[Bug 598471] Review Request: maven-gpg-plugin - sign all of the project's attached artifacts with GnuPG.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=598471
Alexander Kurtakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review+ |fedora-review?
--- Comment #4 from Alexander Kurtakov 2010-06-02
02:41:27 EDT ---
Ideally it should become %{name}
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 598402] Review Request: maven-ejb-plugin - Maven EJB 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=598402 Alexander Kurtakov changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Alexander Kurtakov 2010-06-02 02:39:14 EDT --- Looks good, thanks. 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 598471] Review Request: maven-gpg-plugin - sign all of the project's attached artifacts with GnuPG.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=598471 --- Comment #3 from Alexander Kurtakov 2010-06-02 02:40:24 EDT --- Thanks huwang. Stanislav: please fix before importing -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 598824] Review Request: maven-verifier-plugin - Maven Verifier 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=598824 --- Comment #1 from huwang 2010-06-02 02:38:20 EDT --- Scratch built in koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2224179 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 597978] Review Request: maven-ant-plugin - Maven Ant 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=597978 Alexander Kurtakov changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Alexander Kurtakov 2010-06-02 02:36:01 EDT --- Thanks, 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 598824] New: Review Request: maven-verifier-plugin - Maven Verifier Plugin
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: maven-verifier-plugin - Maven Verifier Plugin https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=598824 Summary: Review Request: maven-verifier-plugin - Maven Verifier Plugin Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: huw...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Target Release: --- Spec URL: http://huwang.fedorapeople.org/packages/maven-verifier-plugin/maven-verifier-plugin.spec SRPM URL: http://huwang.fedorapeople.org/packages/maven-verifier-plugin/maven-verifier-plugin-1.0-1.src.rpm Description: Assists in integration testing by means of evaluating success/error conditions read from a configuration file. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 598553] New package perl-PPIx-Regexp
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=598553 --- Comment #5 from Chris Weyl 2010-06-02 02:08:18 EDT --- heh. Looks like that's happening already :) Ralf's right, tho -- this isn't a review request, as there's nothing here to review. /me toddles off to bed -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 594844] Review Request: iec16022 - Generate ISO/IEC 16022 2D barcodes
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=594844 --- Comment #5 from Ville Skyttä 2010-06-02 02:02:22 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=418918) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=418918) Fix test suite exit status on failure (In reply to comment #3) > And patching of upstream build process/test scripts is needed; if tests fail, > the test suite and build should fail too. Looks like this part is not addressed yet. Something like the attached patch should do the trick (I just sent the patch upstream too). Other remaining issues: %configure and the rpath seds should be done in %build, not %prep. Version in %changelog's entry for 0.2.4-4 is wrong (0.2.4-3). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 598553] New package perl-PPIx-Regexp
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=598553 Chris Weyl changed: What|Removed |Added CC||cw...@alumni.drew.edu --- Comment #4 from Chris Weyl 2010-06-02 01:59:47 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2) > You can view on it from all three points. However I have never submit a review > request nor written a spec file from scratch. I will do that when I have > sparse > time. I'm not the only one who maintains perl packages in Fedora. So maybe > somebody could be faster then me. Actually I use the Bugzilla for the right > thing: to track distribution issues, don't I? Yep -- and here's the workflow commonly used :) When we know there's an issue/upgrade needing attention, the tracking bug should be filed against the component itself. Any package reviews that need to be done should be filed separately, and set to block the tracking bug. Soo, in this case, this bug (tracking) should be filed against perl-Padre; the review bug for perl-PPIx-Regexp should be set to block this bug once it has been created (no matter who creates it). This helps provide a distinction between the two issues here: one, that perl-Padre cannot be updated until perl-PPIx-Regexp is in Fedora; and two, the actual review process itself. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 598815] New: Review Request: gnome-battery-status-applet - Better replacement for the power icon in notification area.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: gnome-battery-status-applet - Better replacement for the power icon in notification area. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=598815 Summary: Review Request: gnome-battery-status-applet - Better replacement for the power icon in notification area. Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: xku...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Group: devel, beta, redhat Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Target Release: --- Spec URL: http://xkuang.fedorapeople.org/Fedora/SPECS/gnome-battery-status-applet.spec SRPM URL: http://xkuang.fedorapeople.org/Fedora/SRPMS/gnome-battery-status-applet-0.1-1.fc13.src.rpm HOMEPAGE: http://live.gnome.org/BatteryStatus Description: Battery status applet is a replacement for gnome-power-manager icon in notification area. It provide more easier radio choices for switch the performance governor. For more information, access the upon home page. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 545046] Review Request: CVector - ANSI C API for Dynamic Arrays
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=545046 --- Comment #12 from Takanori MATSUURA 2010-06-02 01:37:41 EDT --- (In reply to comment #11) > I'll try bug 597307 for informal review. and bug 598511. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 551274] Review Request: akonadi-googledata -Akonadi resources to sync google calendar events and contacts
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=551274 --- Comment #9 from S.A. Hartsuiker 2010-06-02 01:26:25 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=418909) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=418909) patch to .spec to get it to build The original .spec is FTBFS. I needed this package, so I thought I'd share my spec changes. I take no responsibility for fedora guideline adherence or anything else of the sort. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 563844] Update Zim to the upstream Python-based release
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=563844 Robin Lee changed: What|Removed |Added Component|Package Review |Zim Summary|Review Request: zim - A |Update Zim to the upstream |Desktop Wiki Editor |Python-based release --- Comment #52 from Robin Lee 2010-06-02 01:24:09 EDT --- 0.46-2 Spec URL: http://cheeselee.fedorapeople.org/Zim.spec SRPM URL: http://cheeselee.fedorapeople.org/Zim-0.46-2.fc13.src.rpm Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2224154 Changes: - Rename back to 'Zim' according to the decision of FESCo meeting (2010-06-01) - Revert Summary and Description to the original version in the 'Zim' package except 'Gtk2-Perl' changed to 'PyGTK' - Use recommended command to remove shebangs - Remove Buildroot tag After all, I am with a good temper :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 579919] Review Request: isight-firmware-tools - Firmware extraction tools for Apple Built-in iSight camera
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=579919 Chen Lei changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||CURRENTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 598101] Review Request: maven-deploy-plugin - Uploads the project artifacts to the internal remote repository.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=598101 --- Comment #3 from Weinan Li 2010-06-02 00:09:53 EDT --- - depmap removed - Use new BRs for some already updated maven components - obsolete/provide maven2-plugin-deploy - Remove the empty line between changelog and the changelog entry Spec URL: http://weli.fedorapeople.org/packages/fedora-14/maven-deploy-plugin/maven-deploy-plugin.spec SRPM URL: http://weli.fedorapeople.org/packages/fedora-14/maven-deploy-plugin/maven-deploy-plugin-2.5-2.src.rpm Note: this needs to be built in the dist-f14-maven221 koji tag. Here is a successful koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2224090 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 597978] Review Request: maven-ant-plugin - Maven Ant 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=597978
--- Comment #5 from huwang 2010-06-01 23:38:55 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Review:
>
> FIXIT: rpmlint must be run on every package. Output:
>
> maven-ant-plugin.noarch: W: self-obsoletion maven2-plugin-ant <= 0:2.0.8
> obsoletes maven2-plugin-ant = 2.3-1.fc13
>
> It is obsoleting with Epoch but providing without Epoch.
