[Bug 570731] Review Request: ibus-handwrite - IBus handwrite project
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=570731 --- Comment #22 from Peng Wu 2010-06-02 03:09:20 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: ibus-handwrite Short Description: hand write recognition/input using ibus IM engine Owners: pwu Branches: F-12 F-13 InitialCC: petersen phuang i18n-team -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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
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 2010-06-02
03:03:03 EDT ---
Review:
OK: rpmlint must be run on every package. Output:
maven-verifier-plugin.noarch: W: no-documentation
maven-verifier-plugin.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc
/etc/maven/fragments/maven-verifier-plugin
maven-verifier-plugin.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
maven-verifier-plugin-1.0.tar.gz
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.
Except for the tarball compression package is good.
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 570731] Review Request: ibus-handwrite - IBus handwrite project
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=570731
--- Comment #21 from Peng Wu 2010-06-02 02:47:32 EDT ---
Thanks for reviewing.
(In reply to comment #20)
> Some issue unrelated to package review need attention:
> 1.patch0 should send to upstram
Will do it later.
> 2.The debuginfo package for zinnia is incorrect, you should use make
> CFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS" CXXFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS" %{?_smp_mflags} instead of
> make %{?_smp_mflags}.
Will check this when 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 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 #4 from Alexander Kurtakov 2010-06-02
02:48:52 EDT ---
Review:
FIXIT: rpmlint must be run on every package. Output:
maven-deploy-plugin.noarch: W: self-obsoletion maven2-plugin-deploy <= 0:2.0.8
obsoletes maven2-plugin-deploy = 2.5-2.fc13
If you obsolete with epoch (it's needed because maven2 package has epoch 0),
you should provide with epoch.
maven-deploy-plugin.noarch: W: no-documentation
maven-deploy-plugin.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc
/etc/maven/fragments/maven-deploy-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: URL should be http://maven.apache.org/plugins/maven-deploy-plugin/ not
svn
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on 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 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 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 #3 from huwang 2010-06-02 03:43:27 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: maven-verifier-plugin Short Description: Maven Verifier 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 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 #5 from Stanislav Ochotnicky 2010-06-02 03:46:16 EDT --- Thanks huwang for noticing, it's really better to have more pairs of eyes... I was also wondering about gnupg2 dependency, but it wasn't mentioned on the plugin web page so I thought that maybe they used some pure java implementation...Should have checked... Anyway, those things are fixed: SRPM URL: http://sochotni.fedorapeople.org/maven-gpg-plugin-1.1-2.fc13.src.rpm Spec URL: http://sochotni.fedorapeople.org/maven-gpg-plugin.spec Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2224276 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 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 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 #7 from huwang 2010-06-02 03:52:15 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: maven-ant-plugin Short Description: Maven Ant 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 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 #6 from Alexander Kurtakov 2010-06-02 03:59:31 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 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 #6 from huwang 2010-06-02 04:09:53 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: maven-ejb-plugin Short Description: Maven EJB 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 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 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 #4 from Stanislav Ochotnicky 2010-06-02 04:31:02 EDT --- First thing: The spec you linked to and spec inside SRPM don't match. Second: Whenever you make change to a spec file (even during review) you are supposed to raise revision number and add changes to changelog. Because of different spec file I won't continue review now, so if you can, please raise revision to 2, and add those changes to changelog. As for xz compression...It will take some time for these changes to appear in RHEL anyway, but OK..at least use bz2 compression. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 #28 from Thomas Spura 2010-06-02
04:30:52 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #27)
> (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
Thanks! I'm not used to such complicated sed commands, mostly just s/foo/bar/g
and that's it...
>
> > 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.
Changed to your version.
Spec URL: http://tomspur.fedorapeople.org/review/python-visual.spec
SRPM URL:
http://tomspur.fedorapeople.org/review/python-visual-5.32-7.fc13.src.rpm
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 Stanislav Ochotnicky changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Stanislav Ochotnicky 2010-06-02 04:34:19 EDT --- Thanks for the review. Requesting CVS: New Package CVS Request === Package Name: maven-gpg-plugin Short Description: Plugin to sign all of the project's attached artifacts with GnuPG. Owners: sochotni 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 598860] New: Review Request: httpd-itk - MPM Itk for Apache HTTP Server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: httpd-itk - MPM Itk for Apache HTTP Server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=598860 Summary: Review Request: httpd-itk - MPM Itk for Apache HTTP Server Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: pa...@hubbitus.info QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://hubbitus.net.ru/rpm/Fedora13/httpd-itk/httpd-itk.spec SRPM URL: http://hubbitus.net.ru/rpm/Fedora13/httpd-itk/httpd-itk-2.2.15-1.fc13.src.rpm Description: This package contain mpm-itk which is an MPM (Multi-Processing Module) for the Apache web server. Mpm-itk allows you to run each of your vhost under a separate uid and gid — in short, the scripts and configuration files for one vhost no longer have to be readable for all the other vhosts. In summary it is Apache module (opposite CGI solutions like suexec), fast and allow safely use non-thread-aware code software (like many PHP extensions f.e.) Except spelling warnings about uid/gid words and similar there only two warning: httpd-itk.src:41: W: unversioned-explicit-provides webserver I think it is not problem, it is meta provide because it act as webserver. httpd-itk.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary httpd.itk There really no man page. Koji builds: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2224333 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2224360 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2224345 P.S. Spec file formatted by tabs with 5 space width ( http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PavelAlexeev/tabsize ). Please, do not start review if it is a problem for 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 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 Stanislav Ochotnicky changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Stanislav Ochotnicky 2010-06-02 04:36:07 EDT --- Thanks for the review. Requesting CVS: New Package CVS Request === Package Name: maven-idea-plugin Short Description: Plugin to support integration with IntelliJ IDEA projects Owners: sochotni 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 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 #5 from Weinan Li 2010-06-02 04:41:30 EDT --- - Fix URL - Add Epoch 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-2.5-3.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=2224389 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 598361] Review Request: maven-rar-plugin - Maven Rar 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=598361
--- Comment #2 from Stanislav Ochotnicky 2010-06-02
04:48:03 EDT ---
NEEDSWORK: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
the review.
