[Bug 613525] Review Request: klog - KLog is a Ham radio logging program for KDE
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=613525 manuel wolfshant changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from manuel wolfshant 2010-07-19 03:01:23 EDT --- 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 615869] New: Review Request: felix-shell - Apache Felix Shell Service
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: felix-shell - Apache Felix Shell Service https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=615869 Summary: Review Request: felix-shell - Apache Felix Shell Service Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: huw...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Target Release: --- Spec URL: http://huwang.fedorapeople.org/packages/felix-shell/felix-shell.spec SRPM URL: http://huwang.fedorapeople.org/packages/felix-shell/felix-shell-1.4.2-1.src.rpm Description: A simple OSGi command shell service. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 615868] New: Review Request: felix-parent - Parent Pom of Apache Felix
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: felix-parent - Parent Pom of Apache Felix https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=615868 Summary: Review Request: felix-parent - Parent Pom of Apache Felix Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: huw...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Target Release: --- Spec URL: http://huwang.fedorapeople.org/packages/felix-parent/felix-parent.spec SRPM URL: http://huwang.fedorapeople.org/packages/felix-parent/felix-parent-1.2.1-1.src.rpm Description: Apache Felix is an OSGi implementation. Scratch built in koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2328206 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 615868] Review Request: felix-parent - Parent Pom of Apache Felix
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=615868 huwang changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||615869 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 615869] Review Request: felix-shell - Apache Felix Shell 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=615869 huwang changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||615868 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 615577] Review Request: opencc - A library for conversion between traditional and simplified Chinese
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=615577 Chen Lei changed: What|Removed |Added CC||supercyp...@gmail.com Summary|Review Request: - |Review Request: opencc - A | |simplified Chinese -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 615129] Review Request: cjkuni-ukai-fonts - Chinese Unicode TrueType font in Kai face
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=615129 --- Comment #3 from Peng Wu 2010-07-19 03:52:06 EDT --- New rpm spec for reviewing: Spec URL: http://pwu.fedorapeople.org/cjkuni-ukai-fonts/cjkuni-ukai-fonts.spec SRPM URL: http://pwu.fedorapeople.org/cjkuni-ukai-fonts/cjkuni-ukai-fonts-0.2.20080216.1-44.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 615128] Review Request: cjkuni-uming-fonts - Chinese Unicode TrueType font in Ming face
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=615128 --- Comment #3 from Peng Wu 2010-07-19 03:50:10 EDT --- New rpm spec for reviewing: Spec URL: http://pwu.fedorapeople.org/cjkuni-uming-fonts/cjkuni-uming-fonts.spec SRPM URL: http://pwu.fedorapeople.org/cjkuni-uming-fonts/cjkuni-uming-fonts-0.2.20080216.1-44.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 615192] Review Request: cjkuni-fonts-ghostscript -Chinese Unicode TrueType font ghostscript 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=615192 --- Comment #1 from Peng Wu 2010-07-19 03:53:49 EDT --- New rpm spec for reviewing: Spec URL: http://pwu.fedorapeople.org/cjkuni-fonts-ghostscript/cjkuni-fonts-ghostscript.spec SRPM URL: http://pwu.fedorapeople.org/cjkuni-fonts-ghostscript/cjkuni-fonts-ghostscript-0.2.20080216.1-44.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 609079] Review Request: R-GenomicRanges - Representation and manipulation of genomic intervals
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=609079 --- Comment #3 from Pierre-YvesChibon 2010-07-19 03:55:53 EDT --- Update: Spec URL: http://pingou.fedorapeople.org/RPMs/R-GenomicRanges.spec SRPM URL: http://pingou.fedorapeople.org/RPMs/R-GenomicRanges-1.0.6-1.fc13.src.rpm * Mon Jul 19 2010 pingou 1.0.6-1 - Update to 1.0.6 - End directory by / in %%files - Change URL - Fix typo in the comment of check (dependencies) - Add dependencie to R-IRanges-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 608421] Review Request: perl-Test-Without-Module - Test fallback behaviour in absence of modules
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=608421 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System 2010-07-19 04:04:00 EDT --- perl-Test-Without-Module-0.17-2.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Test-Without-Module-0.17-2.fc13 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 608421] Review Request: perl-Test-Without-Module - Test fallback behaviour in absence of modules
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=608421 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System 2010-07-19 04:04:05 EDT --- perl-Test-Without-Module-0.17-2.fc12 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 12. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Test-Without-Module-0.17-2.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 516539] Review Request: globus-gram-job-manager-setup-lsf - Globus Toolkit - LSF Job Manager Setup
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=516539
--- Comment #5 from Mattias Ellert 2010-07-19
04:27:04 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> * %{perl_vendorlib}/Globus is already owned by
> globus-gram-job-manager-scripts
> which is required by this package. You need to own
> %{perl_vendorlib}/Globus/GRAM instead.
This is due to some peculiarities in Perl packaging as explained here:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Perl#Directory_Ownership
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 516538] Review Request: globus-gram-job-manager-setup-condor - Globus Toolkit - Condor Job Manager Setup
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=516538
--- Comment #4 from Mattias Ellert 2010-07-19
04:27:02 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> ? Can you explain in the spec file where Source1 comes from, or its upstream
> status? Why do we need it instead of what comes with the default installation?
Upstream detects the architecture at compilation time and hardcodes the values.
I wanted this to be a noarch-package so I have moved the architecture detection
to the script to be done at runtime instead. I'll add some comment in the
specfile.
> * %{perl_vendorlib}/Globus is already owned by
> globus-gram-job-manager-scripts
> which is required by this package. You need to own
> %{perl_vendorlib}/Globus/GRAM instead.
This is due to some peculiarities in Perl packaging as explained here:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Perl#Directory_Ownership
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 516537] Review Request: globus-gram-job-manager-setup-fork - Globus Toolkit - Fork Job Manager Setup
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=516537
--- Comment #8 from Mattias Ellert 2010-07-19
04:26:58 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> Oh I found a minor issue. Please correct this before you commit:
> ! You don't need to own the directory %{perl_vendorlib}/Globus by this
> package.
> That is already owned by globus-gram-job-manager-scripts which is required by
> this package. Instead, you should own %{perl_vendorlib}/Globus/GRAM
This is due to some peculiarities in Perl packaging as explained here:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Perl#Directory_Ownership
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 510864] Review Request: colorize - Perl script to colorize logs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=510864 --- Comment #9 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) 2010-07-19 04:28:43 EDT --- What worth adding external AUTHORS file, when authors did not done it? Futhermore, we put url (in the comments) on saved page where they are mentioned for history. Thanks for spell 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 510864] Review Request: colorize - Perl script to colorize logs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=510864 --- Comment #10 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) 2010-07-19 04:30:27 EDT --- Sorry, last comment for another bug (trafshow). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 516537] Review Request: globus-gram-job-manager-setup-fork - Globus Toolkit - Fork Job Manager Setup
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=516537 Mattias Ellert changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #9 from Mattias Ellert 2010-07-19 04:33:43 EDT --- Thank you for the review! New Package CVS Request === Package Name: globus-gram-job-manager-setup-fork Short Description: Globus Toolkit - Fork Job Manager Setup Owners: ellert Branches: F-12 F-13 EL-4 EL-5 EL-6 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 510651] Review Request: trafshow - A tool for real-time network traffic visualization
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=510651 --- Comment #14 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) 2010-07-19 04:30:37 EDT --- What worth adding external AUTHORS file, when authors did not done it? Futhermore, we put url (in the comments) on saved page where they are mentioned for history. Thanks for spell 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 516539] Review Request: globus-gram-job-manager-setup-lsf - Globus Toolkit - LSF Job Manager Setup
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=516539 Mattias Ellert changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Mattias Ellert 2010-07-19 04:33:55 EDT --- Thank you for the review! New Package CVS Request === Package Name: globus-gram-job-manager-setup-lsf Short Description: Globus Toolkit - LSF Job Manager Setup Owners: ellert Branches: F-12 F-13 EL-4 EL-5 EL-6 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 516538] Review Request: globus-gram-job-manager-setup-condor - Globus Toolkit - Condor Job Manager Setup
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=516538 Mattias Ellert changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Mattias Ellert 2010-07-19 04:33:48 EDT --- Thank you for the review! New Package CVS Request === Package Name: globus-gram-job-manager-setup-condor Short Description: Globus Toolkit - Condor Job Manager Setup Owners: ellert Branches: F-12 F-13 EL-4 EL-5 EL-6 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 506425] Review Request: lightsquid - a light, small and fast log analyzer for squid proxy
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=506425 --- Comment #12 from manuel wolfshant 2010-07-19 04:41:45 EDT --- Only that now you install the CGI scripts below /var/www/html/lightsquid, but the /var/www/html path is not owned by anyone. To cut it short - you either need to Require: httpd (in order to have an onwer for /var/www/html) or - create the -apache subpackage as you have done in the initial spec, BUT do it correctly ( move CGI scripts and apache's config to it + Require: httpd). In my opinion requiring httpd by the log parser is not really a good idea, squid and httpd can very well run on different machines. Admins may choose to install the main package ( i.e. log parser) on the box running squid and transfer the resulted html pages to another box where a webserver ( not necessarily httpd -- I for one use lighttpd) runs -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 613646] Review Request: twlog - A simple day to day logging program for ham radio
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=613646 --- Comment #8 from manuel wolfshant 2010-07-19 04:53:52 EDT --- The configure script seems to have a small bug, it does not correctly check for the existence of libXpm.so on x86_64. Please compare the x86 build.log (http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=2323280&name=build.log ) and the x86_64 one (http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=2323279&name=build.log ). i.e.: checking for Xbae... libraries default path, headers default path checking for /usr/lib/libXpm.so... yes checking for XpmCreatePixmapFromData in -lXpm... yes versus checking for Xbae... libraries default path, headers default path checking for /usr/lib/libXpm.so... no checking for /usr/lib/X11/libXpm.so... no checking for /usr/X11R6/lib/libXpm.so... no checking for /usr/X11/lib/libXpm.so... no configure: WARNING: "Can't find the Xpm library on your system." configure: WARNING: "The window icon will not be created." -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 615128] Review Request: cjkuni-uming-fonts - Chinese Unicode TrueType font in Ming face
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=615128 --- Comment #4 from Parag AN(पराग) 2010-07-19 04:58:17 EDT --- few more fixes this package needs 1) you don't need obsoletes for cjkunifonts-uming , we should keep them for 2 releases and as I see last rename happened around F11 development cycle. 2) build.log showed warning: File listed twice: /etc/fonts/conf.d/65-0-ttf-arphic-uming.conf warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/fontconfig/conf.avail/65-0-ttf-arphic-uming.conf This happened as those entries are written manually which are actually part of %_font_pkg macro 3) Drop INSTALL file which is not needed as we install this package using yum. Drop zero-length file TODO 4) I see there are 3 fontconfig files but only one is installed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 520463] Review Request: perl-common-sense - "Common sense" Perl defaults
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=520463 Lubomir Rintel changed: What|Removed |Added CC||lkund...@v3.sk Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #12 from Lubomir Rintel 2010-07-19 05:07:35 EDT --- Package Change Request == Package Name: perl-common-sense New Branches: EL-6 Owners: lkundrak Maintainer did not respond to mail and I need this as dependency. Mail was sent at: Date: Fri, 09 Jul 2010 11:42:01 +0200 I'd be glad if maintained this though; if he ever expresses will to do so, I'll gladly hand this to him in pkgdb. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 485652] Review Request: navit - Car navigation system with routing engine
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485652
--- Comment #66 from Peter Lemenkov 2010-07-19 05:07:18
EDT ---
Ok. summarizing of what should be done:
* Interestingly, it fails to build on F-14 but builds fine on F-13:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2328357 (F-14)
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2328369 (F-13)
This must be fixed.