> To fix it:
> Provides: maven2-plugin-ant = %{version}-%{release} should become
> Provides: maven2-plugin-ant = 0:%{version}-%{release}
Fixed. As Stanislav said epoch should be 1(see
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=598058), for now I'm not sure about
it.
>
> maven-ant-plugin.noarch: W: no-documentation
> maven-ant-plugin.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc
> /etc/maven/fragments/maven-ant-plugin
>
> False positives.
>
> OK: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
> OK: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
> %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
> OK: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
> OK: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
> Licensing Guidelines .
> OK: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
> OK: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
> its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
> package must be included in %doc.
> OK: The spec file must be written in American English.
> OK: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
> OK: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
> provided in the spec URL.
> OK: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
> least one primary architecture.
> OK: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any
> that
> are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion
> of
> those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
> OK: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
> OK: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create
> a
> directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create
> that
> directory.
> OK: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
> %files listings.
> OK: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
> with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
> %defattr(...) line.
> OK: Each package must consistently use macros.
> OK: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
> OK: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
> OK: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of
> the application.
> OK: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
> packages.
> OK: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
>
> Other than the provides everything else looks good.
Spec URL:
http://huwang.fedorapeople.org/packages/maven_ant_plugin/maven-ant-plugin.spec
SRPM URL:
http://huwang.fedorapeople.org/packages/maven_ant_plugin/maven-ant-plugin-2.3-2.src.rpm
scratch built in koji:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2224086
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 520569] Review Request: uboot-mkimage - U-Boot mkimage utility
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=520569
Chris Tyler changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Comment #10 from Chris Tyler 2010-06-01 22:58:51 EDT ---
[Y] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
the review.[1]
$ rpmlint RPMS/*/* SRPMS/* SPECS/uboot-tools.spec
uboot-tools.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US fw -> f, w, few
uboot-tools.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US printenv -> printer,
printing, printable
uboot-tools.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US setenv -> Seton,
setter, settee
uboot-tools.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mkimage -> imagery,
image, imagine
uboot-tools.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US fw -> f, w, few
uboot-tools.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US printenv -> printer,
printing, printable
uboot-tools.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US setenv -> Seton,
setter, settee
3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings.
[Y] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[Y] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [2] .
[Y] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
[Y] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines .
[Y] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license. [3]
[Y] MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package must be included in %doc.[4]
[Y] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [5]
*** Recommend improving grammar in the %desc in two places-- change to:
This package contains a few U-Boot utilities - mkimage for creating boot images
and fw_printenv/fw_setenv for manipulating the boot environment variables.
[Y] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [6]
[Y] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no
upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL
Guidelines for how to deal with this.
[Y] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture. [7]
[Y] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line. [8]
[Y] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for
any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
[NA] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using
the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.[9]
[NA] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library
files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must
call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [10]
[Y] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.[11]
[NA] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must
state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker. [12]
[Y] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not
create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
create that directory. [13]
[Y] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file's %files listings. [14]
[Y] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
%defattr(...) line. [15]
[Y] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [16]
[Y] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [17]
[NA] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The
definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not
restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). [18]
[NA] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must
run properly if it is not present. [18]
[
[Bug 597937] Review Request: maven-changelog-plugin - Maven Changelog 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=597937 huwang changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 597937] Review Request: maven-changelog-plugin - Maven Changelog 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=597937 --- Comment #10 from huwang 2010-06-01 22:49:30 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: maven-changelog-plugin Short Description: Maven Changelog Plugin Owners: huwang 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 598402] Review Request: maven-ejb-plugin - Maven EJB 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=598402
--- Comment #4 from huwang 2010-06-01 22:36:45 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Review:
>
> FIXIT: rpmlint must be run on every package. Output:
> maven-ejb-plugin.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C Generates a J2EE
> Enterprise JavaBean (EJB) file as well as the associated client JAR.
Fixed
>
> Make it two lines.
>
> maven-ejb-plugin.noarch: W: self-obsoletion maven2-plugin-ejb <= 0:2.0.8
> obsoletes maven2-plugin-ejb = 2.2.1-1.fc13
> Provide with epoch.
Fixed
>
> maven-ejb-plugin.noarch: W: no-documentation
> maven-ejb-plugin.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc
> /etc/maven/fragments/maven-ejb-plugin
>
> False positives.
>
> OK: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
> OK: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
> %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
> OK: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
> OK: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
> Licensing Guidelines .
> OK: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
> OK: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
> its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
> package must be included in %doc.
> OK: The spec file must be written in American English.
> OK: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
>
> FIXIT: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
> as
> provided in the spec URL.
> Tarball generation instructions are wrong. They point to the
> maven-docck-plugin
> svn.
Fixed
>
> OK: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
> least one primary architecture.
> OK: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any
> that
> are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion
> of
> those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
> OK: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
> OK: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create
> a
> directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create
> that
> directory.
> OK: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
> %files listings.
> OK: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
> with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
> %defattr(...) line.
> OK: Each package must consistently use macros.
> OK: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
> OK: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
> OK: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of
> the application.
> OK: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
> packages.
