[Bug 513896] Review Request: pcp - performance monitoring and collection service
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=513896 --- Comment #38 from Jason Tibbitts 2010-06-26 02:51:52 EDT --- InitialCC takes a Fedora account, not an email address, and the account "jarod" seems to belong to someone else so I've simply done the request without any InitialCC. Please add yourself to the package in pkgdb as appropriate. CVS done (by process-cvs-requests.py). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 462818] Review Request: perl-Net-SMTP-SSL - SSL support for Net::SMTP
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=462818 --- Comment #19 from Jason Tibbitts 2010-06-26 02:48:20 EDT --- Can we get an ack from the current Fedora maintainer? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 608216] Review Request: gdk-pixbuf - an image loader 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=608216 Randall Berry changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|gdk-pixbuf - an image |Review Request: gdk-pixbuf |loader library |- an image loader library -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 --- Comment #13 from Gabriel Filion 2010-06-26 02:09:58 EDT --- hello. Some time has passed since the last comment about renaming the project, and I settled on a new name. I'd like to get Redhat's legal team approval if possible before actually renaming the project. The name that I would like to use is "Scout", after the character "Jean Louise 'Scout' Finch" in the book "To kill a mockingbird". I have searched for trademarks with this word on the uspto.gov site and I didn't find anything that seems to be directly using this name. Would this name have the approval of the legal team? If so, I'll rename the project right away and packaging can then continue without the fear of future legal/acceptation problems. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 608216] New: gdk-pixbuf - an image loader library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: gdk-pixbuf - an image loader library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=608216 Summary: gdk-pixbuf - an image loader library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: mcla...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Target Release: --- This used to be part of GTK+, now turned into a standalone module again. http://mclasen.fedorapeople.org/gdk-pixbuf.spec http://mclasen.fedorapeople.org/gdk-pixbuf-2.21.3-1.fc14.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 607777] Review Request: xnoise - Tracklist-centric Media Player
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=60 Michel Alexandre Salim changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Michel Alexandre Salim 2010-06-26 01:10:23 EDT --- Great, thanks! Will add the missing dir and try and get upstream to fix the translation. New Package CVS Request === Package Name: xnoise Short Description: Tracklist-centric Media Player Owners: salimma Branches: F-12 F-13 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 589866] Review Request: darktable - Utility to organize and develop raw images
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=589866 --- Comment #7 from Dmitrij S. Kryzhevich 2010-06-26 00:21:33 EDT --- Everything had stopped? Still waiting for including. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 608206] Review Request: zn_poly - C library for polynomial arithmetic
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=608206 Chen Lei changed: What|Removed |Added CC||supercyp...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Chen Lei 2010-06-25 23:36:21 EDT --- Some suggests: 1.License:(GPLv2 or GPLv3) and GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+ -> GPLv3 Because license field only applies to binary rpm 2. It'll be better to delete .a files instead of shipping it in -static subpackage. >From packaging guideline: Static libraries should only be included in exceptional circumstances 3. You can add a make test to %check -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 608206] Review Request: zn_poly - C library for polynomial arithmetic
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=608206 Thomas Spura changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||608199 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 608206] New: Review Request: zn_poly - C library for polynomial arithmetic
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: zn_poly - C library for polynomial arithmetic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=608206 Summary: Review Request: zn_poly - C library for polynomial arithmetic Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: toms...@fedoraproject.org QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://tomspur.fedorapeople.org/review/zn_poly.spec SRPM URL: http://tomspur.fedorapeople.org/review/zn_poly-0.9-1.fc13.src.rpm Description: zn_poly is a C library for polynomial arithmetic in Z/nZ[x], where n is any modulus that fits into an unsigned long. # koji build succesfull: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2273644 rpmlint ignorable except this one: zn_poly-devel.x86_64: E: no-ldconfig-symlink /usr/lib64/libzn_poly.so Don't know what to do with this one, is it ignoreable too? "rpmlint -I no-ldconfig-symlink" lists it as 'should'... # This package is a missing dependency for flint, which in turn is needed for SAGE: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/SciTech/SAGE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 608066] LDC a compiler for the D programming language
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=608066 --- Comment #4 from MERCIER Jonathan 2010-06-25 19:10:40 EDT --- i have update spec file, all is put here: http://bioinfornatics.fedorapeople.org/ this empty file is removed because it's never used. "lib" is explicitely used instead of %_libdir because it's always used (not arch dependant). As I'm using a mercurial repo for the source, I can' t provide a download link, but the tarball creation process is explained in spec comments -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 562467] Review Request: openvas-libraries - Support libraries for Open Vulnerability Assessment (OpenVAS) 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=562467 Xavier Bachelot changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #9 from Xavier Bachelot 2010-06-25 18:31:20 EDT --- All 4 of us are maintainers of the openvas scanner and client packages, it definitely makes sense to be maintainers of the libs as well, so here's the branch requests for EPEL. Everyone willing to have rights on the Fedora branches will have to apply for them in the pkgdb and Huzaifa will have to approve them. Package Change Request == Package Name: openvas-libraries New Branches: EL-5 EL-6 Owners: huzaifas sgros rebus xavierb -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 521671] Review Request: R-plyr - Tools for splitting, applying, and combining data in R
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=521671 --- Comment #11 from Jason Tibbitts 2010-06-25 18:22:02 EDT --- Wow. Six months later I notice that the fedora-cvs flag was never raised, so of course CVS was never done. If you still want this package to make it into the distribution, please submit a new CVS request (no F-11 any longer, but now we have F-13) and set the fedora-cvs flag to '?'. Otherwise I'll close this out. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 607342] Review Request: python-markupsafe - A safe escaping library for markup languages like HTML
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=607342 Dave Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||608155 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 608141] Review Request: atkmm - C++ interface for the ATK 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=608141 Kalev Lember changed: What|Removed |Added CC||debarshi@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Kalev Lember 2010-06-25 15:43:47 EDT --- atkmm used to be part of gtkmm, but it was split out to make it easier to have gtkmm24 and gtkmm30 parallel installable. This package currently Conflicts: gtkmm24 < 2.21.1 because both atkmm and gtkmm24 contain libraries/headers at the same location. Once atkmm is built for rawhide, gtkmm24 can be updated and new version built against the external atkmm. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 608141] New: Review Request: atkmm - C++ interface for the ATK 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: atkmm - C++ interface for the ATK library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=608141 Summary: Review Request: atkmm - C++ interface for the ATK library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: ka...@smartlink.ee QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://kalev.fedorapeople.org/atkmm.spec SRPM URL: http://kalev.fedorapeople.org/atkmm-2.21.1-1.fc14.src.rpm Description: atkmm provides a C++ interface for the ATK library. Highlights include typesafe callbacks, widgets extensible via inheritance and a comprehensive set of widget classes that can be freely combined to quickly create complex user interfaces. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 605423] Review Request: python-dulwich - A python implementation of the Git file formats and protocols
