[Bug 502358] Review Request: mojomojo - Catalyst DBIx::Class powered Wiki
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=502358 Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rc040...@freenet.de --- Comment #22 from Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de 2010-07-24 02:01:27 EDT --- (In reply to comment #21) InitialCC: Why no perl-sig? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 502358] Review Request: mojomojo - Catalyst DBIx::Class powered Wiki
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=502358 --- Comment #23 from Iain Arnell iarn...@gmail.com 2010-07-24 02:13:13 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: mojomojo Short Description: Catalyst DBIx::Class powered Wiki Owners: iarnell Branches: F-12 F-13 InitialCC: perl-sig (In reply to comment #22) Why no perl-sig? Because it looks like Chris' reviewtool only adds that automatically for perl- packages. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 615868] Review Request: felix-parent - Parent POM file for Apache Felix Specs
Please do not reply directly 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 Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||609142 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 609142] Review Request: felix-main - Apache Felix Main
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=609142 Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||akurt...@redhat.com Depends on||615868 --- Comment #2 from Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com 2010-07-24 02:19:37 EDT --- Do you really need the depmap? As all these dependencies are in Fedora now, are they missing proper poms/depmaps? Oh and one more thing why do you remove the parent? felix-parent is up for review https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=615868 you would better drop this part of the patch and BR 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 609142] Review Request: felix-main - Apache Felix Main
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=609142 --- Comment #3 from Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com 2010-07-24 02:25:07 EDT --- Btw, https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=615869 felix-shell is also up for review should it depend on that bug too and remove that part of the patch? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 617764] Review Request: gphotoframe - Photo Frame Gadget for the GNOME Desktop
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=617764 Ben Boeckel maths...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||maths...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|maths...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Ben Boeckel maths...@gmail.com 2010-07-24 02:45:13 EDT --- Taking. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 502358] Review Request: mojomojo - Catalyst DBIx::Class powered Wiki
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=502358 --- Comment #24 from Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de 2010-07-24 02:48:43 EDT --- (In reply to comment #23) (In reply to comment #22) Why no perl-sig? Because it looks like Chris' reviewtool only adds that automatically for perl- packages. No idea what this reviewtool does, but I'd recommend to explicitly add it. This package clearly is a perl package (It's even CPAN hosted). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 502358] Review Request: mojomojo - Catalyst DBIx::Class powered Wiki
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=502358 --- Comment #25 from Iain Arnell iarn...@gmail.com 2010-07-24 03:00:00 EDT --- I added perl-sig to the request in comment #23. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 617764] Review Request: gphotoframe - Photo Frame Gadget for the GNOME Desktop
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=617764
--- Comment #2 from Ben Boeckel maths...@gmail.com 2010-07-24 03:00:35 EDT ---
[XX] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
the review.
% lintmock fedora-13-x86_64-bb
gphotoframe.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc
/etc/gconf/schemas/gphotoframe.schemas
gphotoframe.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gphotoframe
gphotoframe.noarch: W: dangerous-command-in-%pre rm
gphotoframe.noarch: W: dangerous-command-in-%post rm
gphotoframe.src: W: strange-permission gphotoframe-1.0.tar.gz 0640L
gphotoframe.src: W: strange-permission gphotoframe.spec 0640L
gphotoframe.src:112: E: hardcoded-library-path in
%{_prefix}/lib/gnome-screensaver/gnome-screensaver/gphotoframe-screensaver
gphotoframe.src: W: no-buildroot-tag
gphotoframe.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
http://gphotoframe.googlecode.com/files/gphotoframe-1.0.tar.gz HTTP Error 404:
Not Found
gphotoframe-gss.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) screensaver - screen
saver, screen-saver, screens aver
gphotoframe-gss.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US screensaver -
screen saver, screen-saver, screens aver
gphotoframe-gss.noarch: W: no-documentation
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 11 warnings.
I'm guessing that the dangerous-commands are fine since they're macros and
presumably fine. Perms are my thing. Seems to be an rpath sneaking around in
gpf-ss. spectool -g gets the tarball, so that's fine as well.
So, just that rpath issue.
[OK] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the
format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
[XX] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
Looking at COPYING, it seems there is GPLv2+, MIT, and BSD code included as
well. Nothing bad, just might need to be listed.
[OK] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
[OK] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines .
[OK] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
The COPYING says GPLv3+, but the sources don't have headers themselves.
[OK] MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package must be included in %doc.
[OK] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[OK] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[OK] MUST: The package bMUST/b successfully compile and build into binary
rpms on at least one primary architecture.
[OK] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line.
[OK] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using
the code%find_lang/code macro. Using code%{_datadir}/locale/*/code is
strictly forbidden.
[OK] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library
files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must
call ldconfig in code%post/code and code%postun/code.
[OK] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must
state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker.
[OK] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not
create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
create that directory.
[OK] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file'snbsp;%files listings.
[OK] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, for example. Every code%files/code section
must include a code%defattr(...)/code line.
[OK] MUST: Each package must have anbsp;%clean section, which contains
coderm -rfnbsp;%{buildroot}/code (a
href=/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#UsingBuildRootOptFlags
title=Packaging/Guidelines class=mw-redirector $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/a).
[OK] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[OK] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[OK] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The
definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not
restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity).