> OK: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
Spec URL:
http://huwang.fedorapeople.org/packages/maven-ejb-plugin/maven-ejb-plugin.spec
SRPM URL:
http://huwang.fedorapeople.org/packages/maven-ejb-plugin/maven-ejb-plugin-2.2.1-2.src.rpm
scratch built in koji:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2224026
please review again, 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 598376] Review Request: maven-one-plugin - Maven One 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=598376
--- Comment #3 from Yang Yong 2010-06-01 22:18:55 EDT ---
Hi Stanislav, SPEC and SRPM are updated, please review again.
fix log:
* You need to make sure lines are not overly long (I believe they
have to be under 80 characters. Your editor should automatically
insert newline when editing the spec file)
FIXED
* Permissions of depmap are weird (just chmod it to 644)
FIXED
* You need to obsolete version 0:2.0.8 and provide 1:%{version}-%{release}
your obsoletes would not obsolete current version of one plugin.
FIXED
* It would be good to put comment why test failure is ignored.
Actually in this case maven-one-plugin has no tests so that line
serves no purpose. It's just causing confusion, so please remove
it.
FIXED
* While you are at it, use xz compression for our own tarballs. It's
smaller and fully supported. You can create them with:
tar acf maven-one-plugin-1.2.tar.gz maven-one-plugin-1.2/
DECLINED, there is still no tar 2.x in RHEL.
* Improve summary text. It'd better if it said something like:
"Plugin to support integration with Maven 1.x"
"Maven One Plugin" will not tell me much when I do "yum search"...
FIXED
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 598471] Review Request: maven-gpg-plugin - sign all of the project's attached artifacts with GnuPG.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=598471 huwang changed: What|Removed |Added CC||huw...@redhat.com --- Comment #2 from huwang 2010-06-01 21:46:13 EDT --- I noticed add_to_maven_depmap maven-antrun-plugin, it should be maven-gpg-plugin. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 593559] Review Request: protobuf-c - C bindings for Google's Protocol Buffers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=593559 David Robinson changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #415033|0 |1 is obsolete|| --- Comment #7 from David Robinson 2010-06-01 20:18:45 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=418863) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=418863) updated SRPM Looks like the SRPM has been removed. I've attached it here. It fixes the whitespace issue and %doc. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 591900] Review Request: libcapifax - Support for Sending/receiving faxes over CAPI capable devices
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=591900 --- Comment #6 from Louis Lagendijk 2010-06-01 17:54:09 EDT --- Ping, Felix, can you please do the review? The isdn4k-utils is now in updates-testing -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 542341] Review Request: mercury - Replacement for the Maven Artifact subsystem
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=542341 Bug 542341 depends on bug 550790, which changed state. Bug 550790 Summary: Please remove plexus-archiver pom and depmap from common poms. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=550790 What|Old Value |New Value 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 590679] Review Request: xmltool - Tool to manage XML documents through a Fluent Interface
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=590679 Guido Grazioli changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Guido Grazioli 2010-06-01 17:33:09 EDT --- Thanks for your review. New Package CVS Request === Package Name: xmltool Short Description: Tool to manage XML documents through a Fluent Interface Owners: guidograzioli Branches: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 597937] Review Request: maven-changelog-plugin - Maven Changelog 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=597937 Guido Grazioli changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #9 from Guido Grazioli 2010-06-01 17:17:16 EDT --- Package APPROVED. Please add the comment about the skipped tests in the specfile too, if you want. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 593353] Review Request: pyliblzma - Python bindings for lzma
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=593353 --- Comment #4 from Dan Horák 2010-06-01 16:43:46 EDT --- when built locally with rpmbuild I get 0755, but with mock it's 0775 - all on F-12 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 562470] Review Request: openvas-client - Client component of Open Vulnerability Assessment (OpenVAS) Scanner
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=562470
Xavier Bachelot changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|xav...@bachelot.org
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Comment #21 from Xavier Bachelot 2010-06-01 16:38:55
EDT ---
This is the review for Michal's 3.0.0-6.
+ : OK
- : not OK
= : non applicable
? : not tested
+* MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted
in the review.
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
+* MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming
Guidelines.
+* MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the
format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
+* MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
+* MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and
meet the Licensing Guidelines .
- * MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
licensecheck reports a mix of GPLv2 and GPLv2+. Also some files doesn't have a
license header at all.
License tag should be GPLv2 and GPLv2+. Files without a license header should
be fixed upstream, if you feel like asking them.
+* MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package must be included in %doc.
+* MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
+* MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
-* MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream
source, as provided in the spec URL.
Replace Source0:
http://wald.intevation.org/frs/download.php/467/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
with Source0:
http://wald.intevation.org/frs/download.php/685/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
I guess this stupid php downloader will probably cause more trouble in the
future. It might worth not using the %{name}-%{version} macros in the Source to
avoid errors.
+* MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms
on at least one primary architecture.
=* MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch.
+* MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for
any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines.
=* MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using
the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
=* MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared
library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths,
must call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
+* MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
=* MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must
state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package.
+* MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not
create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
create that directory.
+* MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file's %files listings.
+* MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be
set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include
a %defattr(...) line.
+* MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
+* MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
=* MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The
definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not
restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity).
+* MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must
run properly if it is not present.
=* MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
=* MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
=* MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g.
libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in
a -devel package.
=* MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the
base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release}
+* MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be
removed in the spec if they are built.
+* MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a
%{name}.desktop fi
[Bug 598688] Review Request: archivemount - FUSE based filesystem for mounting compressed archives
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=598688 Niels de Vos 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 598688] New: Review Request: archivemount - FUSE based filesystem for mounting compressed archives
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: archivemount - FUSE based filesystem for mounting compressed archives https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=598688 Summary: Review Request: archivemount - FUSE based filesystem for mounting compressed archives Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: nde...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Target Release: --- Spec URL: http://www.nixpanic.net/software/packages/archivemount/archivemount.spec SRPM URL: http://www.nixpanic.net/software/packages/archivemount/archivemount-0.6.0-1.fc13.src.rpm My page containing the files: http://nixpanic.net/software/packages/archivemount or a compiled version (x86_64) at http://people.nixpanic.net/ndevos/archivemount Description: Archivemount is a piece of glue code between libarchive and FUSE. It can be used to mount a (possibly compressed) archive (as in .tar.gz or .tar.bz2) and use it like an ordinary filesystem. Notes: - This is my first Fedora package and therefore I need a sponsor :) - The spec is based on the spec of ifuse which is quite similar -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 593353] Review Request: pyliblzma - Python bindings for lzma
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=593353 --- Comment #3 from seth vidal 2010-06-01 16:34:22 EDT --- I'm confused by that rpmlint output. all of the .so files in /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/ on my system are 0755 including the one from my lzma pkg - do you have an odd umask? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 590679] Review Request: xmltool - Tool to manage XML documents through a Fluent Interface
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=590679
Alexander Kurtakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Alexander Kurtakov 2010-06-01
16:27:56 EDT ---
Review:
OK: rpmlint must be run on every package. Output:
xmltool.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/maven/fragments/xmltool
xmltool-javadoc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Javadocs -> Java docs,
Java-docs, Javanese
False positives.