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=605423 Fabian Affolter changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |python-dulwich -|python-dulwich - A python |Pure-Python Git bindings|implementation of the Git ||file formats and protocols --- Comment #2 from Fabian Affolter 2010-06-25 14:57:11 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1) > The private-shared-object-provides can be easily filtered out, see bug #554464 > as a reference. fixed > What's a 'pure-Python implementation' for you/upstream? > For me it's a library, written in plain python without any C libraries in it. > Am I alonw with this? The summary is changed now. > Could you please add a %check section and then delete the (then not needed > anymore) test folder? > (Currently are 2 tests failing thought...) %check section added and the two failing tests commented out. I will report the issue with the tests upstream. Here are the updated files: Spec URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-dulwich.spec SRPM URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-dulwich-0.6.0-2.fc13.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 608066] LDC a compiler for the D programming language
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=608066 --- Comment #3 from MERCIER Jonathan 2010-06-25 14:51:26 EDT --- link to guideline for name: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#PreReleasePackages -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 608066] LDC a compiler for the D programming language
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=608066
--- Comment #2 from MERCIER Jonathan 2010-06-25
14:49:06 EDT ---
the warning about %{_prefix} can not be remove because %{_libdir} = /usr/lib |
/usr/lib64 or here is always /usr/lib
and this warning is for:
rm %{buildroot}%{_prefix}/lib/.empty
i remove an empty file i put any file in %{_prefix}/lib
Anf or Source i use upstream and in comment they are all information
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 248338] Review Request: gnome-applet-netspeed - GNOME applet that shows traffic on a network device
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=248338 --- Comment #5 from Michael Schwendt 2010-06-25 14:42:58 EDT --- https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/3811 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=1904 What else needs to be done? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 601908] Review Request: perl-App-SVN-Bisect - Binary search through svn revisions
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=601908 Xavier Bachelot changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Xavier Bachelot 2010-06-25 14:43:10 EDT --- Thanks for the review. New Package CVS Request === Package Name: perl-App-SVN-Bisect Short Description: Binary search through svn revisions Owners: xavierb Branches: F-12 F-13 EL-5 EL-6 InitialCC: perl-sig -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 426542] Review Request: perl-Module-CPANTS-Analyse - Generate Kwalitee ratings for a distribution
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=426542 Jason Tibbitts changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #12 from Jason Tibbitts 2010-06-25 14:37:54 EDT --- CVS done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 248338] Review Request: gnome-applet-netspeed - GNOME applet that shows traffic on a network device
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=248338 --- Comment #4 from Jason Tibbitts 2010-06-25 14:32:48 EDT --- This package is deprecated; see https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/gnome-applet-netspeed Are you trying to revive it? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 329331] Review Request: python-gdata - A Python module for accessing online Google 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=329331 Jason Tibbitts changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #23 from Jason Tibbitts 2010-06-25 14:34:24 EDT --- CVS done. It does speed up the process if you tell us that you've received approval from the existing owner. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 426530] Review Request: perl-Module-ExtractUse - Find out what modules are used
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=426530 Jason Tibbitts changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #12 from Jason Tibbitts 2010-06-25 14:35:10 EDT --- CVS done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 426539] Review Request: perl-Test-YAML-Meta - Validation of the META.yml file in a distribution.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=426539 Jason Tibbitts changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #9 from Jason Tibbitts 2010-06-25 14:37:20 EDT --- CVS done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 604438] Review Request: rubygem-scaffold - Scaffold is a templating tool for Puppet
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=604438 Mamoru Tasaka changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp --- Comment #1 from Mamoru Tasaka 2010-06-25 14:27:07 EDT --- Some notes: * %define -> %global - Now we prefer to use %global rather than %define https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#.25global_preferred_over_.25define * ruby(abi) dependency - Writing ruby(abi) dependency is a must https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Ruby#Ruby_Packaging_Guidelines * Explcitly defined macros - Explicitly defined %ruby_sitelib is used nowhere. - Please use explicitly defined %geminstdir also in %files * Explicit version dependency - As rubygem-templater in Fedora on all supported branches have higher version than 0.5.0, the explicit ">= 0.5.0" part is not needed, ref: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Explicit_Requires * BuildRoot tag - BuildRoot tag is no longer used so you can remove this (although rpmlint may complain) on Fedora (not on EPEL) https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag ! %changelog - Please also write your name. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 239199] Review Request: perl-Archive-Any - Single interface to deal with file archives
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=239199 Jason Tibbitts changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #5 from Jason Tibbitts 2010-06-25 14:29:32 EDT --- CVS done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 221675] Review Request: zd1211-firmware - Firmware for wireless devices based on zd1211 chipset
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=221675 --- Comment #36 from Jason Tibbitts 2010-06-25 14:24:32 EDT --- Can we get an ack from the Fedora owner? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Getting_a_Fedora_package_in_EPEL -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 516281] Review Request: perl-Config-Model-TkUI - Tk GUI to edit config data through Config::Model
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=516281 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|ON_QA --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System 2010-06-25 14:16:03 EDT --- perl-Config-Model-TkUI-1.306-4.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 perl-Config-Model-TkUI'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Config-Model-TkUI-1.306-4.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 576685] Review Request: pekwm - A small and flexible window 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=576685 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|ON_QA --- Comment #26 from Fedora Update System 2010-06-25 14:16:29 EDT --- pekwm-0.1.12-4.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 pekwm'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/pekwm-0.1.12-4.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 576685] Review Request: pekwm - A small and flexible window 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=576685 --- Comment #27 from Fedora Update System 2010-06-25 14:17:04 EDT --- pekwm-0.1.12-4.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 pekwm'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/pekwm-0.1.12-4.fc12 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 608066] LDC a compiler for the D programming language
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=608066
Casey Dahlin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||cdah...@redhat.com
--- Comment #1 from Casey Dahlin 2010-06-25 14:08:00 EDT
---
You should fix the error and warning. Neither are hard.
