[Bug 579227] Review Request: byobu - Light-weight, configurable window manager built upon GNU screen
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=579227 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2010-05-07 01:48:19 EDT --- byobu-2.73-1.fc13 has been pushed to the Fedora 13 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure 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 579227] Review Request: byobu - Light-weight, configurable window manager built upon GNU screen
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=579227 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version||byobu-2.73-1.fc13 Resolution|NEXTRELEASE |ERRATA -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 583141] Review Request: nautilus-pastebin - Nautilus extension to send files to a pastebin
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=583141 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|ON_QA --- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2010-05-07 01:46:35 EDT --- nautilus-pastebin-0.4.1-6.fc13 has been pushed to the Fedora 13 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update nautilus-pastebin'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/nautilus-pastebin-0.4.1-6.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 589167] Review Request: perl-ParseTemplate - ParseTemplate Perl module
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=589167 Marcela Mašláňová mmasl...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE --- Comment #5 from Marcela Mašláňová mmasl...@redhat.com 2010-05-07 02:06:34 EDT --- Build into dist-f14-perltest -- Configure 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 586777] Review Request: glyphtracer - Program for creating fonts from images
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=586777 --- Comment #8 from Parag pnem...@redhat.com 2010-05-07 02:55:16 EDT --- anyone to review this? I can review your package in exchange of this 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 589868] Review Request: darktable - Utility to organize and develop raw images
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=589868 Edouard Bourguignon ma...@linuxed.net changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 589867] Review Request: logcheck - analyzes logfiles and sends email
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=589867 --- Comment #1 from Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de 2010-05-07 03:17:26 EDT --- [mru...@mrungexp SPECS]$ rpmlint logcheck.spec ../RPMS/noarch/logcheck-1.3.8-1.fc13.noarch.rpm ../SRPMS/logcheck-1.3.8-1.fc13.src.rpm 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 565666] Review Request: darktable - Utility to organize and develop raw images
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=565666 Edouard Bourguignon ma...@linuxed.net changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||589866 Blocks||589868 -- Configure 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 589868] New: Review Request: darktable - Utility to organize and develop raw images
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: darktable - Utility to organize and develop raw images https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=589868 Summary: Review Request: darktable - Utility to organize and develop raw images Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: ma...@linuxed.net QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fab...@bernewireless.net, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com, ma...@linuxed.net, kr...@land.ru, thibault.no...@gmail.com, ibrahime...@gmx.com.tr, philippe.mo...@gmail.com Depends on: 565666 Blocks: 177841 Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Clone Of: 565666 This is a new review request for darktable since the original demand by ibrahim eser was closed (cf bug #565666). Description: darktable is a virtual lighttable and darkroom for photographers: it manages your digital negatives in a database and lets you view them through a zoomable lighttable. It also enables you to develop raw images and enhance them. Here are my specs and rpms: http://www.linuxed.net/~madko/fedora/darktable.spec http://www.linuxed.net/~madko/fedora/darktable-0.5-2.fc12.src.rpm But some Errors and warnings remain: darktable.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libdarktable.so libdarktable.so darktable.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libdarktable.so e...@glibc_2.2.5 darktable.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/darktable ['/usr/lib64'] darktable.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/gconf/schemas/darktable.schemas 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 2 warnings. But not sure how to fix them. Any idea? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 589866] New: Review Request: darktable - Utility to organize and develop raw images
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: darktable - Utility to organize and develop raw images https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=589866 Summary: Review Request: darktable - Utility to organize and develop raw images Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: ma...@linuxed.net QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fab...@bernewireless.net, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com, ma...@linuxed.net, kr...@land.ru, thibault.no...@gmail.com, ibrahime...@gmx.com.tr, philippe.mo...@gmail.com Depends on: 565666 Blocks: 177841 Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Clone Of: 565666 This is a new review request for darktable since the original demand by ibrahim eser was closed (cf bug #565666). Description: darktable is a virtual lighttable and darkroom for photographers: it manages your digital negatives in a database and lets you view them through a zoomable lighttable. It also enables you to develop raw images and enhance them. Here are my specs and rpms: http://www.linuxed.net/~madko/fedora/darktable.spec http://www.linuxed.net/~madko/fedora/darktable-0.5-2.fc12.src.rpm But some Errors and warnings remain: darktable.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libdarktable.so libdarktable.so darktable.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libdarktable.so e...@glibc_2.2.5 darktable.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/darktable ['/usr/lib64'] darktable.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/gconf/schemas/darktable.schemas 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 2 warnings. But not sure how to fix them. Any idea? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 --- Comment #22 from Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com 2010-05-07 03:10:09 EDT --- Yes, I'll try to get to it over the weekend. Ping? Sorry. Things got a little crazy. Doing an informal review now. Still no sponsor? -- Configure 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 589867] New: Review Request: logcheck - analyzes logfiles and sends email
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: logcheck - analyzes logfiles and sends email https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=589867 Summary: Review Request: logcheck - analyzes logfiles and sends email Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: mru...@matthias-runge.de QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://www.matthias-runge.de/fedora/logcheck.spec SRPM URL: http://www.matthias-runge.de/fedora/logcheck-1.3.8-1.fc13.src.rpm Description: Logcheck is a simple utility which is designed to allow a system administrator to view the log-files which are produced upon hosts under their control. It does this by mailing summaries of the log-files to them, after first filtering out normal entries. Normal entries are entries which match one of the many included regular expression files contain in the database. -- Configure 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 589617] Review Request: apache-commons-discovery - rename of jakarta-commons-discovery
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=589617 Bug 589617 depends on bug 589168, which changed state. Bug 589168 Summary: Review Request: apache-commons-logging - rename of jakarta-commons-logging https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=589168 What|Old Value |New Value Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 589168] Review Request: apache-commons-logging - rename of jakarta-commons-logging
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=589168 Stanislav Ochotnicky socho...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Comment #13 from Stanislav Ochotnicky socho...@redhat.com 2010-05-07 03:25:25 EDT --- Package built, closing. Thanks Alexander Kevin -- Configure 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 --- Comment #23 from Silvio Schneider s...@gmx.ch 2010-05-07 03:48:15 EDT --- it seems anyway that moovida is drifting away from a cool program to a program that look like any other media player :-( -- Configure 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 --- Comment #24 from Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com 2010-05-07 03:50:53 EDT --- it seems anyway that moovida is drifting away from a cool program to a program that look like any other media player That has nothing to do with the review. Please keep opinions off the bug. This is about the technical review to include it in Fedora. -- Configure 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 589168] Review Request: apache-commons-logging - rename of jakarta-commons-logging