* rpmlint isn't silent:
work ~/Desktop: rpmlint navit-*
navit.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gpsd -> gypsy, Gypsy,
gypsum
navit.i686: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.1.2-0.2.20090918svn2578
['0.1.2-0.3.20100521svn3291.fc13', '0.1.2-0.3.20100521svn3291']
navit.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary navit
navit.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary maptool
navit-graphics-qt.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xml -> XML,
cml, ml
navit-graphics-qt.i686: W: no-documentation
navit-graphics-sdl.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xml -> XML,
cml, ml
navit-graphics-sdl.i686: W: no-documentation
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings.
work ~/Desktop:
Don't forget to add proper %%changelog entry for every src.rpm version bump.
All other messages should be discarded
* The package contains *.la files. Please, remove them.
* You dont use parallel make - please, add note, that this package can't be
build with parallel make or enable it.
*. I advice you to provide README.Fedora as the Source{X}, instead of creating
it in spec. Since it doesn't contain mutable parts (such as %{libdir}), then no
need to create every rebuild (this also reduces size of spec to review). Not a
blocker - feel free to reject/ignore this particular advice.
* The package doesn't own /etc/navit dir.
* Please, add the following files as %doc:
COPYING
COPYRIGHT
GPL-2
LGPL-2
* navit still contains large parts from some packages, available in Fedora.
Please, remove them before building (at %prep stage). Namely:
'navit/support' directory is full of duplicated libraries.
'navit/map/shapefile' contains parts of shapelib
'navit/map/poi_geodownload' contains mdbtools
it also contains librafy for operations with fibonnaci numbers under
'navit/fib-1.1' directory, but it seems that it wasn't included in Fedora yet,
so it's safe to keep 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 485652] Review Request: navit - Car navigation system with routing engine
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485652 --- Comment #67 from Peter Lemenkov 2010-07-19 05:08:56 EDT --- Oops! Please, disregard my comment about "mdbtools" - this was a copypaste typo -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 615128] Review Request: cjkuni-uming-fonts - Chinese Unicode TrueType font in Ming face
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=615128
--- Comment #5 from Parag AN(पराग) 2010-07-19 05:10:08 EDT
---
4) oops my eyes missed that you used wildcard character "*" . So all 3
fontconfigs are getting installed.
so here is the fix. Use following
%_font_pkg -f *.conf *.ttc
and remove following 2 lines
%{_fontconfig_templatedir}/*-ttf-arphic-uming*.conf
%{_fontconfig_confdir}/*-ttf-arphic-uming*.conf
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 591192] Review Request: dh-make - Tool that converts source archives into Debian package source
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=591192 --- Comment #4 from Miroslav Suchý 2010-07-19 05:28:29 EDT --- Sorry still some issues: $ rpmlint /home/msuchy/rpmbuild/SRPMS/dh-make-0.46-2.el6.src.rpm dh-make.src:17: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 17) I suppose rpmlint check only first line where is mixed tab and line, so you should check all lines or run rpmlint recursively after you think you fixed the problem. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 506425] Review Request: lightsquid - a light, small and fast log analyzer for squid proxy
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=506425 --- Comment #13 from Aleksey Popkov 2010-07-19 05:49:17 EDT --- Added Require: httpd. Spec URL: http://aleksey2005.fedorapeople.org/lightsquid.spec Now SRPM package not change. ) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 226094] Merge Review: libXxf86dga
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226094 Thomas Spura changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Thomas Spura 2010-07-19 05:51:50 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2) > (In reply to comment #1) > > Needswork: > > - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Parallel_make > done > > - please use INSTALL="install -p", when installing > done > > > - libXxf86dga.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary C libXxf86dga > > A slightly bigger description wouldn't hurt. > > no, people may be tempted to use it then ;) Heh, that's to risky.^^ > > - libXxf86dga.src:51: W: macro-in-comment %doc -> should be %%doc > removed > > > - %doc: There is also a README > > added. Thanks. > > Not much to do, but not approving this now, because this is a merge review > > and > > not a normal package review... > > out of interest: the package has been around for ages, what would the formal > approval really do? The packages needing merge reviews used to be in Fedora Core and did not get any review yet. This makes sure, that they don't violate the guidelines (e.g. have a correct license and so on). In this case it was more a cosmetic issue, but e.g. the python guidelines changed quite a lot, so python packages in the merge review queue will need more changes. (That's the reason, why I started with xorg-x11-* ones ;-)) Also see (Don't know, why that's a draft...): https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Merge_Reviews http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2010-July/138566.html -- 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 227127] Review Request: xpp3-1.1.3.4-1.o.2jpp - XML Pull 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=227127 Lubomir Rintel changed: What|Removed |Added CC||lkund...@v3.sk Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #11 from Lubomir Rintel 2010-07-19 05:54:37 EDT --- Package Change Request == Package Name: xpp3 New Branches: EL-6 Owners: lkundrak I have a package that depends on this. I mailed the maintainer, but he orphaned the package in devel and forwarded the message to dbhole. He neither picked the package in Fedora yet, nor responded yet. I'll be very happy to pass maintainership of the branch to him if he expressed will to take care of it. Mail date header (of the response cced to dbhole, not my original message): Mon, 12 Jul 2010 17:05:46 -0400 (07/12/2010 11:05:46 PM) -- 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 591192] Review Request: dh-make - Tool that converts source archives into Debian package source
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=591192
--- Comment #5 from Miroslav Suchý 2010-07-19 05:55:17 EDT
---
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines
[x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture.
tested in: F13/koji
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2328494
[!] Rpmlint output:
See previous comment
[x] Package is not relocatable.
[x] Buildroot is correct
%(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XX)
[x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
[!] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
GPLv2+ vs. GPLv3 - see bottom of this comment
[x] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package is included in %doc.
[x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
$ sha256sum dh-make_0.46.tar.gz ../SOURCES/dh-make_0.46.tar.gz
a6b8bc9384e7855148388232b4ce5b596648b2edd6ec80ee664583cfdd5cc902
dh-make_0.46.tar.gz
a6b8bc9384e7855148388232b4ce5b596648b2edd6ec80ee664583cfdd5cc902
../SOURCES/dh-make_0.46.tar.gz
[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 -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present.
[-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[-] 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 ===
[!] Latest version is packaged.
New version 0.55 is available
[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: koji scratch build
[x] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
Tested on:koji scratch build
[x] Package functions as described.
[-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct.
[x] File based requires are sane.
[-] %check is present and the tests pass
Problems to fix:
1) rpmlint error - see comment #4
2) In spec is: License:GPLv3+
But in /usr/share/doc/dh-make-0.46/copyright is "... either version 2 of the
License, or (at your option) any later version."