For the error just replace %{_prefix}/lib with %{_libdir}. Unless that doesn't
work because the program places the file in lib regardless? Perhaps there's a
config option that will help that.
The warning is simple. You should specify the Source0 as a download link for
the tarball, not just its name.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 475593] Review Request: fontpackages - Common directory and macro definitions used by font packages
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475593 --- Comment #19 from Mark Chappell 2010-06-25 13:53:11 EDT --- To Parag: Sorry, failed to find the -devel package in the copy of EL-6 I had, having forgotten about the extra repositories. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 607778] Review Request: xnoise-plugins-core - Core plugins for xnoise
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=607778 Michael Schwendt changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mschwe...@gmail.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 606064] Review Request: libfc14audiodecoder - C wrapper library for Future Composer audio decoding
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=606064 Michael Schwendt changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Michael Schwendt 2010-06-25 13:39:07 EDT --- Great! Thank you! New Package CVS Request === Package Name: libfc14audiodecoder Short Description: C wrapper library for Future Composer audio decoding Owners: mschwendt Branches: F-12 F-13 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 607777] Review Request: xnoise - Tracklist-centric Media Player
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=60
Michael Schwendt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Michael Schwendt 2010-06-25 13:29:30
EDT ---
> +# make package own the vala API dir:
> +# xnoise plugins don't have to be written in vala
> +%dir %{_datadir}/vala/vapi
%dir %{_datadir}/valais missing.
About the translations, upstream could improve the release of translations
based on the "translated/untranslated ratio". As a packager, it wouldn't be fun
to check that ratio often for all offered languages. And in xnoise 0.1.6, parts
of the UI have not entered the PO files [yet], so untranslated strings are
missing. Perhaps that's just a bug.
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 475593] Review Request: fontpackages - Common directory and macro definitions used by font packages
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475593 Parag changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pnem...@redhat.com Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #18 from Parag 2010-06-25 13:27:05 EDT --- To Mark, and what makes you to think this is not already in EL-6? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 605610] Review Request: rubygem-chronic - natural language date/time parser written in pure Ruby
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=605610 Mamoru Tasaka changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 605610] Review Request: rubygem-chronic - natural language date/time parser written in pure Ruby
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=605610 Mamoru Tasaka changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Mamoru Tasaka 2010-06-25 13:07:30 EDT --- For 0.2.3-1 * (Build)Requires - Build fails without additional "BR: rubygem(rake), rubygem(hoe)" - On the other hand, while installed gemspec file says rubygem(hoe) is needed for Requires, however as far as I checked the codes, hoe is needed in Rakefile and hoe does not seem to be needed on runtime. I think hoe dependency can be removed from installed gemspec and "R: rubygem(hoe)" can be removed. * Test related issue - Would you check if the (ignored) test failure and warnings can really be ignored? - Especially I think that it is better that you fix the warning of "warning: instance variable @foo not initialized". - Well, it may be more readable and preferable to create a patch rather than to specify the lines to be deleted by sed, however not a blocker. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 475593] Review Request: fontpackages - Common directory and macro definitions used by font packages
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475593 Mark Chappell changed: What|Removed |Added CC||trem...@tremble.org.uk Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #17 from Mark Chappell 2010-06-25 12:59:00 EDT --- Package Change Request == Package Name: fontpackages New Branches: EL-6 Owners: tremble nim listed as welcoming epel maintainers. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 600243] Review Request: libjpeg-turbo - MMX/SSE accelerated libjpeg
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=600243
--- Comment #44 from Rex Dieter 2010-06-25 12:52:20 EDT
---
oh, and you're doing that, may as well also
Provides: libjpeg%{?_isa} = 6b-47
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 600243] Review Request: libjpeg-turbo - MMX/SSE accelerated libjpeg
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=600243 Rex Dieter changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rdie...@math.unl.edu --- Comment #43 from Rex Dieter 2010-06-25 12:48:40 EDT --- Comment #40 could be mitigated if libjpeg-turbo also included: Provides: libjpeg = 6b-47 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 602598] Review Request: perl-Proc-WaitStat - Interpret and act on wait() status values
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=602598
Mark Chappell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||trem...@tremble.org.uk
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|trem...@tremble.org.uk
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Comment #3 from Mark Chappell 2010-06-25 11:41:01
EDT ---
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines including the Perl specific items
[x] Versioned MODULE_COMPAT_ Requires
[x] Non-Versioned CPAN URL tag
[x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture.