[OK] MUST: If a package includes something asnbsp;%doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is innbsp;%doc, the program
must run properly if it is not
[Bug 599638] Review Request: perl-YAPE-Regex - Yet Another Parser/Extractor for Regular Expressions
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=599638 Iain Arnell iarn...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|cw...@alumni.drew.edu |nob...@fedoraproject.org Flag|fedora-review? | --- Comment #1 from Iain Arnell iarn...@gmail.com 2010-07-24 03:04:14 EDT --- Throwing this back into the pool as Chris is busy with other things at the minute. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 609193] Review Request: python-dirq - Directory based queue
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=609193 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2010-07-24 03:39:48 EDT --- python-dirq-0.0.5-3.el5.1 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-dirq-0.0.5-3.el5.1 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 609193] Review Request: python-dirq - Directory based queue
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=609193 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2010-07-24 03:39:43 EDT --- python-dirq-0.0.5-3.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-dirq-0.0.5-3.fc13 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 617764] Review Request: gphotoframe - Photo Frame Gadget for the GNOME Desktop
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=617764
--- Comment #3 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2010-07-24
03:46:19 EDT ---
Thank you for initial comments.
(In reply to comment #2)
[XX] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted
in
the review.
I'm guessing that the dangerous-commands are fine since they're macros and
presumably fine. Perms are my thing. Seems to be an rpath sneaking around in
gpf-ss. spectool -g gets the tarball, so that's fine as well.
So, just that rpath issue.
- Well, what do you mean rpath here? This is noarch and rpath
should not be related.
[OK] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the
format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
[XX] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
Looking at COPYING, it seems there is GPLv2+, MIT, and BSD code included as
well. Nothing bad, just might need to be listed.
- Will change the license tag to GPLv3+ and GPLv2+ (and adding some
comments that some png files are under GPLv2+. I usually don't
explicit write about MIT or BSD or so if GPL codes are also included).
Other:
- For the EPEL stuff at the top, the sitearch macro can be removed since this
is noarch.
- Will remove %python_sitearch
- How is python3 parallel install?
- I guess the upstream will say something when python3 is supported.
And I have not tried python3... so for now I want to make this package
just support python2.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 617834] New: Review Request: python-tornado - Scalable, non-blocking web server and tools that power FriendFeed
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: python-tornado - Scalable, non-blocking web server and tools that power FriendFeed https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=617834 Summary: Review Request: python-tornado - Scalable, non-blocking web server and tools that power FriendFeed Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: supercyp...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Description: Tornado is an open source version of the scalable, non-blocking web server and tools that power FriendFeed. SPEC:http://supercyper.fedorapeople.org/python-tornado.spec SRPM:http://supercyper.fedorapeople.org/python-tornado-1.0-1.fc14.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 608069] Tango standard library for D language of d1 specification
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=608069 --- Comment #9 from Chen Lei supercyp...@gmail.com 2010-07-24 07:06:46 EDT --- (In reply to comment #8) thanks chen lei, i check size and: $ du -h -s /usr/share/doc/tango-examples-0.99.9/ 161K /usr/share/doc/tango-examples-0.99.9/ $ du -h -s /usr/share/doc/tango-documentation-0.99.9/ 565K /usr/share/doc/tango-documentation-0.99.9/ is enough for a sub package or not? I think it's safe to include examples and docs in -devel subpackage, most of D developers may need those docs. One question: Do binaries compiled with ldc support GNU strip? rpmbuild will strip all binaries automatically with executable bit. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 608069] Tango standard library for D language of d1 specification
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=608069 --- Comment #10 from MERCIER Jonathan bioinfornat...@gmail.com 2010-07-24 08:16:54 EDT --- yes ldc support GNU strip. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 609738] Review Request: shiboken - CPython bindings generator for C++ libraries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=609738 Kalev Lember ka...@smartlink.ee changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|thom...@fedoraproject.org |nob...@fedoraproject.org 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 607584] Review Request: wordgroupz - A vocabulary building application
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=607584 --- Comment #5 from Ratnadeep Debnath rtn...@gmail.com 2010-07-24 08:38:17 EDT --- Updated wordgroupz spec today. Included new dependencies: python-BeautifulSoup, gstreamer-python, gstreamer-python-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 609738] Review Request: shiboken - CPython bindings generator for C++ libraries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=609738 Magnus Tuominen magnus.tuomi...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||magnus.tuomi...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|magnus.tuomi...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Magnus Tuominen magnus.tuomi...@gmail.com 2010-07-24 08:48:29 EDT --- BR: should state -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 609738] Review Request: shiboken - CPython bindings generator for C++ libraries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=609738 --- Comment #2 from Magnus Tuominen magnus.tuomi...@gmail.com 2010-07-24 08:49:05 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1) BR: should state shiboken-devel instead of shiboken. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 607584] Review Request: wordgroupz - A vocabulary building application
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=607584 --- Comment #6 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2010-07-24 08:53:19 EDT --- I have not checked your latest srpm yet, however if you modified your spec file, please also upload the corresponsing srpm. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 609738] Review Request: shiboken - CPython bindings generator for C++ libraries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=609738 Magnus Tuominen magnus.tuomi...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #3 from Magnus Tuominen magnus.tuomi...@gmail.com 2010-07-24 08:50:31 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2) (In reply to comment #1) BR: should state shiboken-devel instead of shiboken. sorry, sparsehash-devel instead of sparsehash. Wanted: edit function to comments. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 599638] Review Request: perl-YAPE-Regex - Yet Another Parser/Extractor for Regular Expressions
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=599638
manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|wo...@nobugconsulting.ro
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro 2010-07-24
08:57:21 EDT ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
[x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture.
Tested on: devel/x86_64
[x] Rpmlint output:
source RPM: empty
binary RPM:empty
[x] Package is not relocatable.
[x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type: GPL+ or Artistic (same as Perl)
[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 match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
SHA1SUM of source file:
[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 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.