According my investigation 0.46 version was released under GPLv2+ and 0.55
version is released under GPLv3+
3) Suggested - package version 0.55 instead of 0.46
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 227125] Review Request: xom-1.0-3jpp - XML Pull 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=227125 Lubomir Rintel changed: What|Removed |Added CC||lkund...@v3.sk Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Lubomir Rintel 2010-07-19 05:56:01 EDT --- Package Change Request == Package Name: xom New Branches: EL-6 Owners: lkundrak I have a package that depends on this. I mailed the maintainer, but he orphaned the package in devel and forwarded the message to dbhole. He neither picked the package in Fedora yet, nor responded yet. I'll be very happy to pass maintainership of the branch to him if he expressed will to take care of it. Mail date header (of the response cced to dbhole, not my original message): Mon, 12 Jul 2010 17:05:46 -0400 (07/12/2010 11:05:46 PM) -- 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 615847] Review Request: oflb-asana-math-fonts - An OpenType font with a MATH table
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=615847 Ankur Sinha changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||sanjay.an...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|sanjay.an...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 615848] Review Request: oflb-brettfont-fonts - A handwriting font
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=615848 Ankur Sinha changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||sanjay.an...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|sanjay.an...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 615848] Review Request: oflb-brettfont-fonts - A handwriting font
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=615848 Paul Flo Williams changed: What|Removed |Added CC||p...@frixxon.co.uk --- Comment #1 from Paul Flo Williams 2010-07-19 06:07:05 EDT --- http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:FontsPolicy#Naming "When foundryname, projectname or fontfamilyname contain the font or fonts affix, this affix should be dropped from them" The name of this package should be oflb-brett-fonts. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 615848] Review Request: oflb-brettfont-fonts - A handwriting font
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=615848 --- Comment #2 from Ankur Sinha 2010-07-19 06:21:19 EDT --- Thanks Paul. Parag: I'll do the review once the package name has been corrected. Ankur -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 606498] Review Request: hwloc - portable abstraction of hierarchical architectures
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=606498 --- Comment #19 from Jiri Hladky 2010-07-19 06:19:04 EDT --- Hi Mamoru, I'm back from vacation. Brice has prepared release candidate for version 1.0.2. Please find updated SPEC file and SRPM below: Spec URL: http://jhladky.fedorapeople.org/hwloc-1.0.2-0.1.rc1r2330.spec MD5: a53baaacf2efcfc1a7f845bedeb4778b SRPM URL: http://jhladky.fedorapeople.org/hwloc-1.0.2-0.1.rc1r2330.fc12.src.rpm MD5: acc4e6a57c20c833550126695a060691 Thanks Jirka -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 615847] Review Request: oflb-asana-math-fonts - An OpenType font with a MATH table
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=615847
Ankur Sinha changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Ankur Sinha 2010-07-19 06:20:22
EDT ---
REVIEW:
+ OK
? ISSUE
- NA
+ Package meets naming and packaging guidelines
+ Spec file matches base package name.
+ Spec has consistant macro usage.
+ Meets Packaging Guidelines.
+ License
+ License field in spec matches
+ License file included in package
+ Spec in American English
+ Spec is legible.
- Sources match upstream md5sum:
- Package needs ExcludeArch
+ BuildRequires correct
- Spec handles locales/find_lang
- Package is relocatable and has a reason to be.
+ Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good.
? Package has a correct %clean section.
? Package has correct buildroot
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
+ Package is code or permissible content.
- Doc subpackage needed/used.
+ Packages %doc files don't affect runtime.
- Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage.
- Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun
- .pc files in -devel subpackage/requires pkgconfig
- .so files in -devel subpackage.
- -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
- .la files are removed.
- Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file
+ Package compiles and builds on at least one arch.
+ Package has no duplicate files in %files.
+ Package doesn't own any directories other packages own.
+ Package owns all the directories it creates.
? No rpmlint output.
SHOULD Items:
+ Should build in mock.
- Should build on all supported archs
- Should function as described.
- Should have sane scriptlets.
- Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend.
+ Should have dist tag
- Should package latest version
- check for outstanding bugs on package. (For core merge reviews)
Issues:
1. rpmlint output:
[an...@localhost SPECS]$ rpmlint oflb-asana-math-fonts.spec
../SRPMS/oflb-asana-math-fonts-0.914-8.fc13.src.rpm
/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/result/*.rpm
oflb-asana-math-fonts.spec: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install
oflb-asana-math-fonts.spec: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %clean
oflb-asana-math-fonts.spec: W: no-buildroot-tag
oflb-asana-math-fonts.spec: W: no-%clean-section
oflb-asana-math-fonts.spec: W: invalid-url Source0:
http://openfontlibrary.org/people/asyropoulos/asyropoulos_-_Asana_Math.otf HTTP
Error 404: Not Found
oflb-asana-math-fonts.src: W: invalid-url URL:
http://openfontlibrary.org/media/files/asyropoulos/219 HTTP Error 404: Not
Found
oflb-asana-math-fonts.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install
oflb-asana-math-fonts.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %clean
oflb-asana-math-fonts.src: W: no-buildroot-tag
oflb-asana-math-fonts.src: W: no-%clean-section
oflb-asana-math-fonts.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
http://openfontlibrary.org/people/asyropoulos/asyropoulos_-_Asana_Math.otf HTTP
Error 404: Not Found
oflb-asana-math-fonts.noarch: W: invalid-url URL:
http://openfontlibrary.org/media/files/asyropoulos/219 HTTP Error 404: Not
Found
oflb-asana-math-fonts.src: W: invalid-url URL:
http://openfontlibrary.org/media/files/asyropoulos/219 HTTP Error 404: Not
Found
oflb-asana-math-fonts.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install
oflb-asana-math-fonts.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %clean
oflb-asana-math-fonts.src: W: no-buildroot-tag
oflb-asana-math-fonts.src: W: no-%clean-section
oflb-asana-math-fonts.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
http://openfontlibrary.org/people/asyropoulos/asyropoulos_-_Asana_Math.otf HTTP
Error 404: Not Found
3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 18 warnings.
warnings ignorable.
I'm assuming the package is for F13+, otherwise you need to add the clean
section.
Please fix that. Rest is OK.
XXX Approved XXX
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 615849] Review Request: oflb-icelandic-fonts - Icelandic Magical Staves
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=615849 Ankur Sinha changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||sanjay.an...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|sanjay.an...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 592579] Review Request: Frama-c - Framework for source code analysis of C software
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=592579 --- Comment #42 from Richard W.M. Jones 2010-07-19 06:23:16 EDT --- (In reply to comment #41) > configure: error: gui requested but > /usr/lib64/ocaml/lablgtk2/lablgtksourceview2.cmxa missing. > > > The missing file is part of OCAML. Particularly it is part of LABLGTK, > however > it is part of lablgtk2 which has not been packaged so we will need to request > it be packaged, package it ourselves or find some solution. I dont know what > else may be missing but the newer version is looking at some effort. Is this a regression of bug 462651 I wonder? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 226358] Merge Review: rdesktop
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226358 Thomas Spura changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tm...@redhat.com, ||toms...@fedoraproject.org --- Comment #13 from Thomas Spura 2010-07-19 06:25:52 EDT --- Tomas Mraz recently rebuild this package -> CC'ing Maybe now we get some progress here. -- 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 506425] Review Request: lightsquid - a light, small and fast log analyzer for squid proxy
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=506425 --- Comment #14 from manuel wolfshant 2010-07-19 06:30:46 EDT --- Could you please explain why did you give up your initial idea of creating the separate lightsquid-apache package ? As I have already explained in #12, forcing the installation of httpd is not incorrect but awkward. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 615848] Review Request: oflb-brettfont-fonts - A handwriting font
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=615848 --- Comment #3 from Parag 2010-07-19 06:28:20 EDT --- Spec URL: http://paragn.fedorapeople.org/fedora-work/SPECS/oflb-brett-fonts.spec SRPM URL: http://paragn.fedorapeople.org/fedora-work/SRPMS/oflb-brett-fonts-20080506-7.fc13.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 615849] Review Request: oflb-icelandic-fonts - Icelandic Magical Staves
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=615849
Ankur Sinha changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Ankur Sinha 2010-07-19 06:37:37
EDT ---
+ OK
- NA
? ISSUE
+ Package meets naming and packaging guidelines
+ Spec file matches base package name.
+ Spec has consistant macro usage.
+ Meets Packaging Guidelines.
+ License
+ License field in spec matches
+ License file included in package
+ Spec in American English
+ Spec is legible.
- Sources match upstream md5sum:
- Package needs ExcludeArch
+ BuildRequires correct
- Spec handles locales/find_lang
- Package is relocatable and has a reason to be.
+ Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good.
? Package has a correct %clean section.
? Package has correct buildroot
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
+ Package is code or permissible content.
- Doc subpackage needed/used.
+ Packages %doc files don't affect runtime.
- Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage.
- Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun
- .pc files in -devel subpackage/requires pkgconfig
- .so files in -devel subpackage.
- -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
- .la files are removed.
- Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file
+ Package compiles and builds on at least one arch.
+ Package has no duplicate files in %files.
+ Package doesn't own any directories other packages own.
+ Package owns all the directories it creates.
? No rpmlint output.
SHOULD Items:
+ Should build in mock.
- Should build on all supported archs
- Should function as described.
- Should have sane scriptlets.
- Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend.
+ Should have dist tag
- Should package latest version
- check for outstanding bugs on package. (For core merge reviews)
Issues:
1. Again, please make sure the package is for F13+ since you're not using a
clean section etc.