Tested on: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2272527
[x] Rpmlint output:
perl-Proc-WaitStat.src: E: specfile-error sh: line 1: fg: no job control
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings.
[x] Package is not relocatable.
[x] Buildroot is correct
Buildroot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
[x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type: GPL+ or Artistic (As Perl)
[-] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package is included in %doc.
[x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
SRPM: b911bd579b6b142391b21de1efa30c95
Upstream: b911bd579b6b142391b21de1efa30c95
[x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch
[x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[-] The spec file handles locales properly.
[-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x] Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x] Permissions on files are set properly.
[x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -fR $RPM_BUILD_ROOT.
[x] Package consistently uses macros.
[x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Static libraries in -static subpackage, if present.
[-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present.
[-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
[-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
[x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
[x] Latest version is packaged.
[x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
Tested on: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2272527
[x] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
Tested on: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2272527
[?] Package functions as described.
[-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct.
[-] File based requires are sane.
[!] %check is present and the tests pass
=== COMMENTS ===
You're not running the tests, please include a check section which should look
something like
%check
make %{?_smp_mflags} test || :
In order to do this you will also need to add
BuildRequires: perl(IPC::Signal)
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 527306] Review Request: jericho-html - Jericho HTML Parser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=527306 --- Comment #6 from Orion Poplawski 2010-06-25 11:19:57 EDT --- Thanks for the review. http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/jericho-html.spec http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/jericho-html-3.1-2.fc13.src.rpm * Fri Jun 25 2010 Orion Poplawski - 3.1-2 - Fix spelling errors - Change package groups - Fix Requires and BuildRequires - Fix Summary - Don't need to copy library for tests -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 608069] New: Tango standard library for D language of d1 specification
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Tango standard library for D language of d1 specification https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=608069 Summary: Tango standard library for D language of d1 specification Product: Fedora Version: 13 Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: bioinfornat...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec url: http://bioinfornatics.fedorapeople.org/tango.spec Src.rpm url: http://bioinfornatics.fedorapeople.org/tango-0.99.9-1.20102406svn5487.fc13.src.rpm $ rpmlint -i SPECS/tango.spec SPECS/tango.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: tango-20102406svn5487.tar.xz The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL. 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. _ $ rpmlint -i SRPMS/tango-0.99.9-1.20102406svn5487.fc13.src.rpm => wrong misspeling warning and: tango.src: W: invalid-url Source0: tango-20102406svn5487.tar.xz The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL. upstream fix lot of bug Note currently for D language they use static library, for shared library they said "because D likes static, it is actually a bit complicated to have shared libs" from a discuss in IRC freenode #ldc -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 608066] New: LDC a compiler for the D programming language
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: LDC a compiler for the D programming language
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=608066
Summary: LDC a compiler for the D programming language
Product: Fedora
Version: 13
Platform: All
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: medium
Priority: low
Component: Package Review
AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org
ReportedBy: bioinfornat...@gmail.com
QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com
Estimated Hours: 0.0
Classification: Fedora
Spec url:
http://bioinfornatics.fedorapeople.org/ldc.spec
src.rpm url:
http://bioinfornatics.fedorapeople.org/ldc-0.9.2-1.20100706hg1653.fc13.src.rpm
$ rpmlint -i SPECS/ldc.spec
SPECS/ldc.spec:66: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/.empty
A library path is hardcoded to one of the following paths: /lib, /usr/lib. It
should be replaced by something like /%{_lib} or %{_libdir}.
SPECS/ldc.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: ldc-20100706hg1653.tar.xz
The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL.
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings.
_
$ rpmlint -i SRPMS/ldc-0.9.2-1.20100706hg1653.fc13.src.rpm => wrong misspeling
warning
_
$ rpmlint RPMS/x86_64/ldc-* ==> wrong misspeling warning and :
ldc.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ldc
ldc.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ldmd
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 601908] Review Request: perl-App-SVN-Bisect - Binary search through svn revisions
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=601908
Mark Chappell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||trem...@tremble.org.uk
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|trem...@tremble.org.uk
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Mark Chappell 2010-06-25 11:00:08
EDT ---
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines including the Perl specific items
[x] Versioned MODULE_COMPAT_ Requires
[x] Non-Versioned CPAN URL tag
[x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture.
Tested on: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2272463
[x] Rpmlint output:
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[x] Package is not relocatable.
[x] Buildroot is correct
Buildroot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
[x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type: Artistic 2.0
[-] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package is included in %doc.
[x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
Upstream: d8540f354b27d904eee56cc473542cbc
SRPM: d8540f354b27d904eee56cc473542cbc
[x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch
[x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[-] The spec file handles locales properly.
[-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x] Package must own all directories that it creates.
[-] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x] Permissions on files are set properly.
[x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -fR $RPM_BUILD_ROOT.
[x] Package consistently uses macros.
[x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Static libraries in -static subpackage, if present.
[-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present.
[-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
[-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
[x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
[x] Latest version is packaged.
[x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
Tested on: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2272463
[x] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
Tested on: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2272463
[x] Package functions as described.
[-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct.
[-] File based requires are sane.
[x] %check is present and the tests pass
All tests successful.
Files=3, Tests=75, 1 wallclock secs ( 0.02 usr 0.02 sys + 0.22 cusr 0.09
csys = 0.35 CPU)
Result: PASS
=== COMMENTS ===
Looks good, package 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 607877] Review Request: perl-XML-FeedPP - Parse/write/merge/edit RSS/RDF/Atom syndication feeds
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=607877
Mark Chappell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||trem...@tremble.org.uk
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|trem...@tremble.org.uk
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Mark Chappell 2010-06-25 10:40:39
EDT ---
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines including the Perl specific items
[x] Versioned MODULE_COMPAT_ Requires
[x] Non-Versioned CPAN URL tag
[x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture.