maven-rar-plugin.src: E: description-line-too-long C A resource adapter is a
system-level software driver that a Java application uses to
maven-rar-plugin.src: E: description-line-too-long C connect to an enterprise
information system (EIS). The RAR plugin has the capability to
maven-rar-plugin.src: E: description-line-too-long C store these resource
adapters to an archive (Resource Adapter Archive or RAR) which can be deployed
to a J2EE server.
maven-rar-plugin.src: W: invalid-url Source0: maven-rar-plugin-2.2.tar.gz
maven-rar-plugin.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C A resource adapter is a
system-level software driver that a Java application uses to
maven-rar-plugin.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C connect to an
enterprise information system (EIS). The RAR plugin has the capability to
maven-rar-plugin.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C store these resource
adapters to an archive (Resource Adapter Archive or RAR) which can be deployed
to a J2EE server.
maven-rar-plugin.noarch: W: no-documentation
maven-rar-plugin.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc
/etc/maven/fragments/maven-rar-plugin
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 3 warnings.
Fix those long lines please
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. 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.
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.
But :-) It's possible to condense 2 calls of install from:
install -d -m 0755 %{buildroot}%{_javadir}
install -m 644 target/%{name}-%{version}.jar
%{buildroot}%{_javadir}/%{name}-%{version}.jar
to (this will create dest dir automatically):
install -Dpm 644 target/%{name}-%{version}.jar
%{buildroot}%{_javadir}/%{name}-%{version}.jar
It's just a suggestion though...
(and yes I copy-pasted this from the other review I made for your
maven plugin :-) )
OK: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
OK: 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).
OK: 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.
OK: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages.
The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the
files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for
example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with any of the
files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that
you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns,
then please present that at package review time.
OK: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
Other notes/problems:
* You need to obsolete version 0:2.0.8 and provide 1:%{version}-%{release}
your obsoletes would
[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 #6 from Alexander Kurtakov 2010-06-02
04:55:22 EDT ---
Please remove the Epoch: 0 from the package and just change the Provides line
to be:
Provides: maven2-plugin-deploy = 0:%{version}-%{release}
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 554464] Review Request: python-pebl - Python Environment for Bayesian Learning
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=554464 --- Comment #6 from Tadej Janež 2010-06-02 04:59:19 EDT --- Ping? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ 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 #11 from Guido Grazioli 2010-06-02 05:10:01 EDT --- huwang, before you commit, can you also switch to xz compression? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 570731] Review Request: ibus-handwrite - IBus handwrite project
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=570731 Jens Petersen 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 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 Shreyank Gupta changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo? --- Comment #11 from Shreyank Gupta 2010-06-02 05:38:16 EDT --- (In reply to comment #8) Updated: Spec URL: http://shreyankg.fedorapeople.org/packaging/rmail/rubygem-rmail.spec SRPM URL: http://shreyankg.fedorapeople.org/packaging/rmail/rubygem-rmail-1.0.0-3.fc13.src.rpm Notes: -- * > - I think "%doc" attribution in -doc subpackage is > unnecessary because the rpm name already says that it > is for documentation. I get the following warning in rpmlint: rubygem-rmail-doc.noarch: W: no-documentation I guess that is ok. * Mock build runs fine. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 554464] Review Request: python-pebl - Python Environment for Bayesian Learning
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=554464
--- Comment #7 from Thomas Spura 2010-06-02
05:32:12 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Ping?
Pong. Thanks for the ping!!
There are some rpmlint warnings (just posting the relevant ones, which are not
ignorable):
python-pebl.src:56: W: macro-in-comment %check
python-pebl.src:57: W: macro-in-comment %{__python}
-> ignorable, because they remind you to add %check again
python-pebl.src:61: W: macro-in-comment %{buildroot}
python-pebl.src:62: W: macro-in-comment %{python_sitelib}
-> Better prefix an %, so this won't show up anymore
python-pebl.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides
/usr/lib64/python2.6/site-packages/pebl/_network.so _network.so()(64bit)
python-pebl.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides
/usr/lib64/python2.6/site-packages/pebl/_cpd.so _cpd.so()(64bit)
-> A solution for this is e.g. in bug 537983 comment 27.
python-pebl.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object
/usr/lib64/python2.6/site-packages/pebl/_network.so
python-pebl.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object
/usr/lib64/python2.6/site-packages/pebl/_cpd.so
This is a bit strange... Do you have a debuginfo package? I'm wondering, why
there isn't one here...