OK: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
OK: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
OK: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
OK: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines .
OK: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
OK: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package must be included in %doc.
OK: The spec file must be written in American English.
OK: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
OK: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
OK: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture.
OK: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of
those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
OK: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
OK: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a
directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that
directory.
OK: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings.
OK: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
%defattr(...) line.
OK: Each package must consistently use macros.
OK: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
OK: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
OK: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of
the application.
OK: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages.
OK: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
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 596449] Review Request: NetworkManager-openswan - NetworkManager VPN plugin for Openswan (IPsec)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=596449
--- Comment #19 from Avesh Agarwal 2010-06-01 16:14:31
EDT ---
(In reply to comment #17)
> (In reply to comment #16)
> > Chen Lei, will you do the formal review?
>
> I plan to do so :)
>
> Is there anyone to help me to check whether the shared-mime-info dependency is
> needed for NM plugins? I don't understand why all NM plugins require
> shared-mime-info. If all NM plugins requires mime info why not to add it to NM
> instead of plugins?
>
>
> Some more suggestions:
> It'll better to add --disable-static to %configure, thus rm -f
> %{buildroot}%{_libdir}/NetworkManager/lib*.a is not needed in spec.
>
> From
> http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/rpms/NetworkManager-pptp/devel/NetworkManager-pptp.spec?revision=1.22&view=co
>
> I found that desktop file and icons are commended out in spec, %post and
> %postun seems unnecessary.
Thanks for your comments. They have been incorporated.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 590679] Review Request: xmltool - Tool to manage XML documents through a Fluent Interface
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=590679 Alexander Kurtakov changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||akurt...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|akurt...@redhat.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Alexander Kurtakov 2010-06-01 16:14:05 EDT --- I'll take this 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 598471] Review Request: maven-gpg-plugin - sign all of the project's attached artifacts with GnuPG.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=598471
Alexander Kurtakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||akurt...@redhat.com
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|akurt...@redhat.com
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Alexander Kurtakov 2010-06-01
16:06:17 EDT ---
Review:
OK: rpmlint must be run on every package. Output:
aven-gpg-plugin.noarch: W: no-documentation
maven-gpg-plugin.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc
/etc/maven/fragments/maven-gpg-plugin
False positives.
OK: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
OK: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
OK: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
OK: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines .
OK: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
OK: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package must be included in %doc.
OK: The spec file must be written in American English.
OK: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
OK: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
OK: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture.
OK: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of
those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
OK: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
OK: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a
directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that
directory.
OK: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings.
OK: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
%defattr(...) line.
OK: Each package must consistently use macros.
OK: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
OK: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
OK: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of
the application.
OK: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages.
OK: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
OK: Provides/Obsoletes are good.
FIXIT: Package is missing Requires: gnupg2 . I know it's not obvious but at
runtime this package execs gpg. See
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/maven/plugins/tags/maven-gpg-plugin-1.0/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/plugin/gpg/GpgSigner.java?revision=908991&view=markup
line 143
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 574506] Review Request: python26-distribute - the "Distribute" fork of setuptools for the python26 EPEL5 package
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=574506 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System 2010-06-01 15:55:46 EDT --- python26-distribute-0.6.10-4.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python26-distribute-0.6.10-4.el5 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 598422] Review Request: maven-idea-plugin - Maven plugin to support IntelliJ 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=598422
Alexander Kurtakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Alexander Kurtakov 2010-06-01
15:54:45 EDT ---
Review:
OK: rpmlint must be run on every package. Output:
maven-idea-plugin.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ipr -> pr,
rip, ppr
maven-idea-plugin.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US iml -> mil,
ml, isl
maven-idea-plugin.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US iws -> is,
ins, its
maven-idea-plugin.noarch: W: no-documentation
maven-idea-plugin.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc
/etc/maven/fragments/maven-idea-plugin
False positives.
OK: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
OK: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
OK: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
OK: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines .
OK: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
OK: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package must be included in %doc.
OK: The spec file must be written in American English.
OK: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
OK: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
OK: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture.
OK: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of
those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
OK: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
OK: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a
directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that
directory.
OK: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings.
OK: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
%defattr(...) line.
OK: Each package must consistently use macros.
OK: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
OK: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
OK: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of
the application.
OK: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages.
OK: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
OK: Provides/Obsoletes are good.
Package is in a really good shape.
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 598553] New package perl-PPIx-Regexp
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=598553 Bill Nottingham changed: What|Removed |Added CC||fedora-package-rev...@redha ||t.com, nott...@redhat.com Component|distribution|Package Review AssignedTo|nott...@redhat.com |nob...@fedoraproject.org QAContact|nott...@redhat.com |extras...@fedoraproject.org -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 598422] Review Request: maven-idea-plugin - Maven plugin to support IntelliJ 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=598422 Alexander Kurtakov changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||akurt...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|akurt...@redhat.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Alexander Kurtakov 2010-06-01 15:47:49 EDT --- I'm taking this 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 598402] Review Request: maven-ejb-plugin - Maven EJB 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=598402
--- Comment #3 from Alexander Kurtakov 2010-06-01
15:44:02 EDT ---
Review:
FIXIT: rpmlint must be run on every package. Output:
maven-ejb-plugin.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C Generates a J2EE
Enterprise JavaBean (EJB) file as well as the associated client JAR.
Make it two lines.
maven-ejb-plugin.noarch: W: self-obsoletion maven2-plugin-ejb <= 0:2.0.8
obsoletes maven2-plugin-ejb = 2.2.1-1.fc13
Provide with epoch.
maven-ejb-plugin.noarch: W: no-documentation
maven-ejb-plugin.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc
/etc/maven/fragments/maven-ejb-plugin
False positives.
OK: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
OK: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
OK: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
OK: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines .
OK: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
OK: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package must be included in %doc.
OK: The spec file must be written in American English.
OK: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
FIXIT: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
Tarball generation instructions are wrong. They point to the maven-docck-plugin
svn.
