of the package to fix that: Spec URL: ftp://ftp.uddeborg.se/pub/mj/mj.spec SRPM URL: ftp://ftp.uddeborg.se/pub/mj/mj-1.10-2.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 542765] Review Request: libghemical - Libraries for the Ghemical chemistry package
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=542765
--- Comment #7 from Christian Krause 2010-04-05 12:15:10 EDT
---
Thanks for the new package, here is now the full review:
* rpmlint: OK
rpmlint RPMS/i686/libghemical-* SRPMS/libghemical-2.99.1-12.fc13.src.rpm
SPECS/libghemical.spec
libghemical.i686: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib/libghemical.so.5.0.0
e...@glibc_2.0
libghemical-devel.i686: W: no-documentation
4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
According to rpmlint's help the usage of exit in libraries is discouraged since
the calling application can not handle the error. However, in this case it
seems to be a design decisions of the upstream evelopers. This will not block
the review. But depending on your involvement with upstream it would probably
be worth to ask them for the reasons and/or explain them why its discouraged.
The no-documentation for the -devel package is also a false positive, it seems
that there is no API documentation available.
* naming: OK
- name matches upstream
- spec file name matches package name
* sources: OK
- md5sum: d2dae2d7d786d3cba335cb29d85033ea libghemical-2.99.1.tar.gz
- sources matches upstream
- Source0 tag ok
- spectool -g works
* License: TODO
- License in spec file matches the actual license (of the sources)
- License GPLv2+ acceptable
- However, for most of the data files the license is not 100% clear. A few of
the data files use the following license:
"The files in this directory were downloaded from:
http://www.amber.ucsf.edu/amber/dbase.html
At the download page there was the following copyright notice:
'As has always been the case, the parameter information in the above file is
in the public domain, and may be redistributed or used in other programs. Any
such use should include proper citations, and any changes in the parameters
should be prominently noted.'"
- Please can you ask upstream for a statement about the licenses of all of the
data files?
* spec file written in English and legible: TODO
Please can you enhance the description of the main package a little bit to
include some information what is the purpose of "libghemical"?
* compilation: TODO
- supports parallel build
- RPM_OPT_FLAGS are correctly used
- builds in koji: F14
- However, in the %build section the LIBS variable generated by %configure is
fully overwritten by the custom LIBS make parameter.
If you call "rpmlint libghemical" on a system having the library installed,
there will be some warnings:
libghemical.i686: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib/libghemical.so.5.0.0
dlopen
libghemical.i686: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib/libghemical.so.5.0.0
lm7_set_plots_orbital_index
libghemical.i686: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib/libghemical.so.5.0.0
getorb_
...
The warnings show that the library uses symbols but does not link the
appropriate libraris.
Additionally there are warnings like:
libghemical.i686: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib/libghemical.so.5.0.0 /usr/lib/libSCmbptr12.so.7
libghemical.i686: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib/libghemical.so.5.0.0 /usr/lib/libSCoint3.so.7
...
These warnings show that a couple of the manually added libraries are not
needed on the other hand (this is not that critical as the previous warnings).
Sure, I don't know upstream's intention, but IMHO it should be rather done like
this:
1. don't overwrite the LIBS in the spec file
2. ensure, that libghemical is linked against all libraries from which
libghemical uses any symbols
- this should be changed probably in the Makefile.am's of the package
- finally there should be no undefined non-weak symbols
Some more information can be found here:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/ChangeInImplicitDSOLinking
Additionally the Libs variable in the pkg-config file looks rather strange. In
general Libs should only contain the library itself.
* BuildRequires: TODO
It looks like that the following BuildRequirements are not needed:
BuildRequires: gcc-gfortran
BuildRequires: openbabel-devel >= 2.2
* locales handling: OK
* ldconfig in %post and %postun: OK
* package owns all directories that it creates: OK
* %files section: TODO (minor)
Please add a "/" at the line
%{_datadir}/%{name}
in the %files section to explicit state that this is a directory.
* no files listed twice in %files: OK
* file permissions: OK
- %defattr used
- actual permissions in packages OK
* %clean section: OK
* macro usage: TODO (minor)
please use %{_includedir}/%{name} for consistency
* code vs. content: TODO
This package contains content (the various data files). Let's wait for
upstream's feedback regarding the Licenses and ask then Fedora Legal...