There is /usr/lib64/python2.6/site-packages/pebl/test/
Is that needed at runtime? If not, it would be nice, if you'd delete that (or
ask upstream to do so).
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on 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-tools - U-Boot utilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=520569 Dan Horák changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: uboot-tools |uboot-mkimage - U-Boot |- U-Boot utilities |mkimage utility | Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #11 from Dan Horák 2010-06-02 05:45:49 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: uboot-tools Short Description: U-Boot utilities Owners: sharkcz Branches: F-12 F-13 EL-5 EL-6 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 520569] Review Request: uboot-tools - U-Boot utilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=520569 --- Comment #12 from Dan Horák 2010-06-02 05:49:24 EDT --- Chris, thanks for the review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 #12 from huwang 2010-06-02 05:47:03 EDT --- (In reply to comment #11) > huwang, before you commit, can you also switch to xz compression? Thanks for your review. There is no tar 2.x in RHEL, considering compatibility, I prefer to use bz2 compression. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 #7 from Weinan Li 2010-06-02 05:48:58 EDT --- - remove the Epoch section 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-2.5-4.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=2224553 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 598891] New: Review Request: maven-help-plugin - Plugin to to get relative information about a project or the system
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-help-plugin - Plugin to to get relative information about a project or the system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=598891 Summary: Review Request: maven-help-plugin - Plugin to to get relative information about a project or the system Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: yy...@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://yyang.fedorapeople.org/maven2/maven-help-plugin.spec SRPM URL: http://yyang.fedorapeople.org/maven2/maven-help-plugin-2.1.1-1.src.rpm Description: The Maven Help Plugin is used to get relative information about a project or the system. It can be used to get a description of a particular plugin, including the plugin's mojos with their parameters and component requirements,the effective POM and effective settings of the current build, and the profiles applied to the current project being built. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 486010] Review Request: mrbs - Meeting Room Booking System
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=486010 --- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System 2010-06-02 06:01:07 EDT --- mrbs-1.4.4.1-1.fc12 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 12. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mrbs-1.4.4.1-1.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 486010] Review Request: mrbs - Meeting Room Booking System
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=486010 --- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System 2010-06-02 06:00:53 EDT --- mrbs-1.4.4.1-1.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mrbs-1.4.4.1-1.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 563376] Revive from F11 branch: pcmanx-gtk2 - Telnet client designed for BBS browsing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=563376 Robin Lee changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|robinlee.s...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 486010] Review Request: mrbs - Meeting Room Booking System
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=486010 --- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System 2010-06-02 06:01:02 EDT --- mrbs-1.4.4.1-1.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mrbs-1.4.4.1-1.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 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 #5 from Rahul Sundaram 2010-06-02 06:14:56 EDT --- The man pages are being built from docbook xml files on the fly. I tried adding libxslt as a BR but it still fails trying to grab xsl file from the net. Seems I am still missing some other dependency but not sure which one. Suggestions? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 598902] New: Review Request: PXZ - Parallel LZMA compressor compatible with XZ
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: PXZ - Parallel LZMA compressor compatible with XZ https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=598902 Summary: Review Request: PXZ - Parallel LZMA compressor compatible with XZ Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: jn...@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://jnovy.fedorapeople.org/pxz/pxz.spec SRPM URL: http://jnovy.fedorapeople.org/pxz/pxz-4.999.9-0.1.beta.20100602git.fc13.src.rpm Description: Parallel XZ is a compression utility that takes advantage of running XZ compression simultaneously on different parts of an input file on multiple cores and processors. This significantly speeds up compression 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 598511] Review Request: libgtextutils - Assaf Gordon text utilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=598511
Takanori MATSUURA changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||t.mat...@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Takanori MATSUURA 2010-06-02 06:20:57
EDT ---
This is an informal review. Formal review will follow.
MUST items:
OK: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the
review.
Rpmlint has been carried out by me.
$ rpmlint libgtextutils*.rpm
libgtextutils.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Assaf -> Assad, Assam,
Assay
libgtextutils.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US fastx -> fast,
fasts, fast x
libgtextutils.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Assaf -> Assad, Assam,
Assay
libgtextutils.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US fastx -> fast,
fasts, fast x
libgtextutils-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
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.
Rpmlint says two spelling-error. However they are proper names.
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. 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.
OK (x86_64): The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms
on at least one primary architecture.
OK (x86_64): 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.
NG: 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.
According to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines
There is no need to include gcc and gcc-c++ BuildRequires.
NA: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
OK: 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.
OK: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
NA: 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.
NG: 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.
%{_includedir}/gtextutils and %{_includedir}/gtextutils/gtextutils directories
should be owned by -devel subpackage by using %dir.
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.
NA: 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).
OK: 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.
OK: Header files must be in a -devel package.