[x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
[-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
[x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x] Final provides and requires are sane.
[wo...@wolfy tmp]$ rpm -qp --provides perl-YAPE-Regex-3.04-1.el6.noarch.rpm
perl(YAPE::Regex) = 3.04
perl(YAPE::Regex::alt)
perl(YAPE::Regex::anchor)
perl(YAPE::Regex::any)
perl(YAPE::Regex::backref)
perl(YAPE::Regex::capture)
perl(YAPE::Regex::Cchar)
perl(YAPE::Regex::class)
perl(YAPE::Regex::close)
perl(YAPE::Regex::code)
perl(YAPE::Regex::comment)
perl(YAPE::Regex::conditional)
perl(YAPE::Regex::ctrl)
perl(YAPE::Regex::cut)
perl(YAPE::Regex::Element) = 3.00
perl(YAPE::Regex::flags)
perl(YAPE::Regex::group)
perl(YAPE::Regex::hex)
perl(YAPE::Regex::later)
perl(YAPE::Regex::lookahead)
perl(YAPE::Regex::lookbehind)
perl(YAPE::Regex::macro)
perl(YAPE::Regex::named)
perl(YAPE::Regex::oct)
perl(YAPE::Regex::slash)
perl(YAPE::Regex::text)
perl(YAPE::Regex::whitespace)
perl-YAPE-Regex = 3.04-1.el6
[wo...@wolfy tmp]$ rpm -qp --requires perl-YAPE-Regex-3.04-1.el6.noarch.rpm
perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.10.1)
rpmlib(FileDigests) = 4.6.0-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) = 4.0-1
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) = 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(VersionedDependencies) = 3.0.3-1
perl(Carp)
perl(strict)
perl(Text::Balanced)
perl(vars)
perl(YAPE::Regex::Element)
rpmlib(VersionedDependencies) = 3.0.3-1
rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) = 5.2-1
[wo...@wolfy tmp]$ rpmlint perl-YAPE-Regex-3.04-1.*
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
[x] Latest version is packaged.
[x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
=See note 1 below
[-] 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: EL-6beta2, koji scratch build
[x] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
Tested on: EL-6beta2, koji scratch build
[x] Package functions as described.
[-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[Bug 226227] Merge Review: pam_smb
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226227 Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||panem...@gmail.com, ||sso...@redhat.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 226226] Merge Review: pam_passwdqc
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226226 Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||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 599638] Review Request: perl-YAPE-Regex - Yet Another Parser/Extractor for Regular Expressions
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=599638 Iain Arnell iarn...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 609738] Review Request: shiboken - CPython bindings generator for C++ libraries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=609738 --- Comment #4 from Kalev Lember ka...@smartlink.ee 2010-07-24 09:06:03 EDT --- * Sat Jul 24 2010 Kalev Lember ka...@smartlink.ee - 0.3.2-2 - BR sparsehash-devel instead of sparsehash Spec URL: http://kalev.fedorapeople.org/shiboken.spec SRPM URL: http://kalev.fedorapeople.org/shiboken-0.3.2-2.fc14.src.rpm Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2348050 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 226225] Merge Review: pam_krb5
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226225 Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||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 608069] Tango standard library for D language of d1 specification
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=608069 --- Comment #11 from MERCIER Jonathan bioinfornat...@gmail.com 2010-07-24 09:29:44 EDT --- I had updated spec and src.rpm. Can you check for static library id is the good way. It is the first time where i build static libraries only (not my first package). Link: http://bioinfornatics.fedorapeople.org/tango-0.99.9-6.20100720svn5505.fc13.src.rpm http://bioinfornatics.fedorapeople.org/tango.spec Thanks -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 617618] Review Request: perl-Carp-Always - Warn and die in Perl noisily with stack backtraces
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=617618 Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Comment #6 from Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk 2010-07-24 09:29:36 EDT --- Imported and built. Thank you! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 226226] Merge Review: pam_passwdqc
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226226 Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #1 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com 2010-07-24 09:40:15 EDT --- 1) rpmlint reported pam_passwdqc.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Pluggable - Plug gable, Plug-gable, Plugged pam_passwdqc.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pam - map, Pam, pan pam_passwdqc.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US passwdqc - password, passageway, passivised pam_passwdqc.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US passwd - passed pam_passwdqc.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US passphrases - pass phrases, pass-phrases, paraphrases pam_passwdqc.i686: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Pluggable - Plug gable, Plug-gable, Plugged pam_passwdqc.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pam - map, Pam, pan pam_passwdqc.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US passwdqc - password, passageway, passivised pam_passwdqc.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US passwd - passed pam_passwdqc.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US passphrases - pass phrases, pass-phrases, paraphrases == This can be ignored. 2)timestamps should be preserved.Use INSTALL=install -p when installing to preserve timestamps. 3) I will suggest this pacakge to follow current packaging guidelines and remove buildroot, %clean section and cleaning of build root in %install 4) Should follow https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Parallel_make -- 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 226226] Merge Review: pam_passwdqc
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226226 --- Comment #2 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com 2010-07-24 09:42:15 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=434142) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=434142) pam_passwdqc-spec-cleanup.patch please add changelog entry when applying above patch in devel branch -- 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 226225] Merge Review: pam_krb5
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226225 --- Comment #2 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com 2010-07-24 10:19:24 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=434148) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=434148) pam_krb5-spec-cleanup.spec please add changelog entry -- 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 226225] Merge Review: pam_krb5
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226225 --- Comment #1 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com 2010-07-24 10:18:29 EDT --- 1) rpmlint reported pam_krb5.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pam - map, Pam, pan pam_krb5.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pluggable - plug gable, plug-gable, plugged pam_krb5.src: W: invalid-url URL: https://fedorahosted.org/pam_krb5/ urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known pam_krb5.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pam - map, Pam, pan pam_krb5.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pluggable - plug gable, plug-gable, plugged pam_krb5.i686: W: invalid-url URL: https://fedorahosted.org/pam_krb5/ urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. == This can be ignored 2)timestamps should be preserved.Use INSTALL=install -p when installing to preserve timestamps. 3) I will suggest this package to follow current packaging guidelines and remove buildroot, %clean section and cleaning of build root in %install 4) Should follow https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Parallel_make -- 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 617318] Review Request: xpenguins - Cute little penguins everywhere
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=617318 Göran Uddeborg goe...@uddeborg.se changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Comment #5 from Göran Uddeborg goe...@uddeborg.se 2010-07-24 10:21:03 EDT --- Successfully built: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2348113 Thanks Manuel and Kevin for your help! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 226226] Merge Review: pam_passwdqc
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226226 --- Comment #3 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com 2010-07-24 10:26:21 EDT --- Also, As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Compiler_flags , please add comment in spec why you need extras flags. -- 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 609738] Review Request: shiboken - CPython bindings generator for C++ libraries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=609738
--- Comment #6 from Magnus Tuominen magnus.tuomi...@gmail.com 2010-07-24
10:24:10 EDT ---
Shiboken Review
? MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
the review.