* main package should not contain development related parts: OK
* large documentation into subpackage: OK (n/a)
* header files in -devel subpackage: OK
* static libraries in -s
[Bug 453422] Review Request: songbird - Mozilla based multimedia player
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453422 Jason Tibbitts changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR), | |182235(FE-Legal)| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 453422] Review Request: songbird - Mozilla based multimedia player
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453422 Henrique "LonelySpooky" Junior changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED CC||henrique...@gmail.com Resolution||NOTABUG --- Comment #130 from Henrique "LonelySpooky" Junior 2010-04-05 12:06:47 EDT --- Done. Thank you for the hard work. -- Configure 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 554239] Review Request: ibus-table-latin - The Latin tables for IBus-Table
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=554239 Caius 'kaio' Chance changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Comment #11 from Caius 'kaio' Chance 2010-04-05 12:03:50 EDT --- Built for Rawhide and F13. Pushed to F13. -- Configure 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 553231] Review Request: ibus-table-cyrillic - Cyrillics tables for IBus-Table
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=553231 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System 2010-04-05 12:00:23 EDT --- ibus-table-cyrillic-1.2.0.20100305-3.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ibus-table-cyrillic-1.2.0.20100305-3.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 573151] Review Request: python26 - Parallel-installable Python 2.6 for EPEL5
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=573151 --- Comment #24 from Kevin Fenzi 2010-04-05 11:59:19 EDT --- Points 1 and 2 look good. On 3: I think on the isa, it would be ok to leave it, but you should add a comment about it not working in RHEL, so people don't think it does. ;) Let me know what you think of the various rpmlint complaints when you get a chance. ;) -- Configure 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 553345] Review Request: ibus-table-tv - The Thai and (Viqr) Vietnamese tables for IBus-Table
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=553345 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System 2010-04-05 11:50:34 EDT --- ibus-table-tv-1.2.0.20100305-5.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ibus-table-tv-1.2.0.20100305-5.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 578352] Review Request: monkeysphere - Use the OpenPGP web of trust to verify ssh connections
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=578352 Mamoru Tasaka changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? | --- Comment #1 from Mamoru Tasaka 2010-04-05 11:48:07 EDT --- (fedora-review flag must be set by the reviewer, not the submitter. once unsetting) -- Configure 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 576591] Review Request: iptraf-ng
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=576591 Mamoru Tasaka changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? | --- Comment #3 from Mamoru Tasaka 2010-04-05 11:43:06 EDT --- (fedora-review flag must not be set by the submitter but must be by the formal reviewer. Once unsetting) -- Configure 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 565251] Review Request: coan - A commandline tool for simplifying the preprocessor conditionals in source code
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=565251 --- Comment #2 from Mike Kinghan 2010-04-05 11:39:46 EDT --- Coan is now released at v4.1 with fixes/features here http://coan2.sourceforge.net/index.php?page=changes -- Configure 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 574342] Review Request: rubygem-xmpp4r-simple - A simplified Jabber client 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=574342 Mamoru Tasaka changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Mamoru Tasaka 2010-04-05 11:38:42 EDT --- Okay. - This package (rubygem-xmpp4r-simple) 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 518910] Review Request: ibus-table-cantonese - Cantonese input method table for IBus-Table
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=518910 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System 2010-04-05 11:31:09 EDT --- ibus-table-cantonese-1.2.0.20100305-2.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ibus-table-cantonese-1.2.0.20100305-2.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
[Bug 578620] Review Request: quvi - Command line tool for parsing video download 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=578620 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System 2010-04-05 11:27:45 EDT --- quvi-0.1.4-1.fc12 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 12. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/quvi-0.1.4-1.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 578620] Review Request: quvi - Command line tool for parsing video download 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=578620 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System 2010-04-05 11:12:54 EDT --- quvi-0.1.4-1.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/quvi-0.1.4-1.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 576591] Review Request: iptraf-ng
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=576591
--- Comment #2 from Nikola Pajkovsky 2010-04-05 11:09:39
EDT ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Okay, you has of course informed upstream IPTraf about the fork?
>
> Comments on the spec:
>
> %configure --enable-shared=no --enable-static=yes
>
>
> Why?
> Fedora tend to do the reverse.
I know. I have it this issue in my TODO. Originaly iptraf is built with
"support" library and it has never been shipped. It's used as helper to build
gui in console and it is linked statically. This option say to autotools to not
generate *.so files.
>
> rm -rf Documentation/.xvpics
>
> If your are upstream maintainer this could be remove in the tarball?
>
Yes it is done in git repo and it will be removed with next release.(I've made
note for myself in spec)
> mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/etc/logrotate.d/
> cp %{SOURCE1} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/etc/logrotate.d/iptraf
>
> Change to
> install -D -m 0644 -p %{SOURCE1} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/etc/logrotate.d/iptraf
>
Fixed.
> %attr(755,root,root) %{_prefix}/bin/*
>
> Remove %attr and, use bindir macro and list explicit.
>
> %{_mandir}/*/*
>
> Not so general please.