Tested on: local mock (i386)
[x] Rpmlint output:
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[x] Package is not relocatable.
[x] Buildroot is correct
Buildroot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
[x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type: GPL+ or Artistic
[-] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package is included in %doc.
[x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
Upstream: dd08f2bdb0850ae9470c5ae0a948d21d
SRPM: dd08f2bdb0850ae9470c5ae0a948d21d
[x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch
[x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[-] The spec file handles locales properly.
[-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x] Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x] Permissions on files are set properly.
[x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -fR $RPM_BUILD_ROOT.
[x] Package consistently uses macros.
[x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Static libraries in -static subpackage, if present.
[-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present.
[-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
[-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
[x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
[x] Latest version is packaged.
[x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
Tested on: epel-5-i386 (local mock due to deps)
[x] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
Tested on: epel-5-i386 (local mock due to deps)
[x] Package functions as described.
[-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct.
[-] File based requires are sane.
[x] %check is present and the tests pass
All tests successful.
Files=43, Tests=1367, 3 wallclock secs ( 2.09 cusr + 0.30 csys = 2.39 CPU)
=== COMMENTS ===
Package looks good, again provisionally APPROVED, will set flag once
perl-XML-TreePP 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 607878] Review Request: perl-XML-TreePP - Pure Perl implementation for parsing/writing XML documents
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=607878
Mark Chappell changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||trem...@tremble.org.uk
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|trem...@tremble.org.uk
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Mark Chappell 2010-06-25 10:26:15
EDT ---
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines including the Perl specific items
[x] Versioned MODULE_COMPAT_ Requires
[x] Non-Versioned CPAN URL tag
[x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture.
Tested on: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2272386
[!] Rpmlint output:
perl-XML-TreePP.noarch: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/share/perl5/XML/TreePP.pm
perl-XML-TreePP.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/share/doc/perl-XML-TreePP-0.39/Changes
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings.
[x] Package is not relocatable.
[x] Buildroot is correct
Buildroot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
[x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type: GPL+ or Artistic
[-] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package is included in %doc.
[x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
SRPM: 3446f8318be430a80227c7eea44a67a7
Upstream: 3446f8318be430a80227c7eea44a67a7
[x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch
[x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[-] The spec file handles locales properly.
[-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x] Package must own all directories that it creates.
[-] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[!] Permissions on files are set properly.
[x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -fR $RPM_BUILD_ROOT.
[x] Package consistently uses macros.
[x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Static libraries in -static subpackage, if present.
[-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present.
[-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
[-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
[x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
[x] Latest version is packaged.
[x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
Tested on: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2272386
[x] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
Tested on: fedora-f13
[x] Package functions as described.
[-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct.
[-] File based requires are sane.
[x] %check is present and the tests pass
All tests successful.
Files=51, Tests=1058, 6 wallclock secs ( 0.19 usr 0.29 sys + 2.32 cusr 0.92
csys = 3.72 CPU)
Result: PASS
=== COMMENTS ===
These two files are executable when they shouldn't be, otherwise looks fine:
/usr/share/perl5/XML/TreePP.pm
/usr/share/doc/perl-XML-TreePP-0.39/Changes
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 603632] Review Request: typemade-josefinsansstd-light-fonts - This typeface was to made for geometric, elegant titling and kind of vintage
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=603632 --- Comment #6 from Parag 2010-06-25 09:33:01 EDT --- Ok. I will send email to him giving above comment as a reference. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 527306] Review Request: jericho-html - Jericho HTML Parser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=527306
--- Comment #5 from Stanislav Ochotnicky 2010-06-25
09:27:45 EDT ---
NEEDSWORK: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
the review.
jericho-html.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unrecognised ->
unrecognized, unrecognizable, unrecognizably
jericho-html.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US licence ->
license, licente, licentiate
jericho-html-javadoc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Javadocs -> Java
docs, Java-docs, Javanese
jericho-html-javadoc.noarch: W: non-standard-group Development Documentation
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
You need to change Group of javadoc to "Development/Documentation". I
also don't think that proper group for main package is "System
Environment/Libraries". More like "Java Development".
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.
NEEDSWORK: 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.
You are missing java and jpackage-utils in Requires. See:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#BuildRequires_and_Requires
Please also note that in current rawhide jakarta-commons-logging is
called apache-commons-logging so it would be better to change this
accordingly once you will be committing the package to devel branch.
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. (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:
You do:
> cp dist/%{name}-%{version}.jar samples/webapps/JerichoHTML/WEB-INF/lib
to give back jericho jar so that sample will work. I would strongly
recommend instead creating symlink to file in %{_javadir} during install phase.
Please also use more descriptive Summary, current one doesn't say
much. You can basically use first sentence from Description, e.g.
"Java library allowing analysis and manipulation of parts of an HTML document"
I would also recommend contacting upstream and working with them on making
use of some build system, be it maven or ant or something
different. Re-doing all compiling in spec file is just ugly (this
doesn't affect approval, it's just for future reference).
Once you fix mentioned problems, I can re-check and approve this package.