NA: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
OK: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1),
then library files that end in .so (without su
[Bug 598916] New: Review Request: maven-stage-plugin - Plugin to copy artifacts from one repository to another
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-stage-plugin - Plugin to copy artifacts from one repository to another https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=598916 Summary: Review Request: maven-stage-plugin - Plugin to copy artifacts from one repository to another Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: yy...@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://yyang.fedorapeople.org/maven2/maven-stage-plugin.spec SRPM URL: http://yyang.fedorapeople.org/maven2/maven-stage-plugin-1.0-0.1.alpha2.src.rpm Description: The Maven Stage Plugin copies artifacts from one repository to another. Its main use is for copying artifacts from a staging repository to the real repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 597755] Review Request: openmolar - Open Source Dental Practice Management Software
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=597755 Mohammed Imran changed: What|Removed |Added CC||sgu...@redhat.com --- Comment #7 from Mohammed Imran 2010-06-02 06:48:41 EDT --- Thanks Parag for the review,thanks Chen for the comments. New upstream release,Version:0.2.0 Updated spec is here SPEC : http://github.com/downloads/matriux/fedora/openmolar.spec SRPM : http://github.com/downloads/matriux/fedora/openmolar-0.2.0-1.fc12.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 598929] New: Review Request: maven-remote-resources-plugin - Maven Remote Resources 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-remote-resources-plugin - Maven Remote Resources Plugin https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=598929 Summary: Review Request: maven-remote-resources-plugin - Maven Remote Resources 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-remote-resources-plugin/maven-remote-resources-plugin.spec SRPM URL: http://huwang.fedorapeople.org/packages/maven-remote-resources-plugin/maven-remote-resources-plugin-1.1-1.src.rpm Description: Process resources packaged in JARs that have been deployed to a remote repository. The primary use case being satisfied is the consistent inclusion of common resources in a large set of projects. Maven projects at Apache use this plug-in to satisfy licensing requirements at Apache where each project much include license and notice files for each release. Scratch built in koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2224845 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 598929] Review Request: maven-remote-resources-plugin - Maven Remote Resources 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=598929 Guido Grazioli changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||guido.grazi...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|guido.grazi...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Guido Grazioli 2010-06-02 07:14:28 EDT --- Reviewing this package -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #8 from Alexander Kurtakov 2010-06-02 07:16:08 EDT --- Thanks, looks good. 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 598937] New: Review Request:ossec-hids - An Open Source Host-based Intrusion Detection System
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request:ossec-hids - An Open Source Host-based Intrusion Detection System https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=598937 Summary: Review Request:ossec-hids - An Open Source Host-based Intrusion Detection System Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: udosei...@gmx.de QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://home.arcor.de/ar0761471173/ossec-hids.spec SRPM URL: http://home.arcor.de/ar0761471173/ossec-hids-2.4.1-4.fc12.src.rpm Description: OSSEC HIDS is an Open Source Host-based Intrusion Detection System. It performs log analysis, integrity checking, rootkit detection, time-based alerting and active response. This is my first package and I need a sponsor. I was told that Hans de Goede will have have look at the package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 #9 from Weinan Li 2010-06-02 07:28:30 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: maven-deploy-plugin Short Description: Uploads the project artifacts to the internal remote repository. Owners: weli 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 598937] Review Request:ossec-hids - An Open Source Host-based Intrusion Detection System
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=598937 Udo Seidel 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 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 Weinan Li 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 591737] Review Request: R-ROC - Utilities for ROC
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=591737 --- Comment #3 from Pierre-YvesChibon 2010-06-02 07:36:07 EDT --- Any news on 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 585817] Review Request: R-caTools - Moving window statistics, GIF, Base64, ROC AUC, etc
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=585817 --- Comment #5 from Pierre-YvesChibon 2010-06-02 07:37:12 EDT --- ping ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 598891] Review Request: maven-help-plugin - Plugin to to get relative information about a project or the system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=598891 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 2010-06-02 07:43:19 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 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 #8 from Jon Ciesla 2010-06-02 08:06:55 EDT --- So I just need this for upx then. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 #9 from Chen Lei 2010-06-02 08:14:54 EDT --- (In reply to comment #8) > So I just need this for upx then. You may just need those files in the lzma source. lzma465/C/LzFind.c lzma465/C/LzFind.h lzma465/C/LzmaDec.c lzma465/C/LzmaDec.h lzma465/C/LzmaEnc.c lzma465/C/LzmaEnc.h lzma465/C/Types.h -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 598929] Review Request: maven-remote-resources-plugin - Maven Remote Resources 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=598929
--- Comment #2 from Guido Grazioli 2010-06-02
08:25:33 EDT ---
NEEDSWORK - rpmlint output:
maven-remote-resources-plugin.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C Process
resources packaged in JARs that have been deployed to a remote repository.
maven-remote-resources-plugin.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C The
primary use case being satisfied is the consistent inclusion of common
resources
- Please fix those two lines
maven-remote-resources-plugin.noarch: W: no-documentation
maven-remote-resources-plugin.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc
/etc/maven/fragments/maven-remote-resources-plugin
maven-remote-resources-plugin.spec: W: invalid-url Source0:
maven-remote-resources-plugin-1.1.tar.bz2
- These are 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}
OK - The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines
OK - The package must meet the Java Packaging Guidelines
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 package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and
meet the Licensing Guidelines (license is ASL 2.0)
NA - Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files must
call ldconfig in %post and %postun
OK - The package MUST successfully compile and build
koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2224845
(against dist-f14-maven221 target)
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. (exported from svn)
NA - The spec file MUST handle locales properly
NA - package not relocatable
OK - A package must own all directories that it creates
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
OK - Each package must have a %clean section
OK - Each package must consistently use macros
NA - The package must contain code, or permissable content (no content)
NA - Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage (no large doc)
OK - If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of
the application
NA - Header files must be in a -devel package
NA - Static libraries must be in a -static package (no static package)
NA - Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'
OK - Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives
NA - Packages containing GUI applications MUST include a .desktop file
OK - No file conflicts with other packages and no general names.