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=589168 Sandro Mathys s...@sandro-mathys.ch changed: What|Removed |Added CC||s...@sandro-mathys.ch --- Comment #14 from Sandro Mathys s...@sandro-mathys.ch 2010-05-07 04:17:24 EDT --- I see here at least two indications that the package renaming process was not done correctly: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Renaming_Process#Re-review_required Particularly of importance is this: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Renaming.2Freplacing_existing_packages First, the reviewer never explicitly stated that he's aware of this being a renaming (and obviously wasn't) and second the Provides doesn't use macros. Also, this is _no_ false positive but a real problem: apache-commons-logging.noarch: W: self-obsoletion jakarta-commons-logging = 0:1.0.4 obsoletes jakarta-commons-logging = 0:1.0.4 Now that the reviewer wasn't aware it's been a renaming doesn't matter as I filled that gap (and am well aware of it). But please correct the other two problems before you push this pkg to any repo. -- Configure 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 583327] Review Request: clementine - A music player and library organiser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=583327 --- Comment #1 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com 2010-05-07 04:31:53 EDT --- New vercione! runs and works magnifico. Spec URL: http://6mata.com:8014/review/clementine.spec SRPM URL: http://6mata.com:8014/review/clementine-0.3-1.fc12.src.rpm However, the package is so not ready with linking to qxt etc. I'll have time to sort things out next week. qtsingleapplication is not done with the review, we are not in a hurry. -- Configure 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 492747] Review Request: django-mptt - A generic MPTT utilities application for Django projects
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=492747 Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED CC||mru...@matthias-runge.de Resolution||INSUFFICIENT_DATA -- Configure 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 588654] Review Request: plexus-component-api - Plexus Component API
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=588654 --- Comment #6 from Yang Yong yy...@redhat.com 2010-05-07 04:40:19 EDT --- I have upgraded rpmlint to 0.91 which is the latest version I can find for RHEL5. FYI: --- [yy...@localhost SPECS]$ rpmlint -V rpmlint version 0.91 Copyright (C) 1999-2007 Frederic Lepied, Mandriva [yy...@localhost SPECS]$ rpmlint plexus-component-api.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. --- Please review again. Spec URL: http://yyang.fedorapeople.org/plexus/plexus-component-api.spec SRPM URL: http://yyang.fedorapeople.org/plexus/plexus-component-api-1.0-0.1.alpha15.src.rpm If you still get incorrect version in %changelog, could you please help look into the SPEC file, and tell me how to fix it, many thanks. -- Configure 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 518857] Review Request: django-extensions - django command line extensions
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=518857 Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mru...@matthias-runge.de --- Comment #4 from Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de 2010-05-07 04:44:51 EDT --- ping, anything new? Can't access specfile, nor srpm -- Configure 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 589737] Review Request: python-ipaddr - A python library for working with IP addresses, both IPv4 and IPv6
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=589737
Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||lemen...@gmail.com
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|lemen...@gmail.com
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com 2010-05-07 04:54:02 EDT
---
REVIEW:
Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable
+ rpmlint is silent
Workplace ~/Desktop: rpmlint python-ipaddr-2.1.1-1.fc14.noarch.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Workplace ~/Desktop:
+ The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
+ The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
+ The package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
+ The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines.
+ The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license (ASL
2.0) .
+ The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included
in %doc.
+ The spec file is written in American English.
+ The spec file for the package is legible.
+ The sources used to build the package, match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
Sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: sha256sum ipaddr-2.1.1.tar.gz*
2de0cc2dc1810ea1583c2072d52751b9d93e2e9ce283a8e38d6015ebed0d916c
ipaddr-2.1.1.tar.gz
2de0cc2dc1810ea1583c2072d52751b9d93e2e9ce283a8e38d6015ebed0d916c
ipaddr-2.1.1.tar.gz.1
Sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES:
+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
primary architecture.
+ All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
0 No need to handle locales.
0 No shared library files.
+ The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
+ The package is not designed to be relocatable.
+ The package owns all directories that it creates.
+ The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files
listings.
+ Permissions on files are set properly.
+ The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ The package consistently uses macros.
+ The package contains code, or permissible content.
0 No extremely large documentation files.
+ Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the
application.
0 No header files.
0 No static libraries.
0 No pkgconfig(.pc) files.
0 The package doesn't contain library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1).
0 No devel sub-package.
+ The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
0 Not a GUI application.
+ The package does not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
+ At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.
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 542436] Review Request: python-cloudfiles - Python language bindings for Rackspace CloudFiles API
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=542436 --- Comment #6 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com 2010-05-07 04:57:44 EDT --- *** Bug 547622 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 547622] Review Request: python-cloudservers - Python bindings to the Rackspace Cloud Servers API
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=547622 Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||DUPLICATE --- Comment #6 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com 2010-05-07 04:57:44 EDT --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 542436 *** -- Configure 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 585205] Review Request: python-debian - Modules for Debian-related data formats
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=585205
Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||lemen...@gmail.com
Version|13 |rawhide
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|lemen...@gmail.com
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Comment #2 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com 2010-05-07 05:07:10 EDT
---
REVIEW (using link below):
http://miroslav.suchy.cz/fedora/python-debian/python-debian-0.1.16-2.el6.src.rpm
Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable
+ rpmlint is almost silent:
Sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SPECS: rpmlint
../RPMS/noarch/python-debian-0.1.16-2.fc12.noarch.rpm
python-debian.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US debtags - deb
tags, deb-tags, debtors
python-debian.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US changelog -
change log, change-log, changeling
python-debian.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pdiffs - diffs,
p diffs, pontiffs
python-debian.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dsc - dc, disc,
doc
python-debian.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ar - AR, Ar, at
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
Sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SPECS:
All these warnings should be omitted.
+ The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
+ The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
+ The package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
+ The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines.
+ The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license (GPLv2+
and GPLv3+).
0 The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is NOT
included in %doc, because it was not included into upstream's tarball.
+ The spec file is written in American English.
+ The spec file for the package is legible.