2. rpmlint output:
[an...@localhost SPECS]$ rpmlint oflb-icelandic-fonts.spec
../SRPMS/oflb-icelandic-fonts-1.001-9.fc13.src.rpm
/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/result/*.rpm
oflb-icelandic-fonts.spec: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install
oflb-icelandic-fonts.spec: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %clean
oflb-icelandic-fonts.spec: W: no-buildroot-tag
oflb-icelandic-fonts.spec: W: no-%clean-section
oflb-icelandic-fonts.spec: W: invalid-url Source0:
http://openfontlibrary.org/people/asyropoulos/asyropoulos_-_Icelandic.otf HTTP
Error 404: Not Found
oflb-icelandic-fonts.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US staves ->
staved, stave, saves
oflb-icelandic-fonts.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US www -> WWW,
waw, wow
oflb-icelandic-fonts.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US galdrasyning
-> galvanizing, galligaskins, hydrastinine
oflb-icelandic-fonts.src: W: invalid-url URL:
http://openfontlibrary.org/media/files/asyropoulos/238 HTTP Error 404: Not
Found
oflb-icelandic-fonts.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install
oflb-icelandic-fonts.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %clean
oflb-icelandic-fonts.src: W: no-buildroot-tag
oflb-icelandic-fonts.src: W: no-%clean-section
oflb-icelandic-fonts.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
http://openfontlibrary.org/people/asyropoulos/asyropoulos_-_Icelandic.otf HTTP
Error 404: Not Found
oflb-icelandic-fonts.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US staves ->
staved, stave, saves
oflb-icelandic-fonts.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US www ->
WWW, waw, wow
oflb-icelandic-fonts.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
galdrasyning -> galvanizing, galligaskins, hydrastinine
oflb-icelandic-fonts.noarch: W: invalid-url URL:
http://openfontlibrary.org/media/files/asyropoulos/238 HTTP Error 404: Not
Found
oflb-icelandic-fonts.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US staves ->
staved, stave, saves
oflb-icelandic-fonts.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US www -> WWW,
waw, wow
oflb-icelandic-fonts.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US galdrasyning
-> galvanizing, galligaskins, hydrastinine
oflb-icelandic-fonts.src: W: invalid-url URL:
http://openfontlibrary.org/media/files/asyropoulos/238 HTTP Error 404: Not
Found
oflb-icelandic-fonts.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install
oflb-icelandic-fonts.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %clean
oflb-icelandic-fonts.src: W: no-buildroot-tag
oflb-icelandic-fonts.src: W: no-%clean-section
oflb-icelandic-fonts.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
http://openfontlibrary.org/people/asyropoulos/asyropoulos_-_Icelandic.otf HTTP
Error 404: Not Found
3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 27 warnings.
Ignorable warnings.
URL error due to dead font upstream
XXX APPROVED XXX
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab
[Bug 615850] Review Request: oflb-roadstencil-fonts - Roadstencil Fonts
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=615850 Ankur Sinha changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||sanjay.an...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|sanjay.an...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 226293] Merge Review: pfmon
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226293 Thomas Spura changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED CC||toms...@fedoraproject.org Resolution||WONTFIX AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|toms...@fedoraproject.org --- Comment #3 from Thomas Spura 2010-07-19 06:41:53 EDT --- According to: http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/devel/pfmon/dead.package?view=log this is obsoleted by perf. -> WONTFIX -- 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 537325] Review Request: lv2-fil-plugins - Four-band parametric equalisers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=537325 Mattias Ellert changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #20 from Mattias Ellert 2010-07-19 06:47:03 EDT --- I'm not sure anything got more clear for me after reading this explanation. As far as I can tell there seems to be different opinions regarding this expressed by different people, and either camp fails to provide the arguments necessary to convince the other that their point of view is correct. I still think that having only GPL2 as the License tag would be allowed, but there is not really anything wrong with listing all three either. Finding the ultimate answer for this issue is clearly beyond the scope of this one review, and waiting for that should not block its approval. 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 615850] Review Request: oflb-roadstencil-fonts - Roadstencil Fonts
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=615850
Ankur Sinha changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Ankur Sinha 2010-07-19 06:51:45
EDT ---
+ OK
? ISSUE
- NA
+ Package meets naming and packaging guidelines
+ Spec file matches base package name.
+ Spec has consistant macro usage.
+ Meets Packaging Guidelines.
+ License
+ License field in spec matches
+ License file included in package
+ Spec in American English
+ Spec is legible.
- Sources match upstream md5sum:
- Package needs ExcludeArch
+ BuildRequires correct
- Spec handles locales/find_lang
- Package is relocatable and has a reason to be.
+ Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good.
? Package has a correct %clean section.
? Package has correct buildroot
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
+ Package is code or permissible content.
- Doc subpackage needed/used.
+ Packages %doc files don't affect runtime.
- Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage.
- Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun
- .pc files in -devel subpackage/requires pkgconfig
- .so files in -devel subpackage.
- -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
- .la files are removed.
- Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file
+ Package compiles and builds on at least one arch.
+ Package has no duplicate files in %files.
+ Package doesn't own any directories other packages own.
+ Package owns all the directories it creates.
? No rpmlint output.
SHOULD Items:
+ Should build in mock.
- Should build on all supported archs
- Should function as described.
- Should have sane scriptlets.
- Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend.
+ Should have dist tag
- Should package latest version
- check for outstanding bugs on package. (For core merge reviews)
Issues:
1. Please correct the ChangeLog, you have the version wrong
"1.001-9" ? extra zero ?
XX MUSTFIX XX
2. rpmlint output:
[an...@localhost SPECS]$ rpmlint oflb-roadstencil-fonts.spec
../SRPMS/oflb-roadstencil-fonts-1.0-9.fc13.src.rpm
/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/result/*.rpm
oflb-roadstencil-fonts.spec: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install
oflb-roadstencil-fonts.spec: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %clean
oflb-roadstencil-fonts.spec: W: no-buildroot-tag
oflb-roadstencil-fonts.spec: W: no-%clean-section
oflb-roadstencil-fonts.spec: W: invalid-url Source0:
http://openfontlibrary.org/people/andyfitz/andyfitz_-_roadstencil.otf HTTP
Error 404: Not Found
oflb-roadstencil-fonts.src: W: invalid-url URL:
http://openfontlibrary.org/media/files/andyfitz/237 HTTP Error 404: Not Found
oflb-roadstencil-fonts.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install
oflb-roadstencil-fonts.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %clean
oflb-roadstencil-fonts.src: W: no-buildroot-tag
oflb-roadstencil-fonts.src: W: no-%clean-section
oflb-roadstencil-fonts.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
http://openfontlibrary.org/people/andyfitz/andyfitz_-_roadstencil.otf HTTP
Error 404: Not Found
oflb-roadstencil-fonts.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.001-9
['1.0-9.fc14', '1.0-9']
oflb-roadstencil-fonts.noarch: W: invalid-url URL:
http://openfontlibrary.org/media/files/andyfitz/237 HTTP Error 404: Not Found
oflb-roadstencil-fonts.src: W: invalid-url URL:
http://openfontlibrary.org/media/files/andyfitz/237 HTTP Error 404: Not Found
oflb-roadstencil-fonts.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install
oflb-roadstencil-fonts.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %clean
oflb-roadstencil-fonts.src: W: no-buildroot-tag
oflb-roadstencil-fonts.src: W: no-%clean-section
oflb-roadstencil-fonts.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
http://openfontlibrary.org/people/andyfitz/andyfitz_-_roadstencil.otf HTTP
Error 404: Not Found
3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 19 warnings.
Ignorable errors. URL error because of dead upstream.
Other than the version in the changelog, the package is OK.
Please fix that before you create a CVS module & build for rawhide etc.
XXX APPROVED XXX
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 506425] Review Request: lightsquid - a light, small and fast log analyzer for squid proxy
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=506425 --- Comment #15 from manuel wolfshant 2010-07-19 07:02:03 EDT --- Problems with version 4 of your spec file: - the %defattr line in %files should precede the file list. And is should not be commented, of course. - /etc/lightsquid/ is not owned - /var/www/html/lightsquid/ is not owned - /var/www/html/lightsquid/report/ is not owned -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 615851] Review Request: oflb-sportrop-fonts - A multiline decorative font
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=615851 Ankur Sinha changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||sanjay.an...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|sanjay.an...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 615848] Review Request: oflb-brettfont-fonts - A handwriting font
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=615848
--- Comment #4 from Ankur Sinha 2010-07-19 07:05:26
EDT ---
+ OK
- NA
? ISSUE
? Package meets naming and packaging guidelines
+ Spec file matches base package name.
+ Spec has consistant macro usage.
+ Meets Packaging Guidelines.
+ License
+ License field in spec matches
+ License file included in package
+ Spec in American English
+ Spec is legible.
- Sources match upstream md5sum:
- Package needs ExcludeArch
+ BuildRequires correct
- Spec handles locales/find_lang
- Package is relocatable and has a reason to be.
+ Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good.
? Package has a correct %clean section.
? Package has correct buildroot
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
+ Package is code or permissible content.
- Doc subpackage needed/used.
+ Packages %doc files don't affect runtime.
- Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage.
- Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun
- .pc files in -devel subpackage/requires pkgconfig
- .so files in -devel subpackage.
- -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
- .la files are removed.
- Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file
+ Package compiles and builds on at least one arch.
+ Package has no duplicate files in %files.
+ Package doesn't own any directories other packages own.
+ Package owns all the directories it creates.
? No rpmlint output.
SHOULD Items:
+ Should build in mock.
- Should build on all supported archs
- Should function as described.
- Should have sane scriptlets.
- Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend.
+ Should have dist tag
- Should package latest version
- check for outstanding bugs on package. (For core merge reviews)
Issues:
1. The ttf name is BrettFont1.1.ttf
Any particular reason why you're not using 1.1 as version and the time stamp
instead?
2. rpmlint output:
oflb-brett-fonts.spec: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install
oflb-brett-fonts.spec: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %clean
oflb-brett-fonts.spec: W: no-buildroot-tag
oflb-brett-fonts.spec: W: no-%clean-section
oflb-brett-fonts.src: W: invalid-url URL:
http://openfontlibrary.org/media/files/brettalton/205 HTTP Error 404: Not Found
oflb-brett-fonts.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install
oflb-brett-fonts.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %clean
oflb-brett-fonts.src: W: no-buildroot-tag
oflb-brett-fonts.src: W: no-%clean-section
oflb-brett-fonts.noarch: W: invalid-url URL:
http://openfontlibrary.org/media/files/brettalton/205 HTTP Error 404: Not Found
oflb-brett-fonts.src: W: invalid-url URL:
http://openfontlibrary.org/media/files/brettalton/205 HTTP Error 404: Not Found
oflb-brett-fonts.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install
oflb-brett-fonts.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %clean
oflb-brett-fonts.src: W: no-buildroot-tag
oflb-brett-fonts.src: W: no-%clean-section
3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 15 warnings.
Ignorable warnings.