OK - At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot}
OK - All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8
OK - The package does not yet exist in Fedora. The Review Request is not a
duplicate. (obsoletes maven2-plugin-remote-resources <= 0:2.0.8)
OK - %{?dist} tag is used in release
OTHER:
- %{name} could be used in %add_to_maven_depmap
- please add comment in the specfile for Patch0
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on 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 #6 from Tareq Al Jurf 2010-06-02 08:25:25 EDT --- Sorry missed that Here it is: Spec URL: http://taljurf.fedorapeople.org/Packages/i686/iec16022/iec16022.spec SRPM URL: http://taljurf.fedorapeople.org/Packages/i686/iec16022/iec16022-0.2.4-5.fc12.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 #6 from Petr Pisar 2010-06-02 08:46:52 EDT --- Spec URL: http://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/PPIx-Regexp/perl-PPIx-Regexp.spec SRPM URL: http://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/PPIx-Regexp/perl-PPIx-Regexp-0.007-1.fc13.src.rpm Description: The purpose of the PPIx-Regexp package is to parse regular expressions in a manner similar to the way the PPI package parses Perl. This class forms the root of the parse tree, playing a role similar to PPI::Document. It compiles cleanly against dist-f14-perltest, dist-f13 and dist-f12 on koji. rpmlint is quiet. This my first spec file. However I already co-maintain some Perl packages. Thus I'm not sure what's correct sponsoring process. Please somebody, review this package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 #6 from Shreyank Gupta 2010-06-02 08:56:09 EDT --- UPDATED: Spec URL: http://shreyankg.fedorapeople.org/packaging/ncursesw/rubygem-ncursesw.spec SRPM URL: http://shreyankg.fedorapeople.org/packaging/ncursesw/rubygem-ncursesw-1.2.4.1-3.fc13.src.rpm Notes: -- I ran sed and replaced all require 'ncurses' to require 'ncursesw'. HTH -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 598980] New: Review Request: rubygem-lockfile - Ruby library for creating NFS safe lockfiles
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: rubygem-lockfile - Ruby library for creating NFS safe lockfiles https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=598980 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-lockfile - Ruby library for creating NFS safe lockfiles Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: sgu...@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://shreyankg.fedorapeople.org/packaging/lockfile/rubygem-lockfile.spec SRPM URL: http://shreyankg.fedorapeople.org/packaging/lockfile/rubygem-lockfile-1.4.3-1.fc13.src.rpm Description: Its a Ruby library for creating NFS safe lockfiles. rlock creates NFS resistant lockfiles. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 598980] Review Request: rubygem-lockfile - Ruby library for creating NFS safe lockfiles
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=598980 Shreyank Gupta changed: What|Removed |Added CC||sgu...@redhat.com 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 598980] Review Request: rubygem-lockfile - Ruby library for creating NFS safe lockfiles
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=598980 --- Comment #1 from Shreyank Gupta 2010-06-02 09:38:40 EDT --- Koji Scratch Build --- http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2225105 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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] Review Request: 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 Ondrej Vasik changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ova...@redhat.com Summary|New package |Review Request: |perl-PPIx-Regexp|perl-PPIx-Regexp -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 515752] Review Request: python-soaplib - python library for creating SOAP services
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=515752 --- Comment #16 from Jordan OMara 2010-06-02 10:23:10 EDT --- I had repackaged the tarball to correct the folder structure, hence the size difference (I didn't use any compression options). I worked around this issue by using -c in the %prep section instead. Bumped the version on the specfile. New spec & SRPM at the same links as above new spec: http://jomara.fedorapeople.org/python_soaplib/python-soaplib.spec new srpm: http://jomara.fedorapeople.org/python_soaplib/python-soaplib-0.8.1-2.fc12.src.rpm My only concern now is that koji builds for RHEL5 fail with an error message I don't quite understand. The build is here : https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2225130 . It says to look at build.log, which is essentially empty, but root.log contains the following: - DEBUG util.py:280: Executing command: ['rpm', '-Uvh', '--nodeps', '/builddir/build/originals/python-soaplib-0.8.1-2.fc12.src.rpm'] DEBUG util.py:256: python-soaplib warning: user jomara does not exist - using root DEBUG util.py:256: ## DEBUG util.py:256: warning: group jomara does not exist - using root DEBUG util.py:256: error: unpacking of archive failed on file /builddir/build/SPECS/python-soaplib.spec;4c065a58: cpio: MD5 sum mismatch DEBUG util.py:319: Child returncode was: 1 - Why would there be a RHEL5 md5 sum mismatch on the spec file? Why is it looking for my username? The builds for RHEL6, F11, F12, and F13 are clean. Thanks in advance. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 598891] Review Request: maven-help-plugin - Plugin to to get relative information about a project or the system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=598891
Alexander Kurtakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Alexander Kurtakov 2010-06-02
10:36:39 EDT ---
Review:
OK: rpmlint must be run on every package. Output:
maven-help-plugin.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US plugin's ->
plug in's, plug-in's, plugging
maven-help-plugin.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mojos ->
moos, Mojaves, Mojave
maven-help-plugin.noarch: W: no-documentation
maven-help-plugin.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc
/etc/maven/fragments/maven-help-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.