OK: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture.
OK: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of
those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
OK: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
OK: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a
directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that
directory.
OK: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings.
OK: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
%defattr(...) line.
OK: Each package must consistently use macros.
OK: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
OK: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
OK: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of
the application.
OK: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages.
OK: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 598402] Review Request: maven-ejb-plugin - Maven EJB 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=598402 Alexander Kurtakov changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||akurt...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|akurt...@redhat.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Alexander Kurtakov 2010-06-01 15:33:39 EDT --- I'm taking this 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 529278] Review Request: eclipse-ptp - Eclipse Parallel Tools 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=529278 --- Comment #12 from Orion Poplawski 2010-06-01 15:25:14 EDT --- * Tue Jun 1 2010 Orion Poplawski - 3.0.2-0.1.v201004302110 - Update snapshot - Add patch from cvs to fix exception in MPI project wizard http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/eclipse-ptp-3.0.2-0.1.v201004302110.fc13.src.rpm http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/eclipse-ptp.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 598101] Review Request: maven-deploy-plugin - Uploads the project artifacts to the internal remote repository.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=598101 --- Comment #2 from Alexander Kurtakov 2010-06-01 15:24:07 EDT --- Things to fix: * Remove the depmap -it's not needed in koji now * Use new names of the plugins e.g. maven-javadoc-plugin not maven2-plugin-javadoc * You should obsolete/provide maven2-plugin-deploy * Please remove the empty line between %changelog and the changelog entry -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 598101] Review Request: maven-deploy-plugin - Uploads the project artifacts to the internal remote repository.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=598101 Alexander Kurtakov changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 597978] Review Request: maven-ant-plugin - Maven Ant 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=597978
--- Comment #4 from Alexander Kurtakov 2010-06-01
15:13:23 EDT ---
Review:
FIXIT: rpmlint must be run on every package. Output:
maven-ant-plugin.noarch: W: self-obsoletion maven2-plugin-ant <= 0:2.0.8
obsoletes maven2-plugin-ant = 2.3-1.fc13
It is obsoleting with Epoch but providing without Epoch.
To fix it:
Provides: maven2-plugin-ant = %{version}-%{release} should become
Provides: maven2-plugin-ant = 0:%{version}-%{release}
maven-ant-plugin.noarch: W: no-documentation
maven-ant-plugin.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc
/etc/maven/fragments/maven-ant-plugin
False positives.
OK: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
OK: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
OK: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
OK: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines .
OK: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
OK: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package must be included in %doc.
OK: The spec file must be written in American English.
OK: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
OK: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
OK: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture.
OK: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of
those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
OK: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
OK: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a
directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that
directory.
OK: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings.
OK: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
%defattr(...) line.
OK: Each package must consistently use macros.
OK: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
OK: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
OK: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of
the application.
OK: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages.
OK: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
Other than the provides everything else looks good.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 598101] Review Request: maven-deploy-plugin - Uploads the project artifacts to the internal remote repository.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=598101 Alexander Kurtakov changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||akurt...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|akurt...@redhat.com Flag|fedora-review? | --- Comment #1 from Alexander Kurtakov 2010-06-01 15:15:41 EDT --- You should not set the fedora-review flag. It should beset by the reviewer. I'm taking it now. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 529278] Review Request: eclipse-ptp - Eclipse Parallel Tools 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=529278 Alexander Kurtakov changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW AssignedTo|akurt...@redhat.com |nob...@fedoraproject.org Flag|fedora-review? | --- Comment #11 from Alexander Kurtakov 2010-06-01 14:44:21 EDT --- Sorry Orion, I wouldn't have time for it until maven is ready. I'm leaving the bug for someone with more time. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 597978] Review Request: maven-ant-plugin - Maven Ant 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=597978 Alexander Kurtakov changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||akurt...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|akurt...@redhat.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #3 from Alexander Kurtakov 2010-06-01 14:45:28 EDT --- I'm taking this 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 597709] Review Request: rubygem-ncursesw - Hacked up version of ncurses gem
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=597709 Mamoru Tasaka changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #5 from Mamoru Tasaka 2010-06-01 14:41:06 EDT --- For -2: * For - Directory ownership of %geminstdir, %gemdir/doc, and "Changes THANKS TODO VERSION", please my comments on bug 598138. * Examples - For example, --- $ ruby -rubygems ./examples/tclock.rb /usr/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/rubygems/custom_require.rb:31:in `gem_original_require': no such file to load -- ncurses (LoadError) from /usr/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/rubygems/custom_require.rb:31:in `require' from ./examples/tclock.rb:33 --- Actually these example files (in -doc subpackage) all has 'require ncurses(.rb)', however actually the installed ruby script (in main package) is "ncursesw.rb". So these example files should be modified as such (I am not sure if we can create symlink as "ncurses.rb -> ncursesw.rb", because there is another "ncurses-0.9.1.gem" actually - although ncurses.gem seems the older version of ncursesw.gem) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 578759] Review request: django-mako - Mako Templates Plugin for Django
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=578759 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|ON_QA --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System 2010-06-01 14:27:30 EDT --- django-mako-0.1.4-0.1.pre.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 django-mako'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/django-mako-0.1.4-0.1.pre.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 592668] Review Request: ladspa-autotalent-plugins - A pitch correction LADSPA 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=592668 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System 2010-06-01 14:26:08 EDT --- ladspa-autotalent-plugins-0.2-3.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 ladspa-autotalent-plugins'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ladspa-autotalent-plugins-0.2-3.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 596660] Review Request: crimson-text-fonts - A latin font for the production of technical books and papers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=596660 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|ON_QA --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System 2010-06-01 14:26:32 EDT --- crimson-text-fonts-0-0.1.20100523.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 crimson-text-fonts'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/crimson-text-fonts-0-0.1.20100523.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 578759] Review request: django-mako - Mako Templates Plugin for Django
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=578759 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System 2010-06-01 14:27:44 EDT --- django-mako-0.1.4-0.1.pre.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 django-mako'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/django-mako-0.1.4-0.1.pre.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 581278] Review Request: erlang-etap - Erlang testing 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=581278 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System 2010-06-01 14:23:37 EDT --- couchdb-0.10.2-8.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 couchdb'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/couchdb-0.10.2-8.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 542715] Review Request: rabbitvcs - Easy version control