- The sources used to build the package, DOES NOT match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
Sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: sha256sum python-debian_0.1.16.tar.gz*
e920dda1fbdf2fdb9ceaed61fb13a231786ef55615584190cb3973c277460f0b
python-debian_0.1.16.tar.gz
8454129b4624974f560bf6597052c9b3e9a072a0fe4664b61a9834e2dabc65f4
python-debian_0.1.16.tar.gz.1
Sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES:
Please, fix this issue.
+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
primary architecture.
+ All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
0 No need to handle locales.
0 No shared library files.
+ The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
+ The package is not designed to be relocatable.
+ The package owns all directories that it creates.
+ The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files
listings.
+ Permissions on files are set properly.
+ The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ The package consistently uses macros.
+ The package contains code, or permissible content.
0 No extremely large documentation files.
+ Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the
application.
0 No header files.
0 No static libraries.
0 No pkgconfig(.pc) files.
0 The package doesn't contain library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1).
0 No devel sub-package.
+ The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
0 Not a GUI application.
+ The package does not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
+ At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.
Please, fix the only issue, and I'll continue.
--
Configure 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 484598] Review Request: grin - Grep-like tool for 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=484598 --- Comment #7 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) pa...@hubbitus.info 2010-05-07 05:18:13 EDT --- Please, can you maintain it for EPEL5 too? If it not so hard... -- Configure 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 589866] Review Request: darktable - Utility to organize and develop raw images
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=589866 --- Comment #1 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com 2010-05-07 05:39:56 EDT --- *** Bug 589868 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 589868] Review Request: darktable - Utility to organize and develop raw images
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=589868 Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||DUPLICATE --- Comment #1 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com 2010-05-07 05:39:56 EDT --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 589866 *** -- Configure 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 589168] Review Request: apache-commons-logging - rename of jakarta-commons-logging
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=589168 --- Comment #15 from Stanislav Ochotnicky socho...@redhat.com 2010-05-07 05:40:42 EDT --- I would say that summary with rename of oldpkg obviously pointed that this is re-review of existing package. Will keep in mind to be more explicit about it next time. I fixed problem with self-deprecation in r4. My original idea was that new packages that would want to do Requires: jakarta-commons-logging = 1.1.1 would fail (because we only provide version up until 1.0.4 - last version of old name). So new specfiles would have to be fixed in order to work. But since we also needed to replace current jakarta-commons-logging-1.0.4, there was that Obsoletes... correct the other two problems I counted only one other problem (thank you for it pointing out btw), if there is anything else I missed let me know. Thanks -- Configure 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 589585] Review Request: maven-javadoc-plugin - Maven Javadoc plugin
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=589585
--- Comment #3 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com 2010-05-07 05:43:13 EDT
---
*-javadoc package must require jpackage-utils (owner of %{_javadocdir}), which
is a common packaging issue among java-related packages.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 450164] Review Request: ace-tao - The ADAPTIVE Communication Environment (ACE) and The ACE ORB (TAO)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=450164 --- Comment #43 from Johnny Willemsen jwillem...@remedy.nl 2010-05-07 05:41:16 EDT --- Recently I had contact with Progress/IONA for something else, but I raised the IDL CFE license issue again. The problem is that it is not easy for Progress to sort out the details, the people involved in the past have left the company and they don't have resources to sort this out at this moment. Would it be an option to first just get MPC and ACE included? -- Configure 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 589737] Review Request: python-ipaddr - A python library for working with IP addresses, both IPv4 and IPv6
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=589737 Leon Keijser keij...@stone-it.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Leon Keijser keij...@stone-it.com 2010-05-07 05:52:43 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: python-ipaddr Short Description: A python library for working with IP addresses, both IPv4 and IPv6 Owners: leon Branches: F-12 F-13 EL5 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 588142] Review Request: maven-release - Release a project updating the POM and tagging in the SCM
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=588142
--- Comment #4 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com 2010-05-07 05:57:12 EDT
---
Hello, Guido.
Just FYI, you may substitute %{_datadir}/maven2/poms with %{_mavenpomdir}.
--
Configure 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 589585] Review Request: maven-javadoc-plugin - Maven Javadoc plugin
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=589585 --- Comment #4 from Mary Ellen Foster mefos...@gmail.com 2010-05-07 05:57:40 EDT --- I've fixed the issues identified in the above comments (the missing changelog was an artifact of the build, which wasn't quite the final version). - Added jpackage requirements - Updated requirements of the (disabled) jpackage sub-package - Added a comment showing where the tarball comes from (it's a subversion checkout, so no URL is possible) - Added a Provides: maven2-plugin-javadoc - The warning about /etc/maven/fragments/maven-javadoc-plugin not being a conf-file is spurious http://www.macs.hw.ac.uk/~mef3/maven221/maven-javadoc-plugin.spec http://www.macs.hw.ac.uk/~mef3/maven221/maven-javadoc-plugin-2.4-2.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 589617] Review Request: apache-commons-discovery - rename of jakarta-commons-discovery
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=589617
--- Comment #3 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com 2010-05-07 06:02:07 EDT
---
*-javadoc subpackage must require owner of %{_javadocdir}, e.g. jpackage-utils.
Also, I dont think that you should mark %{_javadocdir}/%{name}-%{version} and
%{_javadocdir}/%{name} as %dir explicitly.