Btw, there is no need to put both -Dmaven.test.skip=true and
-Dmaven.test.failure.ignore=true . The first one do not run tests at all so the
second has no effect.
Otherwise package looks good.
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 515752] Review Request: python-soaplib - python library for creating SOAP services
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=515752 --- Comment #17 from Steve Milner 2010-06-02 10:43:23 EDT --- I've seen this happen when an SRPM is build on Fedora 12 or greater and attempted to be rebuilt on RHEL5. If I remember right they are using different hashing hence you can get a mismatch. Though, unless you are trying to do a build based off of a local srpm that shouldn't happen (at least I don't think it should). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 515752] Review Request: python-soaplib - python library for creating SOAP services
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=515752 --- Comment #18 from Jordan OMara 2010-06-02 10:52:28 EDT --- It's not really a show-stopping issue, then? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 598916] Review Request: maven-stage-plugin - Plugin to copy artifacts from one repository to another
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=598916 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 2010-06-02 10:53:13 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 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 #7 from Ville Skyttä 2010-06-02 11:00:48 EDT --- The rpath related sed commands need to be placed between %configure and make, otherwise they have no effect. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 #8 from Tareq Al Jurf 2010-06-02 11:15:06 EDT --- Fixed: Spec URL: http://taljurf.fedorapeople.org/Packages/i686/iec16022/iec16022.spec SRPM URL: http://taljurf.fedorapeople.org/Packages/i686/iec16022/iec16022-0.2.4-6.fc12.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 593841] Review Request: wicd - Wireless and wired network connection 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=593841 David Cantrell changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo?(cwick...@fedorapr ||oject.org) --- Comment #26 from David Cantrell 2010-06-02 11:27:14 EDT --- Review updates? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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
--- Comment #4 from huwang 2010-06-02 11:26:53 EDT ---
NEEDSWORK: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
the review.
maven-assembly-plugin.noarch: E: devel-dependency java-devel
maven-assembly-plugin.noarch: W: no-documentation
maven-assembly-plugin.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc
/etc/maven/fragments/maven-assembly-plugin
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings.
Please fix the error.
maven-assembly-plugin.src: W: strange-permission
maven-assembly-plugin-jpp-depmap.xml 0764
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
Need to fix this.
maven-assembly-plugin.spec
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
BTW, I think it is better to add epoch 0 to provides.
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. 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.
OK: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture.
OK: 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.
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: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
OK: 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.
OK: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
OK: 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.
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. (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).
OK: 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.
OK: Header files must be in a -devel package.
OK: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
OK: 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.
OK: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package
using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
OK: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed
in the spec if they are built.
OK: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file,
and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the
%install section. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need
a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spe
[Bug 515752] Review Request: python-soaplib - python library for creating SOAP services
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=515752 --- Comment #19 from Jordan OMara 2010-06-02 11:39:09 EDT --- A coworker showed me a workaround for this issue; I guess in RHEL5 the default hashing algorithm is different and you get weird failures like this. He had me add : %global _binary_filedigest_algorithm 1 %global _source_filedigest_algorithm 1 %global _binary_payload w9.gzdio %global _source_payload w9.gzdio before %prep. All systems are go spec: http://jomara.fedorapeople.org/python_soaplib/python-soaplib.spec srpm: http://jomara.fedorapeople.org/python_soaplib/python-soaplib-0.8.1-3.fc12.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 578269] Review Request: xgospel - An X11 client for Internet Go Server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=578269 Tom "spot" Callaway changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tcall...@redhat.com Blocks|182235(FE-Legal)| --- Comment #18 from Tom "spot" Callaway 2010-06-02 11:43:41 EDT --- According to reliable sources, "GNU copyleft" was in ancient times a common way of referring to the GPL (or its predecessors). So, I'm going to say that it is safe to assume that text means "GPL+". Lifting FE-Legal. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 583672] Review Request: tomtom - A CLI interface to Tomboy or Gnote via dbus
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=583672 Tom "spot" Callaway changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tcall...@redhat.com --- Comment #12 from Tom "spot" Callaway 2010-06-02 11:48:45 EDT --- Please rename this. There is a clear trademark concern, even though the space is slightly different. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 598916] Review Request: maven-stage-plugin - Plugin to copy artifacts from one repository to another
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=598916
Alexander Kurtakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Alexander Kurtakov 2010-06-02
12:03:32 EDT ---
Review:
OK: rpmlint must be run on every package. Output:
maven-stage-plugin.noarch: W: no-documentation
maven-stage-plugin.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc
/etc/maven/fragments/maven-stage-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.