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=542715 --- Comment #41 from Fedora Update System 2010-06-01 14:23:00 EDT --- rabbitvcs-0.13.2-1.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 rabbitvcs'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rabbitvcs-0.13.2-1.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 542715] Review Request: rabbitvcs - Easy version control
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=542715 --- Comment #42 from Fedora Update System 2010-06-01 14:23:24 EDT --- rabbitvcs-0.13.2-1.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 rabbitvcs'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rabbitvcs-0.13.2-1.fc13 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 596659] Review Request: ofl-sorts-mill-goudy-fonts - Goudy Oldstyle and Italic fonts
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=596659 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|ON_QA --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System 2010-06-01 14:26:14 EDT --- ofl-sorts-mill-goudy-fonts-3.0-1.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 ofl-sorts-mill-goudy-fonts'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ofl-sorts-mill-goudy-fonts-3.0-1.fc13 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 595268] Review Request: tangerine-fonts - Tangerine is a calligraphy font inspired by many italic chancery hands
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=595268 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|ON_QA --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System 2010-06-01 14:21:32 EDT --- tangerine-fonts-1.000-1.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 tangerine-fonts'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/tangerine-fonts-1.000-1.fc13 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 595994] Review Request: cardo-fonts - A font for scholarly use in classical and medieval languages
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=595994 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|ON_QA --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System 2010-06-01 14:23:18 EDT --- cardo-fonts-0.098-1.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 cardo-fonts'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/cardo-fonts-0.098-1.fc13 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 581278] Review Request: erlang-etap - Erlang testing 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=581278 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System 2010-06-01 14:25:03 EDT --- erlang-etap-0.3.4-2.fc12, couchdb-0.10.2-8.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 erlang-etap couchdb'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/erlang-etap-0.3.4-2.fc12,couchdb-0.10.2-8.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 581280] Review Request: erlang-oauth - An Erlang OAuth 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=581280 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|erlang-oauth-0-0.4.gite8aec |erlang-oauth-0-0.4.gite8aec |f0.fc13 |f0.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 581280] Review Request: erlang-oauth - An Erlang OAuth 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=581280 --- Comment #27 from Fedora Update System 2010-06-01 14:23:52 EDT --- erlang-oauth-0-0.4.gite8aecf0.fc12, couchdb-0.10.2-4.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 550234] Review Request: tnt - C++ templates for scientific computing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=550234 --- Comment #21 from Peter Lemenkov 2010-06-01 14:23:13 EDT --- Ping, Matt. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 549980] Review Request: jama - C++ matrix templates
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=549980 --- Comment #12 from Peter Lemenkov 2010-06-01 14:22:43 EDT --- Ping, Matt. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 595269] Review Request: lobster-fonts - Hand written font with various ligatures for better connecting of letters
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=595269 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|ON_QA --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System 2010-06-01 14:20:17 EDT --- lobster-fonts-1.3-1.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 lobster-fonts'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/lobster-fonts-1.3-1.fc13 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 561470] Review Request: beakerlib - shell-level integration testing 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=561470 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Fixed In Version||beakerlib-1.3-1.fc13 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 581280] Review Request: erlang-oauth - An Erlang OAuth 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=581280 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|erlang-oauth-0-0.4.gite8aec |erlang-oauth-0-0.4.gite8aec |f0.fc11 |f0.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 596746] Review Request: bzr-explorer - GUI application for using Bazaar
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=596746 --- Comment #21 from Julian Aloofi 2010-06-01 14:18:43 EDT --- New Spec: http://julian.fedorapeople.org/bzr-explorer/bzr-explorer.spec New SRPM: http://julian.fedorapeople.org/bzr-explorer/bzr-explorer-1.0.1-3.fc13.src.rpm Note: To see the icon in the desktop file, you'll need bzr >= 2.1.1-2 (in updates-testing at this point) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 581280] Review Request: erlang-oauth - An Erlang OAuth 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=581280 --- Comment #26 from Fedora Update System 2010-06-01 14:18:42 EDT --- erlang-oauth-0-0.4.gite8aecf0.fc13, couchdb-0.10.2-4.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 561470] Review Request: beakerlib - shell-level integration testing 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=561470 --- Comment #32 from Fedora Update System 2010-06-01 14:16:03 EDT --- beakerlib-1.3-1.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 595993] Review Request: josefinsansstd-light-fonts - A latin font that is geometric, elegant, and kind of vintage
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=595993 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|ON_QA --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System 2010-06-01 14:11:22 EDT --- josefinsansstd-light-fonts-1.000-1.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 josefinsansstd-light-fonts'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/josefinsansstd-light-fonts-1.000-1.fc13 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 581278] Review Request: erlang-etap - Erlang testing 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=581278 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|ON_QA --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System 2010-06-01 14:15:46 EDT --- erlang-etap-0.3.4-2.fc13, couchdb-0.10.2-8.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 erlang-etap couchdb'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/erlang-etap-0.3.4-2.fc13,couchdb-0.10.2-8.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 581280] Review Request: erlang-oauth - An Erlang OAuth 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=581280 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||erlang-oauth-0-0.4.gite8aec ||f0.fc11 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 592668] Review Request: ladspa-autotalent-plugins - A pitch correction LADSPA 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=592668 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|ON_QA --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System 2010-06-01 14:12:08 EDT --- ladspa-autotalent-plugins-0.2-3.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 ladspa-autotalent-plugins'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ladspa-autotalent-plugins-0.2-3.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 596661] Review Request: molengo-fonts - A Latin typeface for documents
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=596661 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|ON_QA --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System 2010-06-01 14:14:35 EDT --- molengo-fonts-0.10-1.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 molengo-fonts'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/molengo-fonts-0.10-1.fc13 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 591982] Review Request: batti - Simple battery monitor for the system tray
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=591982 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|ON_QA --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System 2010-06-01 14:14:02 EDT --- batti-0.3.7-2.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 batti'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/batti-0.3.7-2.fc13 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 581280] Review Request: erlang-oauth - An Erlang OAuth 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=581280 --- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System 2010-06-01 14:12:18 EDT --- erlang-oauth-0-0.4.gite8aecf0.fc11, couchdb-0.10.2-4.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 598138] Review Request: rubygem-rmail - A MIME mail parsing and generation library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=598138
--- Comment #10 from Mamoru Tasaka 2010-06-01
14:07:03 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> (In reply to comment #8)
>
> > - %{gemdir}/doc itself should now owned by these packages.
> >
>
> I'm sorry, what do you mean by this.