Please check up the clean section and build root. I also think the version
would be better as 1.1 rather than the time stamp for this font.
I'll approve it once we have the version clarified.
Ankur
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 615851] Review Request: oflb-sportrop-fonts - A multiline decorative font
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=615851
Ankur Sinha changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Ankur Sinha 2010-07-19 07:16:36
EDT ---
+ OK
- NA
? ISSUE
+ Package meets naming and packaging guidelines
+ Spec file matches base package name.
+ Spec has consistant macro usage.
+ Meets Packaging Guidelines.
+ License
+ License field in spec matches
+ License file included in package
+ Spec in American English
+ Spec is legible.
- Sources match upstream md5sum:
- Package needs ExcludeArch
+ BuildRequires correct
- Spec handles locales/find_lang
- Package is relocatable and has a reason to be.
+ Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good.
? Package has a correct %clean section.
? Package has correct buildroot
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
+ Package is code or permissible content.
- Doc subpackage needed/used.
+ Packages %doc files don't affect runtime.
- Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage.
- Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun
- .pc files in -devel subpackage/requires pkgconfig
- .so files in -devel subpackage.
- -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
- .la files are removed.
- Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file
+ Package compiles and builds on at least one arch.
+ Package has no duplicate files in %files.
+ Package doesn't own any directories other packages own.
+ Package owns all the directories it creates.
? No rpmlint output.
SHOULD Items:
+ Should build in mock.
- Should build on all supported archs
- Should function as described.
- Should have sane scriptlets.
- Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend.
+ Should have dist tag
- Should package latest version
- check for outstanding bugs on package. (For core merge reviews)
Issues:
1.rpmlint output:
[an...@localhost SPECS]$ rpmlint oflb-sportrop-fonts.spec
../SRPMS/oflb-sportrop-fonts-0.9-8.fc13.src.rpm
/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/result/*.rpm
oflb-sportrop-fonts.spec: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install
oflb-sportrop-fonts.spec: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %clean
oflb-sportrop-fonts.spec: W: no-buildroot-tag
oflb-sportrop-fonts.spec: W: no-%clean-section
oflb-sportrop-fonts.spec: W: invalid-url Source0:
http://openfontlibrary.org/people/gluk/gluk_-_Sportrop.zip HTTP Error 404: Not
Found
oflb-sportrop-fonts.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) multiline ->
multilane, multilingual, multilevel
oflb-sportrop-fonts.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multiline ->
multilane, multilingual, multilevel
oflb-sportrop-fonts.src: W: invalid-url URL:
http://openfontlibrary.org/media/files/gluk/287 HTTP Error 404: Not Found
oflb-sportrop-fonts.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install
oflb-sportrop-fonts.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %clean
oflb-sportrop-fonts.src: W: no-buildroot-tag
oflb-sportrop-fonts.src: W: no-%clean-section
oflb-sportrop-fonts.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
http://openfontlibrary.org/people/gluk/gluk_-_Sportrop.zip HTTP Error 404: Not
Found
oflb-sportrop-fonts.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) multiline ->
multilane, multilingual, multilevel
oflb-sportrop-fonts.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multiline
-> multilane, multilingual, multilevel
oflb-sportrop-fonts.noarch: W: invalid-url URL:
http://openfontlibrary.org/media/files/gluk/287 HTTP Error 404: Not Found
oflb-sportrop-fonts.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) multiline ->
multilane, multilingual, multilevel
oflb-sportrop-fonts.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multiline ->
multilane, multilingual, multilevel
oflb-sportrop-fonts.src: W: invalid-url URL:
http://openfontlibrary.org/media/files/gluk/287 HTTP Error 404: Not Found
oflb-sportrop-fonts.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install
oflb-sportrop-fonts.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %clean
oflb-sportrop-fonts.src: W: no-buildroot-tag
oflb-sportrop-fonts.src: W: no-%clean-section
oflb-sportrop-fonts.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
http://openfontlibrary.org/people/gluk/gluk_-_Sportrop.zip HTTP Error 404: Not
Found
3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 24 warnings.
Ignorable warnings.
Please check the buildroot and clean section before you create a cvs module.
Rest looks okay.
XXX APPROVED XXX
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 506174] Review Request: qtdmm - a digital multimeter readout software
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=506174 --- Comment #21 from Andrew Zabolotny 2010-07-19 07:26:26 EDT --- I have Centos5 installed on one of my machines. If that's enough for doing preventive testing of the package, I can do 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 226023] Merge Review: libgsf
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226023
Thomas Spura changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||toms...@fedoraproject.org
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|toms...@fedoraproject.org
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Thomas Spura 2010-07-19
07:32:06 EDT ---
review:
GOOD:
- name ok
- license ok
- locales properly handled
- libs correctly installed
- no *.la
NEEDSWORK
- python subpackage does not require the mainpackage nor contains own COPYING*
files. You can choose between the two possibilities.
For more info see:
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel-announce/2010-July/000631.html
- $ rpmlint ./libgsf-1.14.18-2.fc13.src.rpm ./x86_64/libgsf-*
libgsf.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US eg -> Eg, eh, e
libgsf.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US eg -> Eg, eh, e
libgsf-devel.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/gsf-vba-dump
['/usr/lib64']
libgsf-devel.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/gsf
['/usr/lib64']
libgsf-gnome.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath
/usr/lib64/libgsf-gnome-1.so.114.0.18 ['/usr/lib64']
libgsf-gnome.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath
/usr/bin/gsf-office-thumbnailer ['/usr/lib64']
libgsf-gnome.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc
/etc/gconf/schemas/gsf-office-thumbnailer.schemas
libgsf-gnome-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
libgsf-python.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides
/usr/lib64/python2.6/site-packages/gsf/gnomemodule.so gnomemodule.so()(64bit)
libgsf-python.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides
/usr/lib64/python2.6/site-packages/gsf/_gsfmodule.so _gsfmodule.so()(64bit)
libgsf-python.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath
/usr/lib64/python2.6/site-packages/gsf/gnomemodule.so ['/usr/lib64']
libgsf-python.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath
/usr/lib64/python2.6/site-packages/gsf/_gsfmodule.so ['/usr/lib64']
libgsf-python.x86_64: W: no-documentation
7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 7 warnings.
See:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Removing_Rpath
- I needed to use 'rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT' and not just 'rm -r' in %clean, or
the build fails for me.
- Please use this macro from: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python
%if ! (0%{?fedora} > 12 || 0%{?rhel} > 5)
%{!?python_sitelib: %global python_sitelib %(%{__python} -c "from
distutils.sysconfig import get_python_lib; print(get_python_lib())")}
%{!?python_sitearch: %global python_sitearch %(%{__python} -c "from
distutils.sysconfig import get_python_lib; print(get_python_lib(1))")}
%endif
And not your own defined python_py_sitearch and python_lib_sitearch.
- Please use INSTALL="install -p" when installing to preserve timestamps.
--
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 506425] Review Request: lightsquid - a light, small and fast log analyzer for squid proxy
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=506425
--- Comment #16 from Aleksey Popkov 2010-07-19 07:44:04
EDT ---
lightsquid-apache - One file [lightsquid.conf] in a package. Not rationally.
Added:
%files
%defattr(-,root,root)
%dir %{apache_home}
%dir %{lightdir}
%dir %{lightdir}/report
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 506425] Review Request: lightsquid - a light, small and fast log analyzer for squid proxy
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=506425
--- Comment #17 from manuel wolfshant 2010-07-19
07:54:14 EDT ---
Add all the cgi scripts to it and you will have a nice package with 13 files
(one config + 12 scripts)
%{apache_home} is already owned by httpd
Please increment the release tag and post again the links to the spec and
src.rpm file ( I do not see the updated versions at
http://aleksey2005.fedorapeople.org/ )
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 459065] Review Request: italc - intelligent teaching and learning with computers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459065 manuel wolfshant changed: What|Removed |Added CC||wo...@nobugconsulting.ro --- Comment #26 from manuel wolfshant 2010-07-19 08:07:32 EDT --- Axel, it seems that your old src.rpm does not build on the current distros ( EL-6 and F14 scratch builds both failed as here: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=2328766&name=build.log ) If you are still motivated to push italc forward, please fix it and I'll do the review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 226023] Merge Review: libgsf
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226023 --- Comment #2 from Caolan McNamara 2010-07-19 08:10:27 EDT --- a) python subpackage does not require the mainpackage nor contains own COPYING* files... "If a subpackage is dependent ... implicitly ... upon a base package ... it is not necessary for that subpackage to also include those license texts as %doc." rpm -qlp RPMS/x86_64/libgsf-1.14.18-2.fc14.x86_64.rpm |grep COP /usr/share/doc/libgsf-1.14.18/COPYING /usr/share/doc/libgsf-1.14.18/COPYING.LIB rpm -qp --provides RPMS/x86_64/libgsf-1.14.18-2.fc14.x86_64.rpm |grep libgsf libgsf-1.so.114()(64bit) libgsf = 1.14.18-2.fc14 libgsf(x86-64) = 1.14.18-2.fc14 rpm -qp --requires RPMS/x86_64/libgsf-python-1.14.18-2.fc14.x86_64.rpm |grep libgsf libgsf-1.so.114()(64bit) libgsf-gnome-1.so.114()(64bit) So its not necessary for libgsf-gnome to include a license text as it requires implicitly libgsf whose package has a %doc. So I reckon that one is ok. b) E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath now fixed as libgsf-1.14.18-3.fc14 c) - I needed to use 'rm -rf ... now fixed as libgsf-1.14.18-3.fc14 d) - Please use this macro from: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python now fixed as libgsf-1.14.18-3.fc14 -- 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 226023] Merge Review: libgsf
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226023
Thomas Spura changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
Resolution||RAWHIDE
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Spura 2010-07-19
08:32:23 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> a) python subpackage does not require the mainpackage nor contains own
> COPYING*
> files...