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 591730] Review Request: pyjamas - A python to Javascript compiler, Widget set, Framework and Toolkit
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=591730 Tom "spot" Callaway changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|182235(FE-Legal)| --- Comment #10 from Tom "spot" Callaway 2010-06-02 12:33:42 EDT --- Here's what I see: pyjamas: License: ASL 2.0 and MIT (Which files are Python or ZPL?) pyjamas-desktop: License: ASL 2.0 and GPLv2+ and Python pyjamas-doc: License: ASL 2.0 pyjamas-examples: License: ASL 2.0 and BSD and GPL+ and GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+ and MIT and Python and (MPLv1.1+ or LGPLv2+ or GPLv2+) pyjamas-ui: License: ASL 2.0 Hope that helps. Lifting FE-Legal. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 Ville Skyttä changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #9 from Ville Skyttä 2010-06-02 13:01:17 EDT --- Looks good now, 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 588941] Review Request: pypy - Implementation of the Python language, using Python itself
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=588941 --- Comment #7 from Toshio Ernie Kuratomi 2010-06-02 12:56:31 EDT --- (In reply to comment #5) > a) Fixed by using 'and': > > pypy.src: W: invalid-license MIT, PSL, LGPL, Distributable > pypy-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license MIT, PSL, LGPL, Distributable > pypy-libs.x86_64: W: invalid-license MIT, PSL, LGPL, Distributable > pypy-nojit.x86_64: W: invalid-license MIT, PSL, LGPL, Distributable > pypy-sandbox.x86_64: W: invalid-license MIT, PSL, LGPL, Distributable > pypy-stackless.x86_64: W: invalid-license MIT, PSL, LGPL, Distributable > A few things to note here: Distributable is not a valid license tag. You'll need to figure out what it really is. If it's some piece of code that's not modifiable, it might be that it doesn't fit the OSS Guidelines :-( If it's firmware, then it's okay but you still need to figure out the proper license. Details here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing And you can ask spot if you're in a grey area. As for listing of licenses... if this is an and situation, you might need to ask spot how things need to be licensed. LGPL tends to trump all the other licenses but since this package has so many parts, you might need to talk to spot to determine the actual situation. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 599097] Review Request: libgexiv2 - Gexiv2 is a GObject-based wrapper around the Exiv2 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=599097 --- Comment #1 from Ankur Sinha 2010-06-02 13:13:17 EDT --- hi, typo in description noted and changed ligexiv2 -> libgexiv2. regards, Ankur -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 599097] New: Review Request: libgexiv2 - Gexiv2 is a GObject-based wrapper around the Exiv2 library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: libgexiv2 - Gexiv2 is a GObject-based wrapper around the Exiv2 library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=599097 Summary: Review Request: libgexiv2 - Gexiv2 is a GObject-based wrapper around the Exiv2 library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: sanjay.an...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/libgexiv2/libgexiv2.spec SRPM URL: http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/libgexiv2/libgexiv2-0.0.90-1.fc13.src.rpm Other results from a mock build are all here: http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/libgexiv2/ Description: ligexiv2 is a GObject-based wrapper around the Exiv2 library.It makes the basic features of Exiv2 available to GNOME applications. rpmlint output: [an...@localhost SPECS]$ rpmlint libgexiv2.spec ../SRPMS/libgexiv2-0.0.90-1.fc13.src.rpm /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/result/*.rpmlibgexiv2.spec:36: W: configure-without-libdir-spec libgexiv2.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Gexiv -> Ge xiv, Ge-xiv, Gelid libgexiv2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ligexiv -> lighten, lighted, lighter libgexiv2.src:36: W: configure-without-libdir-spec libgexiv2.i686: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Gexiv -> Ge xiv, Ge-xiv, Gelid libgexiv2.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ligexiv -> lighten, lighted, lighter libgexiv2.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Gexiv -> Ge xiv, Ge-xiv, Gelid libgexiv2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ligexiv -> lighten, lighted, lighter libgexiv2.src:36: W: configure-without-libdir-spec libgexiv2-debuginfo.i686: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libgexiv -> Libreville, Liberian, Liberia libgexiv2-debuginfo.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libgexiv -> Libreville, Liberian, Liberia libgexiv2-devel.i686: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libgexiv -> Libreville, Liberian, Liberia libgexiv2-devel.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libgexiv -> Libreville, Liberian, Liberia 5 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 13 warnings. NOTE : Line 36 is a comment. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 #6 from Lennart Poettering 2010-06-02 13:40:26 EDT --- You need a dep on "docbook-style-xsl" for the docbook stuff. I have now added --with-rootdir= to deal with splitting up the appropriate stuff between / and /usr. Just pass it to configure with an empty argument to get things right. Might be good to use the "official" package description we now have upstream: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2010-June/55.html -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 #7 from Lennart Poettering 2010-06-02 13:43:43 EDT --- Hmm, what's the plan for /cgroup/systemd? This should probably be in the package... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 #10 from Jon Ciesla 2010-06-02 13:49:11 EDT --- Possible, but since I don't know how to make that determination, and this package might be of use to future packages, I see no reason not to do the whole shebang. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 486010] Review Request: mrbs - Meeting Room Booking System
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=486010 --- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System 2010-06-02 14:01:22 EDT --- mrbs-1.4.4.1-1.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 mrbs'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mrbs-1.4.4.1-1.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 486010] Review Request: mrbs - Meeting Room Booking System