--
Configure 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 589504] Review Request: apache-commons-compress - Java API for working with tar, zip and bzip2 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=589504 Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||lemen...@gmail.com --- Comment #8 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com 2010-05-07 05:59:42 EDT --- Hello All! I'm not a java-expert, but I'm in doubts whether *-javadoc part shold *require* main package. Could someone clarify this - is *-javadoc sub-package useless w/o main 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 589617] Review Request: apache-commons-discovery - rename of jakarta-commons-discovery
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=589617 --- Comment #2 from Stanislav Ochotnicky socho...@redhat.com 2010-05-07 05:56:26 EDT --- Fixed provides to not self-deprecate self. Spec URL: http://sochotni.fedorapeople.org/apache-commons-discovery.spec SRPM URL: http://sochotni.fedorapeople.org/apache-commons-discovery-0.4-2.fc12.src.rpm Also any reviewer should note that this is a re-review of existing package named jakarta-commons-discovery. -- Configure 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 589168] Review Request: apache-commons-logging - rename of jakarta-commons-logging
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=589168 --- Comment #16 from Sandro Mathys s...@sandro-mathys.ch 2010-05-07 05:56:35 EDT --- (In reply to comment #15) I would say that summary with rename of oldpkg obviously pointed that this is re-review of existing package. For me it's all clear and not your fault. You also stated that it's a renaming in the bug's description. But the reviewer MUST state that he's aware of the fact and that he checked for the special requirements (Provides/Obsoletes) - he didn't do either. I counted only one other problem (thank you for it pointing out btw), if there is anything else I missed let me know. The two problems: 1) Provides didn't use marcos 2) self-obsoletion ...where in your specific case fixing 1) fixes 2) -- Configure 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 589585] Review Request: maven-javadoc-plugin - Maven Javadoc plugin
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=589585 --- Comment #5 from Mary Ellen Foster mefos...@gmail.com 2010-05-07 06:14:31 EDT --- p.s. -- Here's a new koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2171528 -- Configure 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 589504] Review Request: apache-commons-compress - Java API for working with tar, zip and bzip2 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=589504 --- Comment #9 from Sandro Mathys s...@sandro-mathys.ch 2010-05-07 06:19:31 EDT --- Hi Peter, thanks for our input. I agree that it's probably not technically necessary. But the template from the guidelines do it as well and so I applied the same: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Java#maven_2 The guidelines itself don't seem to mention it, so I think I could remove it. Does someone know more about that? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 588654] Review Request: plexus-component-api - Plexus Component API
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=588654
Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lemen...@gmail.com
--- Comment #7 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com 2010-05-07 05:54:18 EDT
---
Please, also add necessary requires for owner of the used directories -
jpackage-utils (owner of %{_mavenpomdir}, %{_mavendepmapfragdir} and
%{_javadocdir}).
Unfortunately, due to overall poor quality of java-related packages. I can't
find who is an owner of %{_javadocdir}/plexus/ and %{_javadir}/plexus. I've got
numerous matches, but don't have enough knowledge to pick correct one.
--
Configure 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 586291] Review Request: cURLpp - - C++ wrapper for libcURL
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=586291 --- Comment #6 from Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de 2010-05-07 06:23:15 EDT --- Ping? Any update on this one? Devil Wang, shouldn't we be hearing from you within one week, I'll close this review request. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 579369] Review Request: kanjistrokeorders-fonts - Font to view stroke order diagrams for Kanji, Kana and etc...
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=579369
--- Comment #4 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com 2010-05-07 06:28:41 EDT
---
Review:
+ package builds in mock (rawhide i686).
koji Build =http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2171526
+ rpmlint is silent for SRPM and for RPM.
kanjistrokeorders-fonts.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US kanji -
Kantian, Kanpur, Kansas
kanjistrokeorders-fonts.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US kanji
- Kantian, Kanpur, Kansas
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
+ source files match upstream url (sha1sum)
ba3a6a7904431c0969f196d2b2915ef6c87cff47 KanjiStrokeOrders_v2.014.zip
there is no direct download url working using wget though.
+ 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.
+ Does owns the directories it creates.
+ no scriptlets present.
+ no duplicates in %files.
+ file permissions are appropriate.
+ Follow fonts packaging guidelines.
Suggestions:
1) remove following comments from SPEC
#ln -s /dev/null \
# %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_confdir}/%{fontconf}
2) Give newline after each changelog entry and also between BuildRequires: line
and %description line
3) Instead of adding BuildRequires: dos2unix, you can do following in %prep.
==
for file in copyright.txt readme_en_v2.014.txt; do
sed s|\r||g $file $file.new \
touch -r $file $file.new \
mv $file.new $file
done
===
This will help not to increase build time dependency on dos2unix 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 589471] Review Request: perl-Test-POE-Server-TCP - POE Component providing TCP server services for test cases
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=589471 Yanko Kaneti yan...@declera.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Yanko Kaneti yan...@declera.com 2010-05-07 06:37:04 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1) Remove this, MODULE_COMPAT it's enough - BuildRequires: perl = 1:5.6.0 For this I've decided to stay with the Perl packaging guidelines for now. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Perl#Versioned_MODULE_COMPAT__Requires Once they are revised some automated tool would probably be used to remove that line for all modules. Also do you need all requires? Don't they needed only as BuildRequires? It doesn't seem the perl autorequires work for usage declarations like the one that can be found in /usr/share/perl5/Test/POE/Server/TCP.pm use POE qw(Wheel::SocketFactory Wheel::ReadWrite Filter::Line); If not explicitly declared the built package ends without requirements for these. I've only removed the superfluous BuildRequires: perl(POE::Filter) Change PERL_INSTALL_ROOT to DESTDIR, because this bug wasn't still removed from cpanspec ;-) Done None of these are blockers. Please fix it before upload. ACCEPTED Thanks! New Package CVS Request === Package Name: perl-Test-POE-Server-TCP Short Description: POE Component providing TCP server services for test cases Owners: yaneti Branches: 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 586291] Review Request: cURLpp - - C++ wrapper for libcURL
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=586291 --- Comment #7 from Devil Wang wxjea...@gmail.com 2010-05-07 06:44:55 EDT --- (In reply to comment #6) Ping? Any update on this one? Devil Wang, shouldn't we be hearing from you within one week, I'll close this review request. I was busy this week, i will update this package as soon as possible. -- Configure 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 585205] Review Request: python-debian - Modules for Debian-related data formats
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=585205 --- Comment #3 from Miroslav Suchý msu...@redhat.com 2010-05-07 07:08:50 EDT --- Mea culpa, I did not notify that Lukas Durfina (the original packager) altered tar.gz for this rpm package. I fixed it. New src.rpm: http://miroslav.suchy.cz/fedora/python-debian/python-debian-0.1.16-3.el6.src.rpm New Spec: http://miroslav.suchy.cz/fedora/python-debian/python-debian.spec I also added %%check section. -- Configure 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 586291] Review Request: cURLpp - - C++ wrapper for libcURL
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=586291 --- Comment #8 from Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de 2010-05-07 07:20:23 EDT --- Thank you for your promptly response. I am looking forward to hearing from 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 542458] Review Request: libqt4pas - Wrapper library for Qt4
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=542458 --- Comment #14 from matth...@nlinux.org 2010-05-07 07:36:03 EDT --- Changed. Thanks! http://listaller.nlinux.org/factory/rpmbuild/libqtpas4.spec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 585205] Review Request: python-debian - Modules for Debian-related data formats
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=585205 Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |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 585205] Review Request: python-debian - Modules for Debian-related data formats
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=585205 --- Comment #4 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com 2010-05-07 07:53:23 EDT --- Ok, now sha256sum matches: Sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: sha256sum python-debian_0.1.16.tar.gz* 8454129b4624974f560bf6597052c9b3e9a072a0fe4664b61a9834e2dabc65f4 python-debian_0.1.16.tar.gz 8454129b4624974f560bf6597052c9b3e9a072a0fe4664b61a9834e2dabc65f4 python-debian_0.1.16.tar.gz.1 Sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: I don't see any other issues, so this package is APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 585205] Review Request: python-debian - Modules for Debian-related data formats
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=585205 Miroslav Suchý msu...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Miroslav Suchý msu...@redhat.com 2010-05-07 08:07:17 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: python-debian Short Description: Modules for Debian-related data formats Owners: msuchy Branches: F-12, EL-5 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 589617] Review Request: apache-commons-discovery - rename of jakarta-commons-discovery
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=589617
--- Comment #4 from Stanislav Ochotnicky socho...@redhat.com 2010-05-07
08:05:53 EDT ---
Thanks for comments.