rpmlint -iv /var/lib/mock/fedora-13-x86_64/result/shiboken-*.rpm
shiboken.src: I: checking
shiboken.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) CPython - C Python, Python,
Brython
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
shiboken.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US generatorrunner -
generator runner, generator-runner, generator
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
shiboken.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US apiextractor -
extractor, fluidextract, extraction
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
shiboken.src: I: checking-url http://www.pyside.org (timeout 10 seconds)
shiboken.src: I: checking-url
http://www.pyside.org/files/shiboken-0.3.2.tar.bz2 (timeout 10 seconds)
shiboken.x86_64: I: checking
shiboken.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) CPython - C Python, Python,
Brython
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
shiboken.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US apiextractor -
extractor, fluidextract, extraction
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
shiboken.x86_64: I: checking-url http://www.pyside.org (timeout 10 seconds)
shiboken.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary shiboken
Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page.
shiboken-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking
shiboken-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking-url http://www.pyside.org (timeout 10
seconds)
shiboken-devel.x86_64: I: checking
shiboken-devel.x86_64: I: checking-url http://www.pyside.org (timeout 10
seconds)
shiboken-libs.x86_64: I: checking
shiboken-libs.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) CPython - C Python,
Python, Brython
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
shiboken-libs.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US generatorrunner
- generator runner, generator-runner, generator
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
shiboken-libs.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US apiextractor -
extractor, fluidextract, extraction
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
shiboken-libs.x86_64: I: checking-url http://www.pyside.org (timeout 10
seconds)
shiboken-libs.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libshiboken.so.0.3.2
e...@glibc_2.2.5
This library package calls exit() or _exit(), probably in a non-fork()
context. Doing so from a library is strongly discouraged - when a library
function calls exit(), it prevents the calling program from handling the
error, reporting it to the user, closing files properly, and cleaning up any
state that the program has. It is preferred for the library to return an
actual error code and let the calling program decide how to handle the
situation.
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 10 warnings.
Spelling errors can be ignored.
Not shure what to make of shared-lib-calls-exit, but it doesn't look good.
+ MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
+ MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
+ MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
+ MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines.
+ MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
+ MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package must be included in %doc.
+ MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
+ MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
+ MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. 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.
upstream: 802ecf28206aa17a9e3d64bf736c6470
src.rpm: 802ecf28206aa17a9e3d64bf736c6470
+ MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture.
+ MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line.
+ MUST: All build dependencies
[Bug 226225] Merge Review: pam_krb5
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226225 --- Comment #3 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com 2010-07-24 10:26:15 EDT --- Also, As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Compiler_flags , please add comment in spec why you need extras flags. -- 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 226227] Merge Review: pam_smb
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226227 --- Comment #2 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com 2010-07-24 10:36:41 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=434150) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=434150) pam_smb-spec-cleanup.patch add changelog entry -- 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 226227] Merge Review: pam_smb
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226227 Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 226227] Merge Review: pam_smb
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226227 --- Comment #1 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com 2010-07-24 10:35:49 EDT --- 1) rpmlint reported pam_smb.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot C A Pluggable Authentication Module (PAM) for use with SMB servers. pam_smb.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pam - map, Pam, pan pam_smb.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US smb - sob, sub, Sm pam_smb.i686: W: summary-ended-with-dot C A Pluggable Authentication Module (PAM) for use with SMB servers. pam_smb.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pam - map, Pam, pan pam_smb.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US smb - sob, sub, Sm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. == Fix needed for summary and rest can be ignored. 2)timestamps should be preserved.Use install -p when installing to preserve timestamps. 3) I will suggest this package to follow current packaging guidelines and remove buildroot, %clean section and cleaning of build root in %install 4) Buildroot is wrong and not needed now -- 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 609738] Review Request: shiboken - CPython bindings generator for C++ libraries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=609738
--- Comment #7 from Kalev Lember ka...@smartlink.ee 2010-07-24 10:57:25 EDT
---
(In reply to comment #6)
shiboken-libs.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libshiboken.so.0.3.2
e...@glibc_2.2.5
This library package calls exit() or _exit(), probably in a non-fork()
context. Doing so from a library is strongly discouraged - when a library
function calls exit(), it prevents the calling program from handling the
error, reporting it to the user, closing files properly, and cleaning up any
state that the program has. It is preferred for the library to return an
actual error code and let the calling program decide how to handle the
situation.