[Bug 603632] Review Request: typemade-josefinsansstd-light-fonts - This typeface was to made for geometric, elegant titling and kind of vintage
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=603632 --- Comment #5 from Tom "spot" Callaway 2010-06-25 09:19:53 EDT --- We need to get clarification from Raph Levien, as the OFL license text is a template, and does not contain the appropriate information. This all seems suspicious, but it could simply be sloppy. :/ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 603632] Review Request: typemade-josefinsansstd-light-fonts - This typeface was to made for geometric, elegant titling and kind of vintage
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=603632 --- Comment #4 from Parag 2010-06-25 09:04:01 EDT --- I got to know this font from http://code.google.com/p/googlefontdirectory/source/browse/josefin/ but saw some instability in google font directory so used original upstream source. If source include in above SRPM is not acceptable then will ttf file from google link is ok to package with OFL licesne? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 603632] Review Request: typemade-josefinsansstd-light-fonts - This typeface was to made for geometric, elegant titling and kind of vintage
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=603632 --- Comment #3 from Tom "spot" Callaway 2010-06-25 08:41:15 EDT --- That EULA is clearly non-free. There is explicit restrictions on modification and redistribution. Out of curiosity, why did you think this was FOSS? Perhaps there is another license? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 516284] Review Request: mod_auth_cas - Apache 2.0/2.2 compliant module that supports the CASv1 and CASv2 protocols
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=516284 Mark Chappell changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Mark Chappell 2010-06-25 07:53:50 EDT --- Apologies for the delay in getting back to you. Niggles have been mostly been fixed, APPROVED. There's an RPM Lint warning about mixed use of tabs and spaces, please switch the tabs on line 3,4,18 and 20 to spaces prior to import. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2271966 I'm happy to comaintain if you'd like, and would specifically request an EL-6 branch while you're at it. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 580873] Review Request: libdb - Oracle Berkeley DB version 5
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=580873 Paul Howarth changed: What|Removed |Added CC||p...@city-fan.org --- Comment #11 from Paul Howarth 2010-06-25 07:53:44 EDT --- Now that libdb is established in Rawhide, and compat-db includes a db4 implementation, is it now time to retire db4? Doing it this early in the F14 cycle will allow time for the FTBFS bugs that will inevitably arise from this to be resolved. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 607875] Review Request: perl-Net-IMAP-Simple-SSL - Simple IMAP account handling with SSL
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=607875
Mark Chappell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||trem...@tremble.org.uk
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|trem...@tremble.org.uk
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Mark Chappell 2010-06-25 07:43:08
EDT ---
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines including the Perl specific items
[x] Versioned MODULE_COMPAT_ Requires
[x] Non-Versioned CPAN URL tag
[x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture.
Tested on: epel-5-i386 in mock
[!] Rpmlint output:
perl-Net-IMAP-Simple-SSL.noarch: E: description-line-too-long Perl extension
for simple IMAP account handling, mostly compatible with Net::POP3.
perl-Net-IMAP-Simple-SSL.src: E: description-line-too-long Perl extension for
simple IMAP account handling, mostly compatible with Net::POP3.
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings.
[x] Package is not relocatable.
[x] Buildroot is correct
Buildroot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
[x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type: GPL+ or Artistic
[-] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package is included in %doc.
[x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
SRPM : 86f5e996ff9adadbc849aadc351eca81
Downloaded : 86f5e996ff9adadbc849aadc351eca81
[x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch
[x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[-] The spec file handles locales properly.
[-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x] Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x] Permissions on files are set properly.
[x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -fR $RPM_BUILD_ROOT.
[x] Package consistently uses macros.
[x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Static libraries in -static subpackage, if present.
[-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present.
[-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
[-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
[x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
[x] Latest version is packaged.
[x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
Tested locally with local copy of perl-Net-IMAP-Simple
[x] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
Tested locally with local copy of perl-Net-IMAP-Simple
[x] Package functions as described.
[x] Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct.
[-] File based requires are sane.
[x] %check is present and the tests pass if appropriate
=== Comments ===
I don't consider the RPM Lint errors to be a blocker, however it would be nice
to have these fixed on import. Provisionally APPROVED pending
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=607876 will set the flag once
perl-Net-IMAP-Simple's tests are fixed (extra BRs needed)
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedorap
[Bug 607778] Review Request: xnoise-plugins-core - Core plugins for xnoise
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=607778 --- Comment #2 from Michel Alexandre Salim 2010-06-25 07:43:31 EDT --- Yes, that should be sqlite-devel. I added the sqlite dependency after the last local SRPM rebuild, and ought to have tested the final SRPM too. Apologies. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 607876] Review Request: perl-Net-IMAP-Simple - Simple IMAP account handling
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=607876
Mark Chappell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||trem...@tremble.org.uk
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|trem...@tremble.org.uk
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Mark Chappell 2010-06-25 07:24:43
EDT ---
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines including the Perl specific items
[x] Versioned MODULE_COMPAT_ Requires
[x] Non-Versioned CPAN URL tag
[x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture.
Tested on: epel-5-i386 in mock
[!] Rpmlint output:
perl-Net-IMAP-Simple.noarch: E: description-line-too-long Perl extension for
simple IMAP account handling, mostly compatible with Net::POP3.
perl-Net-IMAP-Simple.src: E: description-line-too-long Perl extension for
simple IMAP account handling, mostly compatible with Net::POP3.
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings.
[x] Package is not relocatable.
[x] Buildroot is correct
Buildroot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
[x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type: GPL+ or Artistic
[-] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package is included in %doc.
[x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
SRPM : bafc6db379391051cfd311c1430234f9
Downloaded : bafc6db379391051cfd311c1430234f9
[x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch
[x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[-] The spec file handles locales properly.
[-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x] Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x] Permissions on files are set properly.
[x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -fR $RPM_BUILD_ROOT.
[x] Package consistently uses macros.
[x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Static libraries in -static subpackage, if present.
[-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present.
[-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
[-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
[x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
[x] Latest version is packaged.
[x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
Tested on: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2271908
[x] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
Tested on: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2271908
[x] Package functions as described.
[x] Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct.
[-] File based requires are sane.
[!] %check is present and the tests pass if appropriate
error starting imap server: No such file or directoryBase class package
"Class::Accessor" is empty.
=== Comments ===
Description line is 83 characters and should probably have a line break before
72.
Adding BuildRequires perl(Regexp::Common) and perl(Class::Accessor) appears to
be required for the tests.