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=486010 --- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System 2010-06-02 14:03:31 EDT --- mrbs-1.4.4.1-1.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 mrbs'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mrbs-1.4.4.1-1.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 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 Terje Røsten changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|terje...@phys.ntnu.no Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #22 from Terje Røsten 2010-06-02 14:15:36 EDT --- Thanks, review in progress. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 Tareq Al Jurf changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #10 from Tareq Al Jurf 2010-06-02 14:18:24 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: viewnior Short Description: The Elegant Image Viewer Owners: taljurf Branches: F-11 F-13 rawhide InitialCC: taljurf -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 #11 from Tareq Al Jurf 2010-06-02 14:19:49 EDT --- (In reply to comment #10) > New Package CVS Request > === > Package Name: viewnior > Short Description: The Elegant Image Viewer > Owners: taljurf > Branches: F-11 F-13 rawhide > InitialCC: taljurf sorry by mistake New Package CVS Request === Package Name: iec16022 Short Description: Generate ISO/IEC 16022 2D barcodes Owners: taljurf Branches: F-11 F-13 rawhide InitialCC: taljurf -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 #23 from Terje Røsten 2010-06-02 14:23:19 EDT --- I noted bzr-explorer 1.0.2 was released, could you update the package to 1.0.2 before I continue? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 #11 from Bruno Wolff III 2010-06-02 14:30:11 EDT --- I took a quick look at the spec file and have a couple of questions. The .exe file is removed in %prep. Might that need to be removed sooner so that it doesn't get included in the srpm? (I'm worried that some nonredistributable library might be included in that build.) Would there be any point to having a way to get just the header files and documentation, but not the c source? (Maybe the main package provides the header files and documenation, and a -source subpackage provides the rest?) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 590355] Review Request: golly - cellular automata simulator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=590355 --- Comment #12 from Terje Røsten 2010-06-02 14:43:37 EDT --- perl scripts have similar problems as python scripts, however a bit worse, is not enough with a rename as libperl.so is not located in a standard lib dir, I got some ideas from ocaml-perl4caml and wrote a patch to fix that issue, please have a look: spec: http://terjeros.fedorapeople.org/golly/golly.spec srpm: http://terjeros.fedorapeople.org/golly/golly-2.1-6.fc13.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 #12 from Jon Ciesla 2010-06-02 14:47:54 EDT --- A. Sure. I can make a modified tarball. B. Why not the source in main and the headers in -devel? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 --- Comment #53 from Mamoru Tasaka 2010-06-02 14:50:48 EDT --- Well, - Personally I think if the upstream changed the summary or the explanation of the package it is a good reason to update Summary / %description in the spec file as well, however it is up to you. The package itself is now good. Please import this after needed procedure. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 590355] Review Request: golly - cellular automata simulator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=590355 --- Comment #13 from Eric Smith 2010-06-02 15:00:29 EDT --- Added a trivial spec change from your -6 spec to eliminate an rpmlint warning about mixed spaces/tabs in spec. Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~brouhaha/golly/golly.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~brouhaha/golly/golly-2.1-7.fc12.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 #8 from Lennart Poettering 2010-06-02 15:07:40 EDT --- git master now mounts a tmpfs to /cgroup. That means that the /cgroup/systemd dir can be dynamically created at runtime by systemd. However, the /cgroup dir must exist on boot, since / tends to be ro during early boot. That means something or somebody must create /cgroup on package installation. I'd probably just do an mkdir in %post, if that's acceptable. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 Flag|fedora-review?, needinfo? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #12 from Mamoru Tasaka 2010-06-02 15:14:03 EDT --- Well, -- This package (rubygem-rmail) is APPROVED by mtasaka -- I will sponsor you. However while I could find your account on FAS, the mail address on FAS and the one you are using on this bugzilla differ, which must coincide. Please change either of them. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 591730] Review Request: pyjamas - A python to Javascript compiler, Widget set, Framework and Toolkit
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=591730 --- Comment #11 from Kevin Fenzi 2010-06-02 15:24:41 EDT --- That all looks good to me. I'm not sure why I was thinking there were Python or ZPL files in the base package. ;( Anyhow, new spec: http://www.scrye.com/~kevin/fedora/pyjamas/pyjamas.spec Matches the above license tags. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 #9 from Lennart Poettering 2010-06-02 15:22:54 EDT --- "mkdir -p -m 0755 /cgroup" in %post seems sufficient to me. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 591730] Review Request: pyjamas - A python to Javascript compiler, Widget set, Framework and Toolkit
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=591730 Dave Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #12 from Dave Malcolm 2010-06-02 15:29:20 EDT --- Thanks - this looks good APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 591730] Review Request: pyjamas - A python to Javascript compiler, Widget set, Framework and Toolkit
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=591730 --- Comment #13 from Kevin Fenzi 2010-06-02 15:38:56 EDT --- Thanks! New Package CVS Request === Package Name: pyjamas Short Description: A python to javascript compiler, Widget set, Framework and Toolkit Owners: kevin Branches: F-13 devel EL-5 EL-6 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 591730] Review Request: pyjamas - A python to Javascript compiler, Widget set, Framework and Toolkit
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=591730 Kevin Fenzi 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 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 #13 from Shreyank Gupta 2010-06-02 16:59:17 EDT --- (In reply to comment #12) > I will sponsor you. However while I could find your account on > FAS, the mail address on FAS and the one you are using on this > bugzilla differ, which must coincide. Please change either of them. That would be a difficult thing to do. But I do have a different Bugzilla account with the same email as the FAS one. Is there any way I could take ownership of this request from that bugzilla account? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 #10 from Adel Gadllah 2010-06-02 17:04:55 EDT --- (In reply to comment #9) > "mkdir -p -m 0755 /cgroup" in %post seems sufficient to me. Why can't you do this in your install target? (i.e make install) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