-javadoc subpackage must require owner of %{_javadocdir}, e.g. jpackage-utils.
I fixed this but I will wait a bit before creating another revision in case
something else comes up. I also noticed your question about javadoc requires on
their parents on fedora-devel. Once that will be cleared up I will create new
version of spec/srpm.
Also, I dont think that you should mark %{_javadocdir}/%{name}-%{version} and
%{_javadocdir}/%{name} as %dir explicitly.
I am sorry, but as far as I see I named them using %doc not %dir. Is this
wrong? I was told %doc is optional in this case but it will not hurt anything.
--
Configure 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 588202] Review Request: perl-Class-ISA - Report the search path for a class's ISA tree
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=588202 Marcela Mašláňová mmasl...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 505360] Review Request: JSCookMenu - Javascript GUI-like web menus
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=505360 --- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2010-05-07 09:37:06 EDT --- JSCookMenu-2.0.4-3.fc12 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 12. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/JSCookMenu-2.0.4-3.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 505360] Review Request: JSCookMenu - Javascript GUI-like web menus
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=505360 --- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2010-05-07 09:37:13 EDT --- JSCookMenu-2.0.4-3.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/JSCookMenu-2.0.4-3.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 505360] Review Request: JSCookMenu - Javascript GUI-like web menus
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=505360 --- Comment #20 from Patrick Monnerat p...@datasphere.ch 2010-05-07 09:52:30 EDT --- Thanks Kevin. Typo fixed and post/postun scriptlets removed. -- Configure 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 471231] Review Request: WebCalendar - Single/multi-user web-based calendar application
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=471231 Patrick Monnerat p...@datasphere.ch changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on|505360 | -- Configure 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 505360] Review Request: JSCookMenu - Javascript GUI-like web menus
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=505360 Patrick Monnerat p...@datasphere.ch changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|471231 | -- Configure 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 589867] Review Request: logcheck - analyzes logfiles and sends email
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=589867
Mohammed Imran imran...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||imran...@gmail.com
--- Comment #2 from Mohammed Imran imran...@gmail.com 2010-05-07 10:00:55 EDT
---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
[x] Rpmlint is silent
[x] Package is not relocatable.
[!] Buildroot is correct
(%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n))
its not needed anymore, you can remove it
[x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type:GPLv2
[x] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package is included in %doc.
[x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
MD5SUM this package:86ea9f35183f28f95deb0aba509efb61
MD5SUM upstream package:86ea9f35183f28f95deb0aba509efb61
[x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch, OR:
[x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
[-] The spec file handles locales properly.
[-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[-] Package must own all directories that it creates.
[-] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[!] Permissions on files are set properly.
retain %config(noreplace) lines,remove %attr(0755,root,root) lines,also group
can be logcheck ?
your makefile handles all this
no need to list %dir %{_datadir}/logtail, just %{_datadir}/logtail/* is enough
replace
%{_sbindir}/logcheck
%{_sbindir}/logtail
%{_sbindir}/logtail2
with %{_sbindir}/*
[x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
[x] Package consistently uses macros.
[x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[!] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
make -doc package,also there is man page which you need to install in man
directory
[x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present.
[-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
[-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
[x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
Needs to be Fixed
==
According to install instructins
#-Extract logcheck and run make install.
-Add an unpriviliged user for running logcheck. (typicallly named logcheck)
-chown -R logcheck /etc/logcheck /var/lock/logcheck /var/lib/logcheck
-Be sure this user can access your log files
-Edit logcheck configuration files in /etc/logcheck. Most importantly
logcheck.conf. logcheck.logfiles contains a list of logfiles to be scanned.
-Install logcheck cron job. There is a sample in debian/logcheck.cron.d
where you are performing these steps ?
you may use use scriptlets
see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets
Please Fix the above issues
please do read
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines
--
Configure 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 583102] Review Request: radiotray - Radio Tray is a streaming player for listening to online radios
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=583102
--- Comment #2 from Jean-Francois Saucier jfsauc...@infoglobe.ca 2010-05-07
10:16:26 EDT ---
Spec URL: http://jfsaucier.fedorapeople.org/packages/radiotray.spec
SRPM URL:
http://jfsaucier.fedorapeople.org/packages/radiotray-0.5.1-2.fc12.src.rpm
Thank you for your suggestions. rpmlint is still silent after the changes and
build fine in mock.
## The python_sitelib definition could be changed to
Done, I did not notice this change since F-13, thanks for pointing this to me!
## The build section could use
CFLAGS=$RPM_OPT_FLAGS %{__python} setup.py build
Done.
## line 37 could use %{__python} instead of python (optional)
Done.
## %{python_sitelib}/radiotray-0.5.1-py?.?.egg-info would help not break the
package in case of py version changes?
Done.