>
> "If a subpackage is dependent ... implicitly ... upon a base package ... it is
> not necessary for that subpackage to also include those license texts as
> %doc."
>
> rpm -qlp RPMS/x86_64/libgsf-1.14.18-2.fc14.x86_64.rpm |grep COP
> /usr/share/doc/libgsf-1.14.18/COPYING
> /usr/share/doc/libgsf-1.14.18/COPYING.LIB
>
> rpm -qp --provides RPMS/x86_64/libgsf-1.14.18-2.fc14.x86_64.rpm |grep libgsf
> libgsf-1.so.114()(64bit)
> libgsf = 1.14.18-2.fc14
> libgsf(x86-64) = 1.14.18-2.fc14
>
> rpm -qp --requires RPMS/x86_64/libgsf-python-1.14.18-2.fc14.x86_64.rpm |grep
> libgsf
> libgsf-1.so.114()(64bit)
> libgsf-gnome-1.so.114()(64bit)
>
> So its not necessary for libgsf-gnome to include a license text as it requires
> implicitly libgsf whose package has a %doc. So I reckon that one is ok.
Yes, it's ok... I just looked to the spec file :(
> b) E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath
>
> now fixed as libgsf-1.14.18-3.fc14
>
> c) - I needed to use 'rm -rf ...
>
> now fixed as libgsf-1.14.18-3.fc14
ok
> d) - Please use this macro from:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python
>
> now fixed as libgsf-1.14.18-3.fc14
ok
Thanks.
Just a cosmetic issue:
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{python_sitelib} resolves to
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT//usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/
^^
So one '/' should be deleted. But that's only cosmetic...
__
APPROVED
--
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 506425] Review Request: lightsquid - a light, small and fast log analyzer for squid proxy
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=506425 --- Comment #18 from Aleksey Popkov 2010-07-19 08:42:18 EDT --- Ok. Changed. Spec URL: http://aleksey2005.fedorapeople.org/lightsquid.spec SRPM URL: http://aleksey2005.fedorapeople.org/lightsquid-1.8-4.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 562585] Review Request: ccd2iso - CloneCD image to ISO image file converter
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=562585 Mohammed Safwat changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|needinfo?(Mohammed_ElAfifi@ | |yahoo.com) | --- Comment #12 from Mohammed Safwat 2010-07-19 08:42:51 EDT --- (In reply to comment #11) > Mohammed, any progress? Are you still interested in this package? Yes, I finished addressing the points you highlighted in your review. I'll upload the the new SPEC and SRPM files tomorrow. Sorry for the delay. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 610857] Review Request: rubygem-curb - Ruby libcurl bindings
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=610857 --- Comment #4 from Shreyank Gupta 2010-07-19 08:45:16 EDT --- UPDATED: Spec URL: http://shreyankg.fedorapeople.org/packaging/curb/rubygem-curb.spec SRPM URL: http://shreyankg.fedorapeople.org/packaging/curb/rubygem-curb-0.7.7.1-2.fc13.src.rpm Notes: -- * See Changelog * Moving the ext/ directory to -doc subpackage, as it is required to run the tests. -- + rake test --trace (in /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/rubygem-curb-0.7.7.1-2.fc13.i386/usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/curb-0.7.7.1) ** Invoke test (first_time) ** Invoke rmpid (first_time) ** Execute rmpid ** Invoke unittests (first_time) ** Invoke compile (first_time) ** Invoke ext/curb_core.so (first_time, not_needed) ** Invoke ext/Makefile (first_time, not_needed) ** Invoke ext/extconf.rb (first_time, not_needed) ** Invoke ext/curb.c (first_time, not_needed) ** Invoke ext/curb_upload.c (first_time, not_needed) ** Invoke ext/curb_postfield.c (first_time, not_needed) ** Invoke ext/curb_easy.c (first_time, not_needed) ** Invoke ext/curb_multi.c (first_time, not_needed) ** Invoke ext/curb_errors.c (first_time, not_needed) ** Invoke ext/curb_errors.h (first_time, not_needed) ** Invoke ext/curb_multi.h (first_time, not_needed) ** Invoke ext/curb.h (first_time, not_needed) ** Invoke ext/curb_easy.h (first_time, not_needed) ** Invoke ext/curb_postfield.h (first_time, not_needed) ** Invoke ext/curb_upload.h (first_time, not_needed) ** Invoke ext/curb_macros.h (first_time, not_needed) ** Invoke ext/curb_config.h (first_time, not_needed) ** Execute compile ** Execute unittests Loaded suite /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.8.7/lib/rake/rake_test_loader Started .. Finished in 9.261544 seconds. 114 tests, 481 assertions, 0 failures, 0 errors ** Execute test -- Koji Scratch Build: --- http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2328796 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 592579] Review Request: Frama-c - Framework for source code analysis of C software
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=592579 --- Comment #43 from Mark Rader 2010-07-19 08:47:33 EDT --- It is possible however that but had issues with lablgtksourceview.cma not lablgtksourceview2.cmxa. I just know that I can not find the lablgtk2 package in the standard yum repositories. It may be in the rawhide repository and my system is not configured for it. This just complicates matters and adds considerable time. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 477546] Review Request: netdude - Inspection, analysis and manipulation of tcpdump trace 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=477546 manuel wolfshant changed: What|Removed |Added CC||wo...@nobugconsulting.ro --- Comment #11 from manuel wolfshant 2010-07-19 08:48:13 EDT --- Andreas, are you still interested in this package ? If you are, please update the package and let us know the new links for the spec and src.rpm. If not, in one month I'll close the review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 226060] Merge Review: libwpd
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226060 Thomas Spura changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||toms...@fedoraproject.org AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|toms...@fedoraproject.org Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Thomas Spura 2010-07-19 08:57:28 EDT --- $ rpmlint ./libwpd-0.8.14-4.fc13.src.rpm x86_64/libwpd-* libwpd-tools.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US html -> HTML, ht ml, ht-ml libwpd-tools.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/wpd2text ['/usr/lib64'] libwpd-tools.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/wpd2html ['/usr/lib64'] libwpd-tools.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/wpd2raw ['/usr/lib64'] libwpd-tools.x86_64: W: no-documentation libwpd-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary wpd2raw libwpd-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary wpd2html libwpd-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary wpd2text 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 5 warnings. See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Removing_Rpath - please add a %check section (needs BR cppunit-devel): %check make check - in %description tools: Could be that there is a '(tm)' missing behind 'WordPerfect', isn't it? (Same in main package) Anything else looks ok: - name ok - license ok - group ok - libs correctly installed - no locales - no static libs - parallel make - %files ok - subpackages require main package implicitely - no *.la -- 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 592579] Review Request: Frama-c - Framework for source code analysis of C software
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=592579 --- Comment #44 from Richard W.M. Jones 2010-07-19 09:02:07 EDT --- (In reply to comment #43) > It is possible however that but had issues with lablgtksourceview.cma not > lablgtksourceview2.cmxa. I just know that I can not find the lablgtk2 package > in the standard yum repositories. It may be in the rawhide repository and my > system is not configured for it. This just complicates matters and adds > considerable time. Not sure what you mean by can't find it. ocaml-lablgtk is in Fedora for ages (years). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 615868] Review Request: felix-parent - Parent Pom of Apache Felix
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=615868 Stanislav Ochotnicky changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||socho...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|socho...@redhat.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Stanislav Ochotnicky 2010-07-19 09:02:42 EDT --- I'll do the review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 615848] Review Request: oflb-brett-fonts - A handwriting font
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=615848 Parag changed: What|Removed |Added CC||nicolas.mail...@laposte.net Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |oflb-brettfont-fonts - A |oflb-brett-fonts - A |handwriting font|handwriting font --- Comment #5 from Parag 2010-07-19 09:01:14 EDT --- The reason I kept version same as old is that, font name says its 1.1, inside font information says 1.0 and as upstream is dead, I have no way to contact upstream to clarify version info. I will say let's import this and if needed later on we will change it to 1.0 or 1.1 version. In any way if we are removing timestamp as version, we are going to use epoch. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 576023] Review Request: libwebcam - user-space configuration of the uvcvideo driver
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=576023 --- Comment #23 from Michael Cronenworth 2010-07-19 09:21:28 EDT --- spec: http://michael.cronenworth.com/RPMS/libwebcam.spec srpm: http://michael.cronenworth.com/RPMS/libwebcam-0.2.0-0.6.20100322svn.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 226648] Merge Review: xorg-x11-xauth
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226648 Parag AN(पराग) changed: What|Removed |Added CC||a...@redhat.com, ||panem...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|panem...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review? -- 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 226060] Merge Review: libwpd
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226060 --- Comment #2 from Caolan McNamara 2010-07-19 09:32:53 EDT --- a) E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath done as libwpd-0.8.14-5.fc14 b) make check done as libwpd-0.8.14-5.fc14 c) (tm) as per http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines#Trademarks_in_Summary_or_Description removed it altogether, done as libwpd-0.8.14-5.fc14 -- 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 614451] Review Request: rubygem-gherkin - A fast Gherkin lexer/parser based on the Ragel State Machine Compiler.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=614451
--- Comment #4 from Michal Fojtik 2010-07-19 09:34:24 EDT
---
Spec URL: http://mifo.sk/RPMS/rubygem-gherkin.spec
SRPM URL: http://mifo.sk/RPMS/rubygem-gherkin-2.1.5-1.fc13.src.rpm
KOJI: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2328910
rpmlint:
RPM: No errors. Just some warnings about macros and devel files.
RPMS: Clean.
(In reply to comment #3)
> Initial notes:
>
> * Macros
> - %ruby_sitelib macro seems used nowhere.