Might possibly be covered by
# Tests which require network or display access should be disabled for the
buildsystem, but with a method provided for local builds
however there's no disabling or localbuild provision in the sp
[Bug 606064] Review Request: libfc14audiodecoder - C wrapper library for Future Composer audio decoding
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=606064 Michel Alexandre Salim changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||michael.silva...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|michael.silva...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Michel Alexandre Salim 2010-06-25 07:23:09 EDT --- Everything looks in good shape. APPROVED * DONE Review [100%] ** DONE Names [2/2] *** DONE Package name *** DONE Spec name ** DONE Meets [[http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines][guidelines]] ** DONE source files match upstream sha1sum: f11f7aff4f59c669a07a5f3481cb69505270b008 ** DONE License [3/3] *** DONE License is Fedora-approved *** DONE License field accurate all C++ source files have the "later version" provision *** DONE License included iff packaged by upstream ** DONE rpmlint [2/2] *** DONE on src.rpm libfc14audiodecoder.src: E: unknown-key GPG#b8af1c54 -> private signing key, ignoring "error" libfc14audiodecoder.src: W: no-buildroot-tag -> fine for F-13+ *** DONE on x86_64.rpm Spurious warnings from rpmlint spellcheck; can be ignored ** DONE Language & locale [3/3] *** DONE Spec in US English *** DONE Spec legible *** N/A Use %find_lang to handle locale files ** DONE Build [3/3] *** DONE Koji results http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2271926 *** DONE BRs complete *** DONE Directory ownership ** DONE Spec inspection [8/8] *** DONE ldconfig for libraries *** DONE No duplicate files *** DONE File permissions *** DONE Filenames must be UTF-8 *** DONE Has %clean section (except F-13+: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#.25clean) *** DONE %buildroot cleaned on %install 2*** DONE Macro usage consistent *** DONE Documentation [2/2] N/A If large docs, separate -doc DONE %doc files are non-essential *** DONE Development [5/5] DONE Headers in -devel DONE If versioned .so's, unversioned in -devel N/A Static only if necessary, put in -static DONE -devel, -static requires main DONE No .la -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 607777] Review Request: xnoise - Tracklist-centric Media Player
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=60
--- Comment #4 from Michel Alexandre Salim
2010-06-25 07:05:12 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> > %{_datadir}/vala/vapi/xnoise-1.0.*
>
> Nothing pulls in vala when installing xnoise-devel, but vala is the package
> that owns the vala/vapi directories. You either need to include these
> directories with the same permissions as in "vala" or require "vala":
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_and_Directory_Ownership
>
Thanks. I initially Req:ed vala, then thought that was unnecessary but forgot
to own the directory as well.
> * rpmlint:
>
> xnoise.x86_64: E: incorrect-locale-subdir
> /usr/share/locale/default/LC_MESSAGES/xnoise.mo
>
> Indeed looks like a file you ought to delete or %exclude.
Probably cleaner to delete it, and before %find_lang is run; not sure how
%exclude interacts with the file listing generated by %find_lang
>
>
> * Should xnoise play _all_ files understood by GStreamer? For example, with
> gstreamer-plugins-ugly installed, it plays .sid files (MIME type
> audio/prs.sid). But with gstreamer-plugins-fc installed, it doesn't recognize
> .fc files (which are played by rhythmbox, on the contrary).
Sounds like a bug that should be filed upstream.
> * Translations are far from complete. The de_DE translation module is mostly
> useless.
In this case, should it be excluded, or should I ship it anyway? (will keep it
in the current revision, but please let me know if it's better to exclude such
files)
>
>
> * Other than that, the packaging is fine, and the app works.
Thanks. Updated SRPM here:
http://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/gnome/xnoise-0.1.6-2.fc13.src.rpm
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 607778] Review Request: xnoise-plugins-core - Core plugins for xnoise
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=607778 Michael Schwendt changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mschwe...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Michael Schwendt 2010-06-25 06:50:58 EDT --- "sqlite3-devel" isn't found here. Will see how far it goes with "sqlite-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 607777] Review Request: xnoise - Tracklist-centric Media Player
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=60
Michael Schwendt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||mschwe...@gmail.com
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mschwe...@gmail.com
--- Comment #3 from Michael Schwendt 2010-06-25 06:33:17
EDT ---
> SRPM URL:
http://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/gnome/xnoise-0.1.6-1.fc13.src.rpm
$ sha1sum xnoise-0.1.6.tar.gz
224d328f928f7aa016309df9d307cd42da71f026 xnoise-0.1.6.tar.gz
> %{_datadir}/vala/vapi/xnoise-1.0.*
Nothing pulls in vala when installing xnoise-devel, but vala is the package
that owns the vala/vapi directories. You either need to include these
directories with the same permissions as in "vala" or require "vala":
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_and_Directory_Ownership
Precedent for "multiple ownership of vala dirs": libcanberra-devel -> bug
523473
* rpmlint:
xnoise.x86_64: E: incorrect-locale-subdir
/usr/share/locale/default/LC_MESSAGES/xnoise.mo
Indeed looks like a file you ought to delete or %exclude.
* Should xnoise play _all_ files understood by GStreamer? For example, with
gstreamer-plugins-ugly installed, it plays .sid files (MIME type
audio/prs.sid). But with gstreamer-plugins-fc installed, it doesn't recognize
.fc files (which are played by rhythmbox, on the contrary).
* Translations are far from complete. The de_DE translation module is mostly
useless.