Thanks for pointing out some python stuff. I don't have many experience
packaging python applications and with the new multiple python version feature
in F-13, I think it's important to make these 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 588654] Review Request: plexus-component-api - Plexus Component API
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=588654 --- Comment #8 from Andrew Overholt overh...@redhat.com 2010-05-07 10:25:55 EDT --- Thanks, Yong, that rpmlint error is gone now. Peter, thanks for bringing up the issue with directory ownership. Everyone appreciates your help in getting the packages into a better state so please continue helping in this area :) Yong, please do as Peter asks and add jpackage-utils as a Requires. While the chain of dependencies would take care of this, it's just as valid to have the direct Requires. Thanks. -- Configure 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 590024] New: Review Request: urbi-sdk - Robotics development platform
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: urbi-sdk - Robotics development platform https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=590024 Summary: Review Request: urbi-sdk - Robotics development platform Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: thomas.moul...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://homepages.laas.fr/~tmoulard/fedora/urbi-sdk.spec SRPM URL: http://homepages.laas.fr/~tmoulard/fedora/urbi-sdk-2.0.2-1.fc12.src.rpm Description: Urbi is an innovative, simple to use, yet powerful universal software platform for robotics. It includes a C++ distributed component architecture, a parallel and event-driven script language for orchestration, and many modules and interfaces to other platforms or components -- Configure 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 590024] Review Request: urbi-sdk - Robotics development platform
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=590024 --- Comment #1 from Thomas Moulard thomas.moul...@gmail.com 2010-05-07 10:47:56 EDT --- The only serious problem detected by rpmlint is that shared libraries are named libLIBRARY.so without any versioning. $ rpmlint ~/rpmbuild/RPMS/i686/urbi-sdk-2.0.2-1.fc12.i686.rpm 64 16:43:17 urbi-sdk.i686: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib/libsched.so libsched.so urbi-sdk.i686: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib/libsched.so e...@glibc_2.0 urbi-sdk.i686: W: executable-stack /usr/lib/libsched.so urbi-sdk.i686: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib/libjpeg4urbi.so libjpeg4urbi.so urbi-sdk.i686: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib/libjpeg4urbi.so e...@glibc_2.0 urbi-sdk.i686: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib/liburbi.so liburbi.so urbi-sdk.i686: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib/liburbi.so e...@glibc_2.0 urbi-sdk.i686: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib/libport.so libport.so urbi-sdk.i686: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib/libport.so e...@glibc_2.0 urbi-sdk.i686: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib/libserialize.so libserialize.so $ rpmlint ~/rpmbuild/RPMS/i686/urbi-sdk-devel-2.0.2-1.fc12.i686.rpm 64 16:43:53 urbi-sdk-devel.i686: W: no-documentation Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2172508 -- Configure 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 589162] Review Request: stress - A tool to put given subsystems under a specified load
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=589162 --- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2010-05-07 10:59:15 EDT --- Addressed: SRPM: http://zanoni.jcomserv.net/fedora/stress/stress-1.0.4-4.fc12.src.rpm SPEC: http://zanoni.jcomserv.net/fedora/stress/stress.spec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 586777] Review Request: glyphtracer - Program for creating fonts from images
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=586777
Toshio Ernie Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||a.bad...@gmail.com
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|a.bad...@gmail.com
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Comment #9 from Toshio Ernie Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com 2010-05-07
11:12:54 EDT ---
I'll trade for python-bunch: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=575185
GOOD:
* Source matches upstream
* builds in koji for f13 -- See notes in NEEDSWORK for other releases
* license is correct and approved
* spec file is readable
* No locale files to handle
* not a shared library
* No bundled libraries
* package owns all files and directories it creates and nothing else
* no file listed multiple times in %files
* Permissions are proper
* macros used consistently
* no doc files affect runtime
NEEDSWORK
* This is a post-release snapshot so you have the release almost correct but it
should include the date like this::
1.$DATEbzr$BZRbzr%{?dist}
So like this::
2.20100507bzr73
* Better method to generate the source::
### Source tarball is created from latest 73 revision
### bzr branch lp:glyphtracer -r 73
### cd glyphtracer
### python setup.py sdist
### tarball is in dist/glyphtracer-%{version}.tar.gz
Source0: glyphtracer-%{version}.tar.gz
The reason this is better is that this is the way most upstream's create
their tarballs. So making our tarball this way will let us see problems they
would when they make their next release.
(And hello jpakkane! In case you didn't know about the setup.py sdist
command, there it is :-)
When making this change, you also need to change the %setup line:
- %setup -q -n %{name}
+ %setup -q glyphtracer-%{version}
* Need to Requires: potrace
* If you are building for anything less recent than F13 you need to define
python_sitelib at the top of your spec file like this::
%if ! (0%{?fedora} 12 || 0%{?rhel} 5)
%{!?python_sitelib: %global python_sitelib %(%{__python} -c from
distutils.sysconfig import get_python_lib; print(get_python_lib()))}
%endif
* This is a GUI app so it needs a .desktop file.
RPMLINT:
glyphtracer.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US vectorised -
vectored, vector, verdigrised
glyphtracer.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US vectorised -
vectored, vector, verdigrised
Both vectorize and vectorise are in common use. No need to change this.
glyphtracer.src: W: invalid-url Source0: glyphtracer-1.0-73bzr.tar.gz
The comments explain how to generate this so it's also fine.
glyphtracer.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/glyphtracer.py 0644 /usr/bin/python
glyphtracer.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/gtlib.py 0644 /usr/bin/python
These are being generated because of the #!/usr/bin/python lines in gtlib.py
and glyphtracer.py. I'd remove the line from gtlib.py and submit upstream
because there is no code there intended to be run as a script.
glyphtracer.py is tougher -- it does have an if __name__ == '__main__'
section that allows you to execute the program as a script.
Several ways to resolve this:
* Decide that glyphtracer.py isn't useful as a library. In that case i'd add
it to the setup.py as a script and install it to /usr/bin. Renaming
glyphtracer.py to glyphtracer and making this change to setup.py would do
that::
- py_modules = ['glyphtracer', 'gtlib'],
+ py_modules = ['gtlib'],
+ scripts = ['glyphtracer'],
* Decide that in the future glyphtracer.py will be used as a library too --
I'd remove the if __name__ == '__main__' section from glyphtracer.py and
add the wrapper script (present in the srpm) to the upstream distribution
in the scripts line of setup.py.
OTHER (none of these are necessary changes):
* Note for jpakkane: usually, people include a copy of the GPL (v3 since that's
what you are licensing under) in the tarball. The funny thing about the GPL
is that if the software author doesn't specify a version explicitly anywhere,
the recipient is officially allowed to use any version of the license (even
though the author likely meant GPLv3 or later or GPLv2 or later). So your
explitness in license.txt is also good to have. Thanks for that! I'd
recommend keeping license.txt and adding a COPYING file with the text of the
GPLv3.