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 10 warnings.
Spelling errors can be ignored.
Not shure what to make of shared-lib-calls-exit, but it doesn't look good.
I suspect rpmlint is just being stupid. libshiboken/typeresolver.cpp:70
contains the following line which probably triggers the rpmlint error:
std::atexit(deinitTypeResolver);
This is something all together different than calling exit() directly.
in %files
%{_libdir}/generatorrunner/* -- add generatorrunner as R
generatorrunner is already an implicit dependency:
$ rpm -q --requires shiboken | grep gen
libgenrunner.so.0.5
$ rpm -qf /usr/lib/libgenrunner.so.0.5
generatorrunner-0.5.0-2.fc14.i686
But yeah, I guess it's cleaner to also explicitly list generatorrunner dep.
? SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base
package
using a fully versioned dependency.
Add Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} to %package libs
No, it's the other way around in here: the main package has
Requires: %{name}-libs = %{version}-%{release}
The reason why libs are in a separate package is to avoid pulling in the whole
shiboken main package (plus its long dep chain) for libraries which link
against libshiboken; requiring main package from libs package would make the
split meaningless.
* Sat Jul 24 2010 Kalev Lember ka...@smartlink.ee - 0.3.2-4
- Explicitly require generatorrunner for %%{_libdir}/generatorrunner/ directory
ownership (#609738)
Spec URL: http://kalev.fedorapeople.org/shiboken.spec
SRPM URL: http://kalev.fedorapeople.org/shiboken-0.3.2-4.fc14.src.rpm
Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2348167
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 617834] Review Request: python-tornado - Scalable, non-blocking web server and tools that power FriendFeed
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=617834 Athmane Madjoudj athma...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||athma...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Athmane Madjoudj athma...@gmail.com 2010-07-24 10:58:47 EDT --- rpmlint output: $ rpmlint python-tornado.spec python-tornado.spec: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install python-tornado.spec: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %clean python-tornado.spec: W: no-buildroot-tag python-tornado.spec: W: no-%clean-section 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. $ rpmlint python-tornado-1.0-1.fc13.src.rpm python-tornado.src: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.tornadoweb.org HTTP Error 405: Method Not Allowed python-tornado.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install python-tornado.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %clean python-tornado.src: W: no-buildroot-tag python-tornado.src: W: no-%clean-section 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. $ rpmlint python-tornado-1.0-1.fc13.noarch.rpm python-tornado.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.tornadoweb.org HTTP Error 405: Method Not Allowed python-tornado.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/python-tornado-1.0/demos/facebook/static/facebook.js 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 609738] Review Request: shiboken - CPython bindings generator for C++ libraries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=609738 Magnus Tuominen magnus.tuomi...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #8 from Magnus Tuominen magnus.tuomi...@gmail.com 2010-07-24 11:09:45 EDT --- OK, I'm happy with that, 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 609738] Review Request: shiboken - CPython bindings generator for C++ libraries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=609738 --- Comment #9 from Kalev Lember ka...@smartlink.ee 2010-07-24 11:12:42 EDT --- Thanks a lot for the review, Magnus. Let me know if you need anything reviewed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 617524] Review Request: tidyp - Clean up and pretty-print HTML/XHTML/XML
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=617524
Tom Atkinson tom_atkin...@fsfe.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tom_atkin...@fsfe.org
--- Comment #1 from Tom Atkinson tom_atkin...@fsfe.org 2010-07-24 11:12:20
EDT ---
Informal pre-review:
# MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
the review.
libtidyp.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) tidyp - tidy, tidy p, tidily
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
libtidyp.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tidyp - tidy, tidy p,
tidily
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
libtidyp.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libtidyp-1.02.so.0.0.0
e...@glibc_2.2.5
This library package calls exit() or _exit(), probably in a non-fork()
context. Doing so from a library is strongly discouraged - when a library
function calls exit(), it prevents the calling program from handling the
error, reporting it to the user, closing files properly, and cleaning up any
state that the program has. It is preferred for the library to return an
actual error code and let the calling program decide how to handle the
situation.
libtidyp.x86_64: W: no-documentation
The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include
documentation files.
libtidyp-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include
documentation files.
tidyp.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tidyp
Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page.
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings.
Spelling issue - can be ignored as it is intentional
Shared libs issue - you should probably check that with upstream
Missing docs - to come in future
# MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
OK
# MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
OK
# MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
OK
# MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines .
OK - W3C
# MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
OK
# MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package must be included in %doc.
OK - Source package does not include the license text
# MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
OK
# MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
OK
# MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no
upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL
Guidelines for how to deal with this.
OK - md5sum matches
# MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture.
OK - successful scratch build on i686 and x86_64
# MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line.
OK - no ExcludeArch
# MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
OK - No BuildRequires listed, no missing build deps encountered.
# MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
OK - No locales
# MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library
files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must
call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
OK - ldconfig called in %post and %postun
# MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
OK
# MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker.
OK - not relocatable
# MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not
create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
create that
[Bug 609738] Review Request: shiboken - CPython bindings generator for C++ libraries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=609738 Kalev Lember ka...@smartlink.ee changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #10 from Kalev Lember ka...@smartlink.ee 2010-07-24 11:14:21 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: shiboken Short Description: CPython bindings generator for C++ libraries Owners: kalev rdieter kkofler than ltinkl Branches: F-13 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 612671] Review Request: nodm - A display manager automatically starting an X session
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=612671 Tom Atkinson tom_atkin...@fsfe.org changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|needinfo?(tom_atkin...@fsfe | |.org) | --- Comment #2 from Tom Atkinson tom_atkin...@fsfe.org 2010-07-24 11:13:15 EDT --- Hi Michel I have done a pre-review of tidyp at #617524 Tom. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 617834] Review Request: python-tornado - Scalable, non-blocking web server and tools that power FriendFeed
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=617834
--- Comment #2 from Athmane Madjoudj athma...@gmail.com 2010-07-24 11:18:12
EDT ---
Some notes:
- supposing that the package is for f13+, most of rpmlint warning can be
ignored (BuildRoot, %clean).
- try to use: %{__python} macro instead of python
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 597410] Review Request: php-deepend-Mockery - Mockery is a simple but flexible PHP mock object framewor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=597410 Christof Damian chris...@damian.net changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Christof Damian chris...@damian.net 2010-07-24 11:17:41 EDT --- Thanks for the review. I contacted upstream about the doc files and will include them in my first update myself. New Package CVS Request === Package Name: php-deepend-Mockery Short Description: Mockery is a simple but flexible PHP mock object framework Owners: cdamian Branches: F-13 EL-6 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 608069] Tango standard library for D language of d1 specification
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=608069
--- Comment #12 from Chen Lei supercyp...@gmail.com 2010-07-24 11:21:19 EDT
---
From some documents and debian packages, I found that tango package includes
two libs - libtango-user.a and libtango-base.a, are those two libs merged to
single libtango.a now?
Another issues should be addressed in the future is all D programs should be
compiled with a unified DFLAGS like %{optflags} for C/C++/Fortran programs.
rpm --eval %optflags
-O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector
--param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m64 -mtune=generic
See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Compiler_flags
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 617834] Review Request: python-tornado - Scalable, non-blocking web server and tools that power FriendFeed
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=617834 Chen Lei supercyp...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||CANTFIX --- Comment #3 from Chen Lei supercyp...@gmail.com 2010-07-24 11:27:33 EDT --- This package is already in fedora. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 617834] Review Request: python-tornado - Scalable, non-blocking web server and tools that power FriendFeed
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=617834 --- Comment #4 from Athmane Madjoudj athma...@gmail.com 2010-07-24 11:34:04 EDT --- Sorry, i haven't noticed that was a closed bug. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 617764] Review Request: gphotoframe - Photo Frame Gadget for the GNOME Desktop
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=617764
--- Comment #4 from Ben Boeckel maths...@gmail.com 2010-07-24 11:34:55 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #3)
Thank you for initial comments.
(In reply to comment #2)
So, just that rpath issue.
- Well, what do you mean rpath here? This is noarch and rpath
should not be related.
Oops, yeah. I shouldn't do these so late at night I guess :P . Taking a peek in
the mock chroot, I don't see the hardcoded library path in that file since
it's just a shellscript that does exec gphotoframe. Not sure what that is.
[OK] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the
format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
[XX] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
Looking at COPYING, it seems there is GPLv2+, MIT, and BSD code included as
well. Nothing bad, just might need to be listed.
- Will change the license tag to GPLv3+ and GPLv2+ (and adding some
comments that some png files are under GPLv2+. I usually don't
explicit write about MIT or BSD or so if GPL codes are also included).
OK. The new rules for licensing are also good since gss depends on the base
package, so it's good there as well (need to update my checklist I guess).
Other:
- How is python3 parallel install?
- I guess the upstream will say something when python3 is supported.
And I have not tried python3... so for now I want to make this package
just support python2.
OK.
Just need a new spec for the license tag update and it's good.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 608069] Tango standard library for D language of d1 specification
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=608069 --- Comment #13 from MERCIER Jonathan bioinfornat...@gmail.com 2010-07-24 11:38:16 EDT --- now they are one libs yeah sure this macro will be usefull, i will work on. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 617834] Review Request: python-tornado - Scalable, non-blocking web server and tools that power FriendFeed
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=617834 --- Comment #5 from Chen Lei supercyp...@gmail.com 2010-07-24 11:41:36 EDT --- (In reply to comment #4) Sorry, i haven't noticed that was a closed bug. It's my fault :), if you are interested in tornado, you can try to contact the maintainer of python-tornado, tornado is outdated in fedora. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 565764] Review Request: sugar-measure - Measure functionality for Sugar
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=565764 Sebastian Dziallas sebast...@when.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo?(den...@ausil.us) --- Comment #3 from Sebastian Dziallas sebast...@when.com 2010-07-24 11:41:30 EDT --- Ping? What's the state here? Dennis, do you still plan to review this? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 617877] New: Review Request: txmpp - A C++ XMPP library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: txmpp - A C++ XMPP library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=617877 Summary: Review Request: txmpp - A C++ XMPP library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: si...@sewell.ch QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec Url: http://github.com/tidg/rpms/raw/master/txmpp/txmpp.spec SRPM Url: http://github.com/downloads/tidg/rpms/txmpp-0.0.2-1.fc14.src.rpm Description: txmpp is a permissively licensed C++ XMPP library. rpmlint [si...@tidg rpmbuild]$ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/*.rpm 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 608069] Tango standard library for D language of d1 specification
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=608069 --- Comment #15 from MERCIER Jonathan bioinfornat...@gmail.com 2010-07-24 11:54:33 EDT --- thanks, I work on for this feature, i will create http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:D -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 617764] Review Request: gphotoframe - Photo Frame Gadget for the GNOME Desktop
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=617764
--- Comment #5 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2010-07-24
12:00:16 EDT ---
http://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/Review_request/gphotoframe/gphotoframe.spec
http://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/Review_request/gphotoframe/gphotoframe-1.0-2.fc.src.rpm
* Sun Jul 25 2010 Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp - 1.0-2
- Fix license tag
(Actually changed to GPLv3 and GPLv2+)
Well, about this comment in spec file:
-
# lib/ is hardcoded in setup.py
-
This means that setup.py in gphotoframe tries to install
gphotoframe-screensaver into
root/prefix/lib/gnome-screensaver/gnome-screensaver, here
lib is hardcoded. From setup.py:
29 ('lib/gnome-screensaver/gnome-screensaver',
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 612671] Review Request: nodm - A display manager automatically starting an X session
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=612671 --- Comment #3 from Tom Atkinson tom_atkin...@fsfe.org 2010-07-24 12:04:18 EDT --- Also reviewed poezio at bug #617405 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 617405] Review Request: poezio - An IRC-like jabber (XMPP) console client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=617405
Tom Atkinson tom_atkin...@fsfe.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tom_atkin...@fsfe.org
--- Comment #1 from Tom Atkinson tom_atkin...@fsfe.org 2010-07-24 12:03:28
EDT ---
Informal pre-review:
# MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
the review.