> - %rubyabi is defined nowhere.
Fixed.
> * Version
> - Latest seems 2.1.4
For today, latest is 2.1.5 ;-)
> * BuildRoot
> - BuildRoot tag is no longer used on Fedora.
> (BuildRoot tag is still needed on EPEL)
I kept that in this spec file. Will be removed for Fedora and present in EPEL
branch.
> * Compiler flags
> - Fedora specific compiler flags are not correctly
> honored.
> -
>292 Building native extensions. This could take a while...
>293 /usr/bin/ruby extconf.rb
>294 checking for main() in -lc... yes
>295 creating Makefile
>296 make
>297 gcc -I. -I. -I/usr/lib/ruby/1.8/i386-linux -I. -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64
> -fPIC -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions
> -fstack-protector
> --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m32 -march=i686 -mtune=atom
> -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -O0 -Wall -Werror -c gherkin_lexer_ar.c
>298 gcc -shared -o gherkin_lexer_ar.so gherkin_lexer_ar.o -L. -L/usr/lib
> -L. -rdynamic -Wl,-export-dynamic-lruby -lc -lpthread -lrt -ldl -lcrypt
> -lm -lc
>299 make install
>300 /usr/bin/install -c -m 0755 gherkin_lexer_ar.so
> /builddir/build/BUILD/rubygem-gherkin-2.1.3/usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/gherkin-2.1.3/lib
> -
> - Here Fedora uses optimization level "-O2" for gcc, which
> is overwritten by the latter "-O0".
> This is because extconf.rb files included in gem override CFLAGS.
> For example, ./ext/gherkin_lexer_ar/extconf.rb says:
> -
> 3 $CFLAGS << ' -O0 -Wall -Werror' if CONFIG['CC'] =~ /gcc/
> -
>
> Unfortunately extconf.rb is in gem file and this cannot be modified
> until gem is once installed (i.e. compilation is once done).
> Unless you have an idea, you have to
> - Once install gem file under %_builddir (like now)
> - modify extconf.rb
> - and recompile C codes again.
I tried to figure this out, but I end up with your solution.
So I install everything in ussual way, then modify extconf.rb
and recompile it using Fedora CFLAGS.
> * ext/ directory / C extension .so files
> - Files under ext/ directory are usually for compiling C extension .so
> files and should not be needed once .so files are created.
> - Arch-dependent C extension .so files should be installed under
> %ruby_sitearch:
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Ruby#Ruby_packages_with_binary_content.2Fshared_libraries
Fixed.
>
> * Directory ownership issue
> - The following directories are not owned by any packages:
> -
> %{geminstdir}
> %{geminstdir}/bin
Fixed.
> -
>
> * rpmlint issue
> - Please check your srpm and rebuilt binary rpms with rpmlint:
> --
> rubygem-gherkin-debuginfo.i686: E: debuginfo-without-sources
> - Please create debuginfo rpm correctly
> ! Note
> build.log says many warnings when creating debuginfo rpm
> like:
> --
>918 cpio:
> rubygem-gherkin-2.1.3/usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/gherkin-2.1.3/ext/gherkin_lexer_ar/ext/gherkin_lexer_ar/gherkin_lexer_ar.c:
> Cannot stat: No such file or directory
>919 cpio:
> rubygem-gherkin-2.1.3/usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/gherkin-2.1.3/ext/gherkin_lexer_bg/ext/gherkin_lexer_bg/gherkin_lexer_bg.c:
> Cannot stat: No such file or directory
>920 cpio:
> rubygem-gherkin-2.1.3/usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/gherkin-2.1.3/ext/gherkin_lexer_ca/ext/gherkin_lexer_ca/gherkin_lexer_ca.c:
> Cannot stat: No such file or directory
> --
> Note that "ext/gherkin_lexer_ar" is repeated here. You may have to
> create some symlinks so that /usr/lib/rpm/find-debuginfo.sh can find
> the corresponding source files properly.
>
> rubygem-gherkin.i686: W: no-soname
> /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/gherkin-2.1.3/lib/gherkin_lexer_ar.so
> rubygem-gherkin.i686: W: no-soname
> /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/gherkin-2.1.3/lib/gherkin_lex
[Bug 614451] Review Request: rubygem-gherkin - A fast Gherkin lexer/parser based on the Ragel State Machine Compiler.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=614451 --- Comment #5 from Michal Fojtik 2010-07-19 09:39:32 EDT --- > - > > * rpmlint issue > - Please check your srpm and rebuilt binary rpms with rpmlint: > -- > rubygem-gherkin-debuginfo.i686: E: debuginfo-without-sources > - Please create debuginfo rpm correctly > ! Note > build.log says many warnings when creating debuginfo rpm > like: > -- >918 cpio: > rubygem-gherkin-2.1.3/usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/gherkin-2.1.3/ext/gherkin_lexer_ar/ext/gherkin_lexer_ar/gherkin_lexer_ar.c: > Cannot stat: No such file or directory >919 cpio: > rubygem-gherkin-2.1.3/usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/gherkin-2.1.3/ext/gherkin_lexer_bg/ext/gherkin_lexer_bg/gherkin_lexer_bg.c: > Cannot stat: No such file or directory >920 cpio: > rubygem-gherkin-2.1.3/usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/gherkin-2.1.3/ext/gherkin_lexer_ca/ext/gherkin_lexer_ca/gherkin_lexer_ca.c: > Cannot stat: No such file or directory > -- > Note that "ext/gherkin_lexer_ar" is repeated here. You may have to > create some symlinks so that /usr/lib/rpm/find-debuginfo.sh can find > the corresponding source files properly Ok I was too fast. Actually I getting these errors in Koji logs. I'll post update soon. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 515752] Review Request: python-soaplib - python library for creating SOAP services
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=515752 --- Comment #23 from Jordan OMara 2010-07-19 09:44:12 EDT --- That makes sense. I just put a comment in the changelog noting the difference. Specfile : http://jomara.fedorapeople.org/python_soaplib/python-soaplib.spec srpm : http://jomara.fedorapeople.org/python_soaplib/python-soaplib-0.8.1-4.fc12.src.rpm Thanks for the input -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 506425] Review Request: lightsquid - a light, small and fast log analyzer for squid proxy
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=506425 Mamoru Tasaka changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp --- Comment #19 from Mamoru Tasaka 2010-07-19 09:42:38 EDT --- I don't know about this package well, however how is the following guideline related to this package? https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Web_Applications -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 226648] Merge Review: xorg-x11-xauth
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226648 Parag AN(पराग) changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #1 from Parag AN(पराग) 2010-07-19 09:41:42 EDT --- 1) I will suggest this pacakge to follow current packaging guidelines and remove buildroot, %clean section and cleaning of build root in %install 2) See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upgrade_paths_%E2%80%94_renaming_or_splitting_packages#Do_I_need_to_Provide_my_old_package_names.3F I think we should remove provides and Obsoletes now. I can't find old packages built on koji. 3) also good to preserve timestamps when using install commands. 4) rpmlint on SRPM and RPM reports xorg-x11-xauth.src: W: strange-permission mkxauth 0775 xorg-x11-xauth.src:24: W: unversioned-explicit-provides xauth xorg-x11-xauth.src:25: W: unversioned-explicit-provides mkxauth xorg-x11-xauth.src:27: W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes XFree86-xauth xorg-x11-xauth.src:27: W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes mkxauth xorg-x11-xauth.i686: W: obsolete-not-provided XFree86-xauth xorg-x11-xauth.i686: W: obsolete-not-provided XFree86 xorg-x11-xauth.i686: W: self-obsoletion mkxauth obsoletes mkxauth xorg-x11-xauth.i686: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/xorg-x11-xauth-1.0.2/AUTHORS xorg-x11-xauth.i686: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/xorg-x11-xauth-1.0.2/README xorg-x11-xauth.i686: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/xorg-x11-xauth-1.0.2/NEWS -- 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 615868] Review Request: felix-parent - Parent Pom of Apache Felix
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=615868
Stanislav Ochotnicky changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Stanislav Ochotnicky 2010-07-19
09:44:07 EDT ---
OK: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the
review.
just fragment warning and Source0 URL (both waived)
OK: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
OK: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. .
OK: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
OK: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines .
OK: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
OK: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package must be included in %doc.
OK: The spec file must be written in American English.
OK: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
OK: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no
upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL
Guidelines for how to deal with this.
OK: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture.
OK: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of
those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
OK: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
OK: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a
directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that
directory.
OK: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings.
OK: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with
executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
%defattr(...) line.
OK: Each package must consistently use macros.
OK: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
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.
Please add comment in %build section that mvn-jpp call is not really
needed (you are not installing any jar files/javadocs). But it's good
to have it there to see changes in dependencies when new version is
released. This is completely minor thing though so I won't stop the
review because of this.
Both previous things are not show-stoppers, package is good to go,
just one note: You created depmap because easymock2 has wrong groupId
in installed fragment. If you see something like that in some package
file a bug please. groupIds and artifactIds should be correct and
matching upstream. I filed bug #616008 for this.