> %{gemdir}/docis already owned by the -docs subpackage
Oops, typo, sorry
%{gemdir}/doc itself should "not be" owned by these packages (because
%{gemdir}/doc directory is already owned by rubygems)
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 479598] Review Request: aopalliance - AOP offers a better solution to many problems than do existing technologies
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479598 --- Comment #20 from Tom "spot" Callaway 2010-06-01 13:56:26 EDT --- Well, the legal definition of Public Domain is: "the realm or status of property rights that belong to the community at large, are unprotected by copyright or patent, and are subject to appropriation by anyone" (source: Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law ©1996.) You cannot simultaneously have a work be unprotected by copyright (or subject to appropriation by anyone) and retain moral rights on that work. The moral rights are tied into the copyright. Now, the copyright holder(s) could grant an extremely permissive license on that work, CC-0 is an excellent example of a license specifically crafted to work around precisely this issue and come to the same practical end-result as a public domain declaration where the copyright holder is in a jurisdiction without moral rights. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 593800] Review Request: python-keyring - keyring module for 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=593800 Rangeen Basu Roy Chowdhury changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW --- Comment #13 from Rangeen Basu Roy Chowdhury 2010-06-01 13:35:53 EDT --- This did not have a FE-NEEDSPONSOR block when I took this. Thanks. Will change the state to new. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 598138] Review Request: rubygem-rmail - A MIME mail parsing and generation library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=598138
--- Comment #9 from Shreyank Gupta 2010-06-01 13:34:46 EDT
---
(In reply to comment #8)
> - %{gemdir}/doc itself should now owned by these packages.
>
I'm sorry, what do you mean by this.
%{gemdir}/docis already owned by the -docs subpackage
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 593800] Review Request: python-keyring - keyring module for 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=593800 --- Comment #12 from Mamoru Tasaka 2010-06-01 13:19:25 EDT --- Hello, Rangeen: Are you a sponsor? While everyone can do informal review, review requests blocking FE-NEEDSPONSOR must (finally) be reviewed and approved by sponsor members, so only sponsor member must be formal assignee. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 598138] Review Request: rubygem-rmail - A MIME mail parsing and generation library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=598138
--- Comment #8 from Mamoru Tasaka 2010-06-01
13:09:38 EDT ---
For -2:
* rubygem <-> ruby(rubygems)
- For (Build)Requires, please choose one style (note:
for rubygem(rake) or so, please keep this style)
! By the way "Requires: ruby(rubygems)" on -doc subpackage
is not needed because -doc subpackage requires main package,
which already has "Requires: rubygems".
* Directory ownership issue
- %{geminstdir} itself is not owned by any packages.
- %{gemdir}/doc itself should now owned by these packages.
* Document files
- I think "NEWS THANKS NOTES TODO" should be in main
package
- I think "%doc" attribution in -doc subpackage is
unnecessary because the rpm name already says that it
is for documentation.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 598138] Review Request: rubygem-rmail - A MIME mail parsing and generation library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=598138 Mamoru Tasaka changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 593800] Review Request: python-keyring - keyring module for 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=593800 --- Comment #11 from Rangeen Basu Roy Chowdhury 2010-06-01 12:55:41 EDT --- This package needs additional BuildRequires . pkg-config is one of them. Please find out what else it requires and ad them accordingly. Make a scratch build and check that it compiles correctly ie. it creates the arch specific .so files and that too at the proper locations. python_sitelib and python_sitearch are same for 32 bit systems. So you should check the scratch builds on 64 bit systems as well. Do an rpmls on the binary rpm creates and check whether the .so files have been packed or not. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 593607] Review Request: plexus-active-collections - Plexus Container-Backed Active Collections
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=593607 Alexander Kurtakov changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE --- Comment #11 from Alexander Kurtakov 2010-06-01 12:27:25 EDT --- Built in koji. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=175120 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 593959] Review Request: maven-assembly-plugin - Maven Assembly 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=593959 Bug 593959 depends on bug 593607, which changed state. Bug 593607 Summary: Review Request: plexus-active-collections - Plexus Container-Backed Active Collections https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=593607 What|Old Value |New Value 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 594002] Review Request: plexus-build-api - Plexus Build 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=594002 Alexander Kurtakov changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE --- Comment #10 from Alexander Kurtakov 2010-06-01 12:21:40 EDT --- http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=175125 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 596074] Review Request: multithreadedtc - A framework for testing concurrent Java 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=596074 Alexander Kurtakov 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 597709] Review Request: rubygem-ncursesw - Hacked up version of ncurses gem
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=597709 --- Comment #4 from Shreyank Gupta 2010-06-01 12:04:49 EDT --- UPDATED: Spec URL: http://shreyankg.fedorapeople.org/packaging/ncursesw/rubygem-ncursesw.spec SRPM URL: http://shreyankg.fedorapeople.org/packaging/ncursesw/rubygem-ncursesw-1.2.4.1-2.fc13.src.rpm Notes/doubts: -- * Removed 'and ruby 1.9.1' from the summary. * rm -f all .c .o and .h files as I was not sure whether to %exclude it or not. * There are two .so files, one inside and one outside the lib directory. Put the lib one inside ruby_sitearch and removed the other one. * Added examples as a part of the -docs subpackage. Is that the right thing to do? Koji scratch build: --- http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=741 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 551914] Review Request: monodevelop-database - A database plugin for monodevelop
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=551914 Claudio Rodrigo Pereyra DIaz changed: What|Removed |Added CC||elsupergo...@gmail.com --- Comment #12 from Claudio Rodrigo Pereyra DIaz 2010-06-01 12:09:28 EDT --- I try use the spec file to make the rpm for f13 x86_64 and I have some problems with language files. I change line 39 in spec file: Before: find . -name Makefile.in -or -name Makefile.am -or -name \*.pc.in \ After: find . -name Makefile.in -or -name Makefile.am -or -name configure -or -name configure.in -or -name \*.pc.in \ Then the build of rpm works, and I tested installing the rpm in my system. I hope this help for future. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 479598] Review Request: aopalliance - AOP offers a better solution to many problems than do existing technologies