* Other than that, the packaging is fine, and the app works.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 586433] Review Request: Xnoise, a media player for gtk+ written in vala
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=586433 Michel Alexandre Salim changed: What|Removed |Added CC||michael.silva...@gmail.com Resolution|NOTABUG |DUPLICATE --- Comment #11 from Michel Alexandre Salim 2010-06-25 06:13:22 EDT --- Thanks. I'm making this request a duplicate of the new one, so interested parties get transferred over. @Chen Lei -- xnoise-plugins-core is a separate review that depends on the new xnoise review *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 60 *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 607777] Review Request: xnoise - Tracklist-centric Media Player
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=60 Michel Alexandre Salim changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rtn...@gmail.com --- Comment #2 from Michel Alexandre Salim 2010-06-25 06:13:22 EDT --- *** Bug 586433 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 603630] Review Request: impallari-lobster-fonts - Hand written font with various ligatures for better connecting of letters
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=603630 Pravin Satpute changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Pravin Satpute 2010-06-25 05:55:58 EDT --- + package scratch builds in koji . koji Build =>http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2271718 + rpmlint is silent for SRPM and for RPM. impallari-lobster-fonts.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided lobster-fonts it ok, since lobster-fonts was built only for devel impallari-lobster-fonts.src: W: no-buildroot-tag not required from f13 + source files match upstream url 75f2cdd1806c4096fb2213edd92e119d lobster-font-1.3.zip + package meets naming and packaging guidelines. + specfile is properly named, is cleanly written + Spec file is written in American English. + Spec file is legible. + dist tag is present. + license is open source-compatible. + license text is included in package. + %doc is present. + BuildRequires are proper. + %clean is present. + package installed properly. + Macro use appears rather consistent. + Package contains code, not content. + no headers or static libraries. + no .pc file present. + no -devel subpackage + no .la files. + no translations are available + Does owns the directories it creates. + fonts scriptlets present. + no duplicates in %files. + file permissions are appropriate. + Not a GUI application + Approved suggestion: It will be good if upstream release fonts with only family name and update version in version field of fonts presently version= 001.001 and family name is changes with "Family Name +Version" lobster 1.3 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 586433] Review Request: Xnoise, a media player for gtk+ written in vala
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=586433 Ratnadeep Debnath changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NOTABUG --- Comment #10 from Ratnadeep Debnath 2010-06-25 05:26:52 EDT --- I will not be available for some days, till 1st week of July 2010. Michel Alexandre Salim (http://salimma.fedorapeople.org/) wanted to package this. So he may take up xnoise for packaging. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 603630] Review Request: impallari-lobster-fonts - Hand written font with various ligatures for better connecting of letters
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=603630 Pravin Satpute changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||psatp...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|psatp...@redhat.com Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 603632] Review Request: typemade-josefinsansstd-light-fonts - This typeface was to made for geometric, elegant titling and kind of vintage
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=603632 Pravin Satpute changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||psatp...@redhat.com, ||tcall...@redhat.com --- Comment #2 from Pravin Satpute 2010-06-25 05:09:35 EDT --- blocking on FE-LEGAL for clarification on license -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 603632] Review Request: typemade-josefinsansstd-light-fonts - This typeface was to made for geometric, elegant titling and kind of vintage
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=603632 --- Comment #1 from Pravin Satpute 2010-06-25 05:07:24 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=426804) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=426804) EULA file included in upstream release i tried to search for license, nothing is mentioned in 1) font file .ttf 2) on website i am not very much clear from the EULA file about the license -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 603631] Review Request: moyogo-molengo-fonts - A Latin typeface for documents
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=603631 Pravin Satpute changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Pravin Satpute 2010-06-25 04:38:13 EDT --- + package builds in mock (rawhide i686). koji Build =>http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2271541 + rpmlint is silent for SRPM and for RPM. moyogo-molengo-fonts.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided moyogo-fonts its ok since obsoleted font is only build for devel + source files match upstream url 1044df3a2397294f6b7cbbc30dfcacf4 Molengo-fonts.7z + package meets naming and packaging guidelines. + specfile is properly named, is cleanly written + Spec file is written in American English. + Spec file is legible. + dist tag is present. + license is open source-compatible. + License text is included in package. + %doc is present. + BuildRequires are proper. + %clean is present. + package installed properly. + Macro use appears rather consistent. + no headers or static libraries. + no .pc file present. + no -devel subpackage + no .la files. + no translations are available + Does owns the directories it creates. + fonts scriptlets present. + no duplicates in %files. + file permissions are appropriate. + Not a GUI application + Aproved -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 604500] Review Request: ibus-input-pad - Input Pad for IBus
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=604500 Jens Petersen changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #8 from Jens Petersen 2010-06-25 04:15:41 EDT --- cvs done -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 603634] Review Request: python-robofab - reads and writes UFO font files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=603634
--- Comment #7 from Chen Lei 2010-06-25 03:12:03 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> (In reply to comment #5)
> > Some suggestions:
> > 1.Group: Development/Languages->Group:
> > Development/Libraries
> >
> > Development/Languages is for python runtime only.
> May I know where its documented? I think we can find many python-* packages in
> Fedora using Development/Languages
Long ago, I see rpm group definitions from an opensuse document, I can confirm
Development/Languages is for python/perl/ruby/lisp runtime only and not
appropriate for python modules. But I'm not sure if Development/Libraries is
right for python modules, but a lot of python modules in fedora already use
Development/Libraries as their group name.
See
http://en.opensuse.org/Packaging/SUSE_Package_Conventions/RPM_Groups#2.2._Development
> > 2.
> > It'll be better add %check to the spec after %install, then del robofab/test
> >
> > %check
> > PYTHONPATH=%{buildroot}%{python_sitelib} python
> > RoboFab/robofab/test/runAll.py
> >
> Is this MUST by guidelines.
%check section is not mandatory in fedora packaging guideline yet it depends on
packages/maintainers, but it'll be better to add %check in spec file if
possible.
Maybe the test can pass if we change the command to:
PYTHONPATH=RoboFab python RoboFab/robofab/test/runAll.py
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