Fixed.
>
> %dir %attr(644,root,root) %config(noreplace) /etc/logrotate.d/iptraf
>
> Drop %attr, %dir seems wrong.
>
Fixed.
> - Initialization build
>
> I leave that to a native speaker.
I don't get it.
New spec and srpm:
spec: http://npajkovs.fedorapeople.org/iptraf-ng.spec
srpm: http://npajkovs.fedorapeople.org/iptraf-ng-1.0.2-2.fc14.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 453422] Review Request: songbird - Mozilla based multimedia player
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453422 --- Comment #129 from David Halik 2010-04-05 09:46:32 EDT --- At this point it is useless to go on with this thread, IMO. The EULA isn't changing, which is a no-go alone, and now that they're dropping official Linux support, updates and bug fixes are going to be few and far between (if at all). I'm not going to spend my time reverse engineering their builds every release only to find out the software has issues on Linux... which we've seen it already does. Sorry to say it, but they've had a good run and there's no need to beat a dead horse. Almost two years on this bug thread, not bad! :) There's talk that some of the developers might fork and continue to release a parallel player called "Lyrebird" or "Freebird" that keeps closer to the base Linux player tradition. If that happens I'll open a second bug ticket and start there as a new project based off of this one. Can someone with privs please close this ticket? I see no need to continue it. Thanks to everyone who helped along the way. -- Configure 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 573741] Review Request: RBTools - Tools for interacting with ReviewBoard
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=573741 --- Comment #3 from Stephen Gallagher 2010-04-05 09:34:15 EDT --- I have a new version of this review spec available: Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~sgallagh/packagereview/RBTools.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~sgallagh/packagereview/RBTools-0.2-2.rc1.fc12.src.rpm Successful Koji rawhide build here: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2095256 Changes in this version: Removed git-patchset patch, as it has not been accepted upstream Added two additional bugfixes from upstream -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 579428] Package Review: w3af - Web Application Attach and Audit Framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=579428 Josh Bressers (Security Response Team) changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords|Security| CC||bress...@redhat.com --- Comment #1 from Josh Bressers (Security Response Team) 2010-04-05 07:52:28 EDT --- While this package has a security relevance, the Security keyword is for security flaws. I'm removing the keyword. Thanks for adding this, it should prove useful. -- Configure 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 579171] Review Request: lxpolkit - Simple PolicyKit authentication agent
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=579171 Christoph Wickert changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Christoph Wickert 2010-04-05 06:32:22 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: lxpolkit Short Description: Simple PolicyKit authentication agent Owners: cwickert Branches: F-12 F-13 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 574342] Review Request: rubygem-xmpp4r-simple - A simplified Jabber client 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=574342 Mark Chappell changed: What|Removed |Added CC||trem...@tremble.org.uk --- Comment #2 from Mark Chappell 2010-04-05 06:26:41 EDT --- * Requires/BuildRequires - Changed * Macros - Now consistently used in %files * Duplicate %files entry - Caught out by forgetting to use %dir macro Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2095124 SRPM: http://tremble.fedorapeople.org/packages/rubygem-xmpp4r-simple-0.8.8-2.fc12.src.rpm SPEC: http://tremble.fedorapeople.org/packages/rubygem-xmpp4r-simple.spec Thank you for your 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 579449] New: Review Request: emacs-common-riece - Yet Another IRC Client for Emacs and XEmacs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: emacs-common-riece - Yet Another IRC Client for Emacs and XEmacs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=579449 Summary: Review Request: emacs-common-riece - Yet Another IRC Client for Emacs and XEmacs Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: u...@unixuser.org QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://www.unixuser.org/~ueno/software/fedora/riece/emacs-common-riece.spec SRPM URL: http://www.unixuser.org/~ueno/software/fedora/riece/emacs-common-riece-6.1.0-1.fc13.src.rpm Description: Riece is an IRC client for Emacs. Riece provides the following features: - Several IRC servers may be used at the same time. - Essential features can be built upon the extension framework (called "add-on") capable of dependency tracking. - Installation is easy. Riece doesn't depend on other packages. - Setup is easy. Automatically save/restore the configuration. - Riece uses separate windows to display users, channels, and dialogues. The user can select the window layout. - Step-by-step instructions (in info format) are included. - Mostly compliant with RFC 2812. -- Configure 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 554243] Review Request: moovida - Media Center
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=554243 Alex G. changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mr.nuke...@gmail.com --- Comment #20 from Alex G. 2010-04-05 03:41:43 EDT --- Holy crap those packages were submitted three months ago. To think everything is moving at a snail's pace only because of bureaucracy... Let me know if there's anything I can do to help as an outsider. -- Configure 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