* -O1 isn't needed with any current versions of rpm in Fedora; the python
bytecompilation step will do -O1 for us.
* When writing python scripts I like to use::
#!/usr/bin/python -tt
The -tt makes
[Bug 590024] Review Request: urbi-sdk - Robotics development platform
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=590024 --- Comment #2 from Thomas Moulard thomas.moul...@gmail.com 2010-05-07 11:18:19 EDT --- New Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2172545 I have updated the spec file. One build requirement was missing. -- Configure 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 584966] Review Request: R-bitops - Functions for Bitwise operations
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=584966 --- Comment #7 from josef radinger che...@nosuchhost.net 2010-05-07 11:23:29 EDT --- no prob. should have seen this, too. -- Configure 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 586777] Review Request: glyphtracer - Program for creating fonts from images
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=586777
--- Comment #10 from Toshio Ernie Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com 2010-05-07
11:13:57 EDT ---
Grr typo:
* This is a post-release snapshot so you have the release almost correct but it
should include the date like this::
1.$DATEbzr$BZR%{?dist}
So like this::
2.20100507bzr73%{?dist}
--
Configure 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 578024] Review Request: ingres - Relational DBMS Server and Utilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=578024 Jay Hankinson jeremy.hankin...@ingres.com changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #403406|0 |1 is obsolete|| --- Comment #13 from Jay Hankinson jeremy.hankin...@ingres.com 2010-05-07 11:30:11 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=412380) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=412380) Output from rpmlint - 3.20100505svn2946 -- Configure 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 578024] Review Request: ingres - Relational DBMS Server and Utilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=578024 --- Comment #14 from Jay Hankinson jeremy.hankin...@ingres.com 2010-05-07 12:06:10 EDT --- Apologies for the delay, new SPEC and SRPM available here: ftp://ftp.ingres.com/outgoing/hanje04/srpms/ingres.spec ftp://ftp.ingres.com/outgoing/hanje04/srpms/ingres-10.0.0-3.20100505svn2946.fc11.src.rpm %changelog * Thu May 04 2010 Jay Hankinson jeremy.hankin...@ingres.com 10.0.0-3 - Update source to svn r2946 - Add support for pure 64bit x86_64 builds * Wed Apr 28 2010 Jay Hankinson jeremy.hankin...@ingres.com 10.0.0-2 - Use SVN revision for build number - Add default database locations to dbms package - Move /usr/bin/createdb to /usr/libexec/ingres/bin and add /usr/bin/ingcreatedb - Move /usr/bin/report and /usr/bin/isql to /usr/libexec/ingres/bin - Remove executable stack flag from libcompat.10.0.0.so - Mark files in _sysconfdir as config - Generate dir lists and add to file lists for each package rpmlint output attached. -- Configure 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 589585] Review Request: maven-javadoc-plugin - Maven Javadoc plugin
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=589585 Jeff Johnston jjohn...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Jeff Johnston jjohn...@redhat.com 2010-05-07 12:19:33 EDT --- Looks good. I am marking this as reviewed. -- Configure 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 579682] Review Request: perl-version - Perl extension for Version Objects
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=579682 Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|needinfo?(ke...@tummy.com) | --- Comment #10 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2010-05-07 12:27:07 EDT --- I can't do that, I'm not in rel-eng. ;) Please file a request in the rel-eng track asking for it to be unblocked? -- Configure 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 589162] Review Request: stress - A tool to put given subsystems under a specified load
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=589162 Terje Røsten terje...@phys.ntnu.no changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|terje...@phys.ntnu.no Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #7 from Terje Røsten terje...@phys.ntnu.no 2010-05-07 12:40:47 EDT --- Thanks, review in the works. -- Configure 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 589162] Review Request: stress - A tool to put given subsystems under a specified load
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=589162
Terje Røsten terje...@phys.ntnu.no changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #8 from Terje Røsten terje...@phys.ntnu.no 2010-05-07 12:57:55
EDT ---
ok rpmlint, just spelling warnings
ok sources
sha1sum stress-1.0.4.tar.gz*
7ccb6d76d27ddd54461a21411f2bc8491ba65168 stress-1.0.4.tar.gz
7ccb6d76d27ddd54461a21411f2bc8491ba65168 stress-1.0.4.tar.gz.spec
However use wget _n to preserve timestamps on the tarball
ok license GPLv2+, see comment above
ok dirs, perms and owns
ok correct language
! spec file
remove a strange rm -f in %install under
rm -f $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_infodir}/dir
ok docs and man page
ok buildopts
ok macros
ok utf-8 file names
ok koji:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2172740
Fix the rm issue on import.