Package is APPROVED.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 609130] Review Request: felix-framework - Felix Framework Interfaces and Classes
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=609130 Stanislav Ochotnicky changed: What|Removed |Added CC||socho...@redhat.com --- Comment #2 from Stanislav Ochotnicky 2010-07-19 09:48:11 EDT --- In case you will be doing more releases...please change BRs from maven2-plugin-XX to maven-XX-plugin. New plugins provide old names, but it would be better to get rid of old names and not introduce them in new packages. That is unless you plan to include this package for F-12/F-13... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 226648] Merge Review: xorg-x11-xauth
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226648 --- Comment #3 from Parag AN(पराग) 2010-07-19 09:50:16 EDT --- Looks koji build is successful with new changes. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2328928 -- 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 505154] Tracker: Review Requests for Science and Technology related 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=505154 Thomas Spura changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on|530649 | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 226648] Merge Review: xorg-x11-xauth
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226648 --- Comment #2 from Parag AN(पराग) 2010-07-19 09:49:42 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=432892) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=432892) xorg-x11-xauth-spec-cleanup.patch I have tried to cleanup spec and here is patch which will fix above issues. Just need to add Changelog entry. and Fix permission for file mkxauth -- 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 600270] Review Request: libnmserver - library which exposes various information from NetworkManager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=600270 Adam Tkac changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Fixed In Version||libnmserver-0.0.91-1.fc14 Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Comment #5 from Adam Tkac 2010-07-19 09:55:22 EDT --- Fixed in libnmserver-0.0.91-1.fc14, thank you for the review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 530649] Review Request: massxpert - Mass Spectrometry
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=530649 Thomas Spura changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Blocks|505154(FE-SCITECH) |201449(FE-DEADREVIEW) Resolution||NOTABUG Flag|fedora-review? | --- Comment #10 from Thomas Spura 2010-07-19 09:52:21 EDT --- I no longer want to maintain this, because I don't use this and just wanted to help the reporter from #501192. But it seems, this could still take some time to get this into fedora. Anyone feel free to use the spec file from above. Thanks for starting the review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 615868] Review Request: felix-parent - Parent Pom of Apache Felix
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=615868 --- Comment #3 from Stanislav Ochotnicky 2010-07-19 09:58:49 EDT --- Seems like one part of comment went missing...Please next time you commit something change summary/description to something like geronimo-parent-pom. It's much more descriptive. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 226060] Merge Review: libwpd
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226060 Thomas Spura changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Thomas Spura 2010-07-19 09:58:07 EDT --- Great. New rpmlint: $ rpmlint ./libwpd-0.8.14-5.fc13.src.rpm x86_64/libwpd-* libwpd-tools.x86_64: W: no-documentation libwpd-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary wpd2raw libwpd-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary wpd2html libwpd-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary wpd2text 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. All ignorable. APPROVED -- 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 532527] Review request: junit-addons - JUnitX helper classes for JUnit
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=532527 --- Comment #6 from Alexander Kurtakov 2010-07-19 10:02:41 EDT --- mefoster, can we get this fixed soon ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 532527] Review request: junit-addons - JUnitX helper classes for JUnit
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=532527 --- Comment #7 from Alexander Kurtakov 2010-07-19 10:03:29 EDT --- Oh, and please add/install a pom and depmap I need this for one of the maven plugins. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 583327] Review Request: clementine - A music player and library organiser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=583327 Mattias Ellert changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mattias.ell...@fysast.uu.se -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 225997] Merge Review: libdbi
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225997
Thomas Spura changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||toms...@fedoraproject.org
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|toms...@fedoraproject.org
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Spura 2010-07-19
10:23:14 EDT ---
Review:
Good:
- name ok
- %{optflags} are used now
- no static libs
- no *.la
- libs correctly packaged
- group ok
- BR ok
- parallel make
Needswork:
- patch does not have an upstream bug or a comment, that it was send to the
maintainer
- please use INSTALL="install -p", when installing to preserve timestamps
- use %{_includedir} in %files
- please just use "rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT" and not
"[ "$RPM_BUILD_ROOT" != "/" ] && rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT"
(That's more common and on recent fedora versions, that could even left out
completely. But better let them there, till EPEL also supports them.)
- license missing:
The doc is licensed under GFDL so license should be:
LGPLv2+ and GFDL
And please make a note in the spec file, what is under which license.
see:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios
--
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 609130] Review Request: felix-framework - Felix Framework Interfaces and Classes
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=609130 Stanislav Ochotnicky changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|socho...@redhat.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #3 from Stanislav Ochotnicky 2010-07-19 10:27:18 EDT --- I'll do the review in the end it seems :-) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 485652] Review Request: navit - Car navigation system with routing engine
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485652 --- Comment #68 from Adam Williamson 2010-07-19 10:29:39 EDT --- we already dealt with all the shared resources, AFAIK. I'll look at the other stuff in a bit. -- Fedora Bugzappers volunteer triage team https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 614451] Review Request: rubygem-gherkin - A fast Gherkin lexer/parser based on the Ragel State Machine Compiler.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=614451 --- Comment #6 from Michal Fojtik 2010-07-19 10:32:15 EDT --- OK I figured out repeated .so files, so this is fixed for now. Unfortunately I was unable to figure out second issue with C files. I tried several changes and builds, but without any luck. If you or somebody could point me where could be a problem, you will become my hero of the day :-) KOJI build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=2328950&name=build.log -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 576023] Review Request: libwebcam - user-space configuration of the uvcvideo driver
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=576023
Hans de Goede changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #24 from Hans de Goede 2010-07-19 10:28:53
EDT ---
Hi,
(In reply to comment #23)
> spec: http://michael.cronenworth.com/RPMS/libwebcam.spec
> srpm:
> http://michael.cronenworth.com/RPMS/libwebcam-0.2.0-0.6.20100322svn.fc13.src.rpm
>
Looks good now, one small nitpick left (which you can fix before import), there
is no need to separately list
%{_datadir}/uvcdynctrl/data/046d/logitech.xml
%{_datadir}/uvcdynctrl
Gets you everything below that dir. If you look at the build output of your
latest spec you will see the following there:
warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/uvcdynctrl/data/046d/logitech.xml
Approved!
Go create a FAS account if you have not already, request access to the
packagers group and let me know your FAS account name, then I'll sponsor you.
Regards,
Hans
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 615848] Review Request: oflb-brett-fonts - A handwriting font
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=615848 --- Comment #6 from Paul Flo Williams 2010-07-19 10:31:33 EDT --- Welcome to the wacky world of font metadata. To inject a bit of font archaeology: The metadata of the original release was _really_ strange, with some fields in the name table claiming that this font was Times New Roman version 3.00, and some claiming that this was BrettFont version 1.00. For the release as part of FC8, Jon Stanley used 1.0-2 as the nvr. In May 2008, a new version was uploaded to OFLB, with the most obvious tell-tales of its hacky origin removed. Unfortunately, the metadata still claimed this as BrettFont 1.0. In the face of this confusion, Jon started using the date of release as the version. I agree with Parag; there isn't likely to be a future release (unless Brett removes the final few "Monotype" strings from the metadata), so continuing to treat the internal version as unreliable and going for dates makes sense. For the record, I'm examining: sha1sum *.ttf 9fd5585ec2b2c9d9850a5a8e9acd94b0c2d2e9f1 brettalton_-_Brett_Font.ttf 424d6ef6eaa4a71c719b51ae39ef268f6f011418 BrettFont1.1.ttf -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 226646] Merge Review: xorg-x11-util-macros
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226646 Parag AN(पराग) changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||panem...@gmail.com, ||peter.hutte...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|panem...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Parag AN(पराग) 2010-07-19 10:37:01 EDT --- 1) rpmlint on SRPM and RPM reported xorg-x11-util-macros.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Autotools -> Auto tools, Auto-tools, Autopilots xorg-x11-util-macros.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US autotools -> auto tools, auto-tools, autopilots xorg-x11-util-macros.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency libtool xorg-x11-util-macros.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Autotools -> Auto tools, Auto-tools, Autopilots xorg-x11-util-macros.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US autotools -> auto tools, auto-tools, autopilots xorg-x11-util-macros.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/pkgconfig/xorg-macros.pc 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 5 warnings. 2) I will suggest this package to follow current packaging guidelines and remove buildroot, %clean section and cleaning of build root in %install. But this is not blocker for this review. 3) But reviewguildlines also says MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [16] so this package should use macros. -- 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 226646] Merge Review: xorg-x11-util-macros
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226646 --- Comment #2 from Parag AN(पराग) 2010-07-19 10:38:55 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=432910) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=432910) xorg-x11-util-macros-spec-cleanup.patch Can this patch be applied to devel branch by current package owner for this package? -- 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 576023] Review Request: libwebcam - user-space configuration of the uvcvideo driver
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=576023 --- Comment #25 from Michael Cronenworth 2010-07-19 10:40:05 EDT --- (In reply to comment #24) > Gets you everything below that dir. If you look at the build output of your > latest spec you will see the following there: Will do. > Approved! Yay. > Go create a FAS account if you have not already, request access to the > packagers group and let me know your FAS account name, then I'll sponsor you. FAS: mooninite > Regards, > > Hans Thanks, Hans. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 609130] Review Request: felix-framework - Felix Framework Interfaces and Classes
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=609130
Stanislav Ochotnicky changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Stanislav Ochotnicky 2010-07-19
10:35:51 EDT ---
OK: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the
review.
completely clean...
OK: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
OK: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. .
OK: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
OK: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines .
OK: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
OK: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package must be included in %doc.
OK: The spec file must be written in American English.
OK: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
OK: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no
upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL
Guidelines for how to deal with this.
OK: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture.
OK: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of
those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
OK: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
OK: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a
directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that
directory.
OK: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings.
OK: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with
executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
%defattr(...) line.
OK: Each package must consistently use macros.
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.
Few notes:
* keep an eye out for felix-parent
(https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=615868). After the
package is built you can modify your patch and add felix-parent to BRs.
* you can use maven-XX-plugin as BRs unless you plan to use same spec
file for F-12/F-13
* your use of '~' to separate parts of filename is a little bit
untraditional (IMO), but not violating anything :-)
One quesion:
Was it necessary to remove tests? Simple -Dmaven.test.skip=true
wouldn't work? You commented on this so it's perfectly fine to remove
them...just wondering.
That's all I could find, as with your previous packages, package is
in great shape: 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