poezio.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary poezio
Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page.
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
# MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
OK
# MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
OK
# MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
OK
# MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines .
OK - GPLv3
# MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
OK
# MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package must be included in %doc.
OK - COPYING file included in %doc
# MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
OK
# MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
OK
# MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no
upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL
Guidelines for how to deal with this.
OK - md5sum matches
# MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture.
N/A - package is noarch
# MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line.
N/A - package is noarch
# MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
According to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python BuildRequires:
python2-devel is required
# MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
OK - No locales
# MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library
files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must
call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
N/A - package is noarch
# MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
OK
# MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker.
OK - not relocatable
# MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not
create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
create that directory.
OK
# MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific situations)
OK
# MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
%defattr(...) line.
OK
# MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
OK
# MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
OK
# MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition
of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to
size. Large can refer to either size or quantity).
OK - No large documentation
# MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime
of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run
properly if it is not present.
OK
# MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
OK - no header files
# MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
OK - no static libs
# MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1),
then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel
package.
OK - no such files
# MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages
[Bug 617764] Review Request: gphotoframe - Photo Frame Gadget for the GNOME Desktop
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=617764 Ben Boeckel maths...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Ben Boeckel maths...@gmail.com 2010-07-24 12:11:01 EDT --- Ah, alright. Since it's dealt with in the spec file to be libexec (as other gss packages also seem to use), I'll approve. 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 617764] Review Request: gphotoframe - Photo Frame Gadget for the GNOME Desktop
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=617764 --- Comment #7 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2010-07-24 13:47:54 EDT --- Thank you! Now I reviewed your review request, actually another interesting file manager. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 617797] Review Request: ranger - A flexible console file manager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=617797
--- Comment #2 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2010-07-24
13:44:40 EDT ---
Well, another interesting file manager :)
Some notes:
! python2 vs python3
- As your spec file uses %{python_sitelib} which is python2
specific macro, I think explicitly writing BR: python2-devel
rather than BR: python-devel is preferable.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Python#BuildRequires
! BuildRoot
- BuildRoot tag is no longer needed on Fedora (only needed
on EPEL5)
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag
! default %setup
- By default %setup uses %{name}-%{version}. so explicitly writing
-n %{name}-%{version} is not needed.
* rpmlint issue
-
ranger.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/ranger/__main__.py 0644L /usr/bin/env
-
- This file need not have shebang.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 617764] Review Request: gphotoframe - Photo Frame Gadget for the GNOME Desktop
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=617764 Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #8 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2010-07-24 14:00:37 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name:gphotoframe Short Description: Photo Frame Gadget for the GNOME Desktop Owners: mtasaka Branches:F-12 F-13 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 617797] Review Request: ranger - A flexible console file manager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=617797
--- Comment #3 from Ben Boeckel maths...@gmail.com 2010-07-24 14:29:20 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #2)
Well, another interesting file manager :)
I have another one queued up, but it still needs some work and isn't actively
maintained AFAICS. :)
Some notes:
! python2 vs python3
- As your spec file uses %{python_sitelib} which is python2
specific macro, I think explicitly writing BR: python2-devel
rather than BR: python-devel is preferable.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Python#BuildRequires
Done.
! BuildRoot
- BuildRoot tag is no longer needed on Fedora (only needed
on EPEL5)
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag
Oops, yeah. rpmdev-newspec template got me here.
! default %setup
- By default %setup uses %{name}-%{version}. so explicitly writing
-n %{name}-%{version} is not needed.
Yeah, I do this out of habit because some of the packages I maintain I do
snapshots at times (Rawhide and my personal repo) and this keeps the diffs low.
Looking closer at the release windows, it looks like I won't need to do many
here. Removing.
* rpmlint issue
-
ranger.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/ranger/__main__.py 0644L /usr/bin/env
-
- This file need not have shebang.
Patch included. Bug filed upstream (link in request).