The package stress 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 395651] Review Request: python-enum - Robust enumerated type support in Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=395651 Adam Miller maxamill...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||maxamill...@fedoraproject.o ||rg Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #12 from Adam Miller maxamill...@fedoraproject.org 2010-05-07 13:04:02 EDT --- Package Change Request == Package Name: python-enum New Branches: EL-5 Owners: maxamillion -- Configure 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 589162] Review Request: stress - A tool to put given subsystems under a specified load
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=589162 Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #9 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2010-05-07 13:12:32 EDT --- Thanks for the review! Fix rm in what way, replace with exclude? New Package CVS Request === Package Name: stress Short Description: A tool to put given subsystems under a specified load Owners: limb Branches: F-13 F-12 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 588122] Review Request: perl-Symbol-Util - Additional utilities for Perl symbols manipulation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=588122 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2010-05-07 13:22:48 EDT --- perl-Symbol-Util-0.0202-3.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update perl-Symbol-Util'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Symbol-Util-0.0202-3.fc11 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 588437] Review Request: rubygem-fakefs - A fake filesystem for Ruby
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=588437 --- Comment #6 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2010-05-07 13:20:24 EDT --- Just a reminder: Every time you modify your spec file, please - change the release number to avoid confusion - add proper %changelog entry - post the URLs of new srpm / spec on the review request bug ( please post ! ) Otherwise no one will notice you did some work after (potential) reviewer added a comment. -- Configure 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 589585] Review Request: maven-javadoc-plugin - Maven Javadoc plugin
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=589585 Mary Ellen Foster mefos...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Mary Ellen Foster mefos...@gmail.com 2010-05-07 12:33:55 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: maven-javadoc-plugin Short Description: Maven Javadoc plugin Owners: mef Branches: 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 585336] Review Request: perl-Sys-CPU - Getting CPU information
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=585336 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2010-05-07 13:26:17 EDT --- perl-Sys-CPU-0.51-2.fc12 has been pushed to the Fedora 12 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure 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 583141] Review Request: nautilus-pastebin - Nautilus extension to send files to a pastebin
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=583141 --- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2010-05-07 13:25:49 EDT --- nautilus-pastebin-0.4.1-6.fc12 has been pushed to the Fedora 12 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update nautilus-pastebin'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/nautilus-pastebin-0.4.1-6.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 577680] Review Request: banshee-community-extensions - Collection of extensions for the media player Banshee
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=577680 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||taglib-sharp-2.0.3.7-1.fc12 Resolution||ERRATA -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 577680] Review Request: banshee-community-extensions - Collection of extensions for the media player Banshee
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=577680 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2010-05-07 13:23:36 EDT --- taglib-sharp-2.0.3.7-1.fc12, banshee-community-extensions-1.6.0-1.fc12, banshee-1.6.0-1.fc12, beagle-0.3.9-17.fc12 has been pushed to the Fedora 12 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure 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 583141] Review Request: nautilus-pastebin - Nautilus extension to send files to a pastebin
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=583141 --- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2010-05-07 13:24:59 EDT --- nautilus-pastebin-0.4.1-6.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update nautilus-pastebin'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/nautilus-pastebin-0.4.1-6.fc11 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 585336] Review Request: perl-Sys-CPU - Getting CPU information
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=585336 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Fixed In Version||perl-Sys-CPU-0.51-2.fc12 Resolution||ERRATA -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 579227] Review Request: byobu - Light-weight, configurable window manager built upon GNU screen
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=579227 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|byobu-2.73-1.fc12 |byobu-2.73-1.fc11 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 579227] Review Request: byobu - Light-weight, configurable window manager built upon GNU screen
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=579227 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|byobu-2.73-1.fc13 |byobu-2.73-1.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 579227] Review Request: byobu - Light-weight, configurable window manager built upon GNU screen
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=579227 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2010-05-07 13:26:28 EDT --- byobu-2.73-1.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure 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 588122] Review Request: perl-Symbol-Util - Additional utilities for Perl symbols manipulation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=588122 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2010-05-07 13:24:52 EDT --- perl-Symbol-Util-0.0202-3.fc12 has been pushed to the Fedora 12 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update perl-Symbol-Util'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Symbol-Util-0.0202-3.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 579227] Review Request: byobu - Light-weight, configurable window manager built upon GNU screen
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=579227 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2010-05-07 13:25:58 EDT --- byobu-2.73-1.fc12 has been pushed to the Fedora 12 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure 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 589162] Review Request: stress - A tool to put given subsystems under a specified load
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=589162
--- Comment #10 from Terje Røsten terje...@phys.ntnu.no 2010-05-07 14:00:05
EDT ---
Sorry, I was a bit short:
From:
http://zanoni.jcomserv.net/fedora/stress/stress.spec
in the %install section:
%install
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT
rm -f $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_infodir}/dir
rm -f
This last line a 'rm -f' without argument should be removed.
--
Configure 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 573929] Review Request: perl-Compress-Raw-Zlib - Low-Level Interface to zlib compression 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=573929 Ville Skyttä ville.sky...@iki.fi changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ville.sky...@iki.fi --- Comment #18 from Ville Skyttä ville.sky...@iki.fi 2010-05-07 16:48:44 EDT --- Looks like there are some F-13 and F-14 builds now in koji, should this bug be closed? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 583834] Review Request: perl-ExtUtils-CChecker - Configure-time utilities for using C headers, libraries, or OS features
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=583834 Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) kwiz...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 589833] Review Request: perl-HTTP-Lite - Lightweight HTTP implementation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=589833 Radek L radoslaw.lisow...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||radoslaw.lisow...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Radek L radoslaw.lisow...@gmail.com 2010-05-07 17:52:00 EDT --- Since I'm not a packager yet, and looking for sponsorship, I've made some review on my own (not commiting of course): $ rpmlint perl-HTTP-Lite-2.2-1.fc14.src.rpm perl-HTTP-Lite.spec 1 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. No errors neither warnings - ok Package name, spec file name - everything looks ok, and fits guidelines. If it's about license, I've got a little doubt. In spec file there is: GPL+ or Artistic, which is ok, and fits fedora approved licenses. However on the homepage there is Perl (Artistic and GPL), and it's about and instead of or. In LICENSE file included to package, there isn't clearly specified which naming is right, although they're both included and it's more a Notice than an error. More about spec file - it's legible, and written in English. MD5SUM from src.rpm: 149651593132db8f3b06349a67cab77f HTTP-Lite-2.2.tar.gz MD5SUM from upstream: 149651593132db8f3b06349a67cab77f HTTP-Lite-2.2.tar.gz Builds well, according to Koji logs, and tested on my system. It's not depending on arch, so any issues connected with it doesn't affect on it. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 482757] Review Request: objcryst-fox - Viewing and solving crystal structures from powder diffraction data
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=482757 --- Comment #13 from MERCIER Jonathan bioinfornat...@gmail.com 2010-05-07 21:01:44 EDT --- nobody for review 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 450164] Review Request: ace-tao - The ADAPTIVE Communication Environment (ACE) and The ACE ORB (TAO)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=450164 --- Comment #44 from Chen Lei supercyp...@gmail.com 2010-05-07 23:37:56 EDT --- (In reply to comment #43) Recently I had contact with Progress/IONA for something else, but I raised the IDL CFE license issue again. The problem is that it is not easy for Progress to sort out the details, the people involved in the past have left the company and they don't have resources to sort this out at this moment. Would it be an option to first just get MPC and ACE included? It'll be great to first get MPC and ACE included in fedora and TAO included in rpmfusion-nonfree for a workaround, though spot thought some codes in ACE wrapper are probably nonfree. Could you help to contant Ken Sedgwick to reopen this review request and tell upstream to release seperate source tarballs for MPC, ACE, TAO and CIAO? -- Configure 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