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479598 Frank Ch. Eigler changed: What|Removed |Added CC||f...@redhat.com --- Comment #19 from Frank Ch. Eigler 2010-06-01 12:04:39 EDT --- (In reply to comment #5) > The short answer is that French citizens cannot put works into the Public > Domain: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_copyright_law#Moral_rights > > "Any agreement to waive an author's moral rights is null and void, although > the > author cannot be forced to protect his work." Wait, upon what do you base your opinion that their own designation of it as "public domain" is somehow an attempted waiver of the *moral rights* involved? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 597771] Review Request: toothchart - Graphically shows how a baby's primary teeth have erupted
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=597771 --- Comment #2 from Raghunath 2010-06-01 11:41:40 EDT --- Yes, This is my first package, is every thing correct or any changes have to be done.. thank you. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 596461] Review Request: lzma - SDK for lzma compression
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=596461 --- Comment #7 from Bruno Wolff III 2010-06-01 11:38:38 EDT --- At one time the development version of squashfs-tools needed the LZMA SDK, but Phillip added an enhancement so that it could also use the xz library. I tested that and it works. So LZMA support in squashfs is not dependent on the LZMA SDK. (We just need support upstream in the kernel.) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 503250] Review Request: ghc-hinotify - Haskell binding to INotify
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=503250 --- Comment #10 from Ben Boeckel 2010-06-01 11:38:57 EDT --- Yes, but I may not have Internet access at my new apartment until next week. I'll be going to campus to get it, ut I don't know what times that will be. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 596461] Review Request: lzma - SDK for lzma compression
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=596461 --- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla 2010-06-01 11:13:23 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1) > I don't known if it's necessrary, what's the opinion of FPC? Both Toshio and myself think it is, and we're on FPC. There's not been a formal ruling, but that wouldn't be the process anyway, it would have to be granted an exception to the bundled library clause by FESCO. > Bundling sources(normorlly BSD or MIT license) in GPL+ applications is quite > common and is permitted in fedora, it may be impossible for all packages to > split out their bundled sources. Not impossible, though possibly a gigantic pain. :) > e.g. > Many Input methods bundles IMdkit. Does that make it the right think to do? Re squashfs, I have no 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 537983] Review Request: python-visual - 3D Programming
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=537983
--- Comment #27 from ELMORABITY Mohamed 2010-06-01
11:14:42 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #26)
> > By the way, the build is quite silent, I had to check a generated log file
> > to
> > check flags and such. I don(t know if it can be considered to be an issue,
> > but
> > its quite annoying for debugging.
>
> Yes, it's anoying... Unfortunately, there is not 'the one patch', I could
> apply
> to make the buildsystem more verbose. That would change all the time, and
> that's too much effort atm.
The patch is indeed not a solution. Anyway, what about this, in %setup ?
sed -i 's/2\?>> \?\$(LOGFILE).*//' src/Makefile.in
It will skip all redirections to the log file in src/Makefile.in
> I found a solution for this, but it's a bit hacky ;)
>
> %define _use_internal_dependency_generator 0
> %define %__find_provides%{_rpmconfigdir}/find-provides | grep -v
> cvisualmodule
> %define %__find_requires%{_rpmconfigdir}/find-requires | grep -v
> cvisualmodule
Maybe you mean:
%global _use_internal_dependency_generator 0
%global __find_provides%{_rpmconfigdir}/find-provides | grep -v
cvisualmodule
%global __find_requires%{_rpmconfigdir}/find-requires | grep -v
cvisualmodule
(otherwise I get "error: Macro % has illegal name (%define)", and by the way
%global is preferred over %define ;))
I rebuilt your package with these lines, rpmlint is silent now.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 598299] Review Request: systemd - A System and Session Manager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=598299 --- Comment #4 from Adel Gadllah 2010-06-01 11:11:19 EDT --- (In reply to comment #3) > (In reply to comment #1) > > 2) No %clean > > Writing an explicit %clean section is not necessary anymore since RPM 4.8 > because a sane default one is now added (http://rpm.org/ticket/81). Ah, OK and as it is a rawhide only package, it should be fine ... so scratch that from the list. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 597307] Review Request: fastx_toolkit - Tools to process short-reads FASTA/FASTQ 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=597307
--- Comment #2 from Adam Huffman 2010-06-01 10:34:29 EDT
---
(In reply to comment #1)
> This is an informal review. Formal review will follow.
>
Thanks for taking a look.
> Critical issue:
> MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms.
> SHOULD: The package builds in mock.
> $ mock --rebuild fastx_toolkit-0.0.13-1.fc12.src.rpm
> is failed because libgtextutils-devel which is set as BuildRequires is not
> available by Fedora.
>
> You should add libgtextutils-devel package to Fedora first.
>
Yes, that's right. I uploaded a bunch of new requests late on Friday, after
having installed them locally. The request for libgtextutils is at:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=598511
>
> Issues:
> $ rpmlint fastx_toolkit.spec
> fastx_toolkit.spec:8: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab:
> line 8)
> Please fix mixed usage of spaces and tabs.
>
Will take a look at that.
>
> Lists confirmed:
> + rpmlint against SRPM returns spelling-error warning. However the words
> pointed by rpmlint are from official website and seem to be no problem.
>
> + Spec file name meets Packaging Guidelines.
> + License: AGPLv3 meets Licensing Guidelines.
> + Source file match with upstream one with md5sum and sha1sum.
>
>
> MUST: The package does not yet exist in Fedora. The Review Request is not a
> duplicate. OK
> MUST: The spec file for the package is legible and macros are used
> consistently. OK
> MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. OK
> MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}. OK
> MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
> the
> Licensing Guidelines. OK
> MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
> license.
> OK
> MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
> provided in the spec URL. OK
> MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. N/A
> MUST: Clean section exists. OK
> MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. N/A
> MUST: Buildroot cleaned before install. OK
> SHOULD: %{?dist} tag is used in release. OK
> SHOULD: If the package does not include license text(s) as separate files from
> upstream, the packager should query upstream to include it. OK
>
> The following item will be checked after the critical issue is solved.
> MUST: Optflags are used and time stamps preserved.
> MUST: Packages containing shared library files must call ldconfig.
> MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates or require the
> package
> that owns the directory.
> MUST: Files only listed once in %files listings.
> MUST: Debuginfo package is complete.
> MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
> MUST: All relevant items are included in %doc. Items in %doc do not affect
> runtime of application.
> MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
> MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
> MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'.
> MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix then library files
> ending in .so must go in a -devel package.
> MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
> package using a fully versioned dependency.
> MUST: Packages does not contain any .la libtool archives.
> MUST: Desktop files are installed properly.
> MUST: No file conflicts with other packages and no general names.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