% lintmock fedora-13-x86_64-bb
ranger.src: W: strange-permission ranger-1.1.2-remove-shebang.patch 0640L
ranger.src: W: strange-permission ranger.spec 0640L
ranger.src: W: strange-permission ranger-1.1.2.tar.gz 0640L
ranger.src: W: no-buildroot-tag
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings
Spec URL: http://blipper.dev.benboeckel.net/files/pkg/ranger.spec
SRPM URL:
http://blipper.dev.benboeckel.net/yum/13/x86_64/src/ranger-1.1.2-2.fc13.src.rpm
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 608069] Tango standard library for D language of d1 specification
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=608069
--- Comment #16 from Juan Carlos Castro y Castro jccyc1...@gmail.com
2010-07-24 14:32:35 EDT ---
I rpmbuild-ed and installed the most recent srpms for ldc and tango from
http://bioinfornatics.fedorapeople.org ...
$ rpm -q ldc tango tango-devel
ldc-0.9.2-2.20100706hg1653.fc13.i686
tango-0.99.9-1.4.20101207svn5498.fc13.i686
tango-devel-0.99.9-1.4.20101207svn5498.fc13.i686
...but when I try to compile a d program I get this:
$ ldc hello.d
hello.d(1): Error: module stdio cannot read file 'std/stdio.d'
hello.c: -
import std.stdio;
void main()
{
writeln(Hello, world!);
}
--
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 617524] Review Request: tidyp - Clean up and pretty-print HTML/XHTML/XML
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=617524 --- Comment #2 from Paul Howarth p...@city-fan.org 2010-07-24 15:22:54 EDT --- The exit() call is from the default out-of-memory panic handler, though this can be avoided for applications that want to by supplying a custom panic handler callback. This is described in include/tidyp.h. So, I think that shouldn't be a big issue. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 617400] Review Request: pfHandle - wrapper for tools to manage postfix mail queue
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=617400 Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ke...@tummy.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2010-07-24 15:37:32 EDT --- I'll go ahead and review this and your other submission and look at sponsoring you. ;) Look for a full review in a while here... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 615669] Review Request: perl-Crypt-Cracklib - perl module to interact with libcrack
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=615669 Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ke...@tummy.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #8 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2010-07-24 15:37:25 EDT --- I'll go ahead and review this and your other submission and look at sponsoring you. ;) Look for a full review in a while here... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 617340] Review Request: throttle - copy stdin to stdout at the specified speed (or lower)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=617340 --- Comment #1 from François Cami fdc...@fcami.net 2010-07-24 15:42:56 EDT --- First review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=575529 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 617797] Review Request: ranger - A flexible console file manager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=617797 Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2010-07-24 15:40:39 EDT --- Okay. - This package (ranger) is APPROVED by mtasaka - -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 617797] Review Request: ranger - A flexible console file manager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=617797 Ben Boeckel maths...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Ben Boeckel maths...@gmail.com 2010-07-24 15:51:51 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name:ranger Short Description: A flexible console file manager Owners: mathstuf Branches:F-12 F-13 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 565764] Review Request: sugar-measure - Measure functionality for Sugar
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=565764 --- Comment #4 from Sebastian Dziallas sebast...@when.com 2010-07-24 15:57:29 EDT --- Upstream has released a new version here: http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/sugar-devel/2010-July/025645.html -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 607584] Review Request: wordgroupz - A vocabulary building application
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=607584
--- Comment #7 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2010-07-24
15:57:39 EDT ---
For 0.3b-1:
* BuildRoot tag
- As I said in the previous comment, BuildRoot tag is no longer
needed on Fedora, only needed on EPEL-5.
If you want to import this package only into Fedora 12-14, please
remove BuildRoot tag.
* BuildRequires
- Please list BuildRequires which are really needed when building
this srpm.
As far as I checked, BR: python2-devel desktop-file-utils is
enough
- i.e. BR: gstreamer-python-devel pygtk2, gtk2 is unneeded.
* Unneeded Obsoletes
- Obsoletes: %{name} 0.3b is unneeded and should be removed.
* %setup
- By default %setup uses %{name}-%{version} for default directory and
-n %{name}-%{version} part is unneeded.
* Directory ownership issue
- Still the directory %{_datadir}/wordgroupz/ itself is not owned
by any packages:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/UnownedDirectories#Wildcarding_Files_inside_a_Created_Directory
* Desktop file
- As I said in the previous comment, Application in Categories item
is deprecated and should be removed.
* %changelog
- Please make the last entry of %changelog match the current EVR
(Epoch-Version-Release) of the spec file
(%changelog says the latest is 0.3b-2, while current EVR is 0.3b-1)
- It is recommended (for Fedora VCS) that you put one line between
each %changelog entry like
--
* Sat Jul 24 2010 rtnpro rtn...@gmail.com 0.3b-2
- Included dependencies for pygst and beautifulsoup
* Fri Jul 23 2010 rtnpro rtn...@gmail.com 0.3b-1
- Release version 0.3b
* Thu Jun 24 2010 rtnpro rtn...@gmail.com 0.2-1
- Initial RPM
package--
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 615669] Review Request: perl-Crypt-Cracklib - perl module to interact with libcrack
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=615669
--- Comment #9 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2010-07-24 16:02:11 EDT ---
OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines
OK - Spec file matches base package name.
OK - Spec has consistant macro usage.
OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines.
OK - License (GPL+ or artistic)
OK - License field in spec matches
See below - License file included in package
OK - Spec in American English
OK - Spec is legible.
OK - Sources match upstream md5sum:
e5fe8cd8894b2d66767e48f51779d778 Crypt-Cracklib-1.5.tar.gz
e5fe8cd8894b2d66767e48f51779d778 Crypt-Cracklib-1.5.tar.gz.orig
OK - BuildRequires correct
OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good.
See below - Package has a correct %clean section.
OK - Package has correct buildroot
OK - Package is code or permissible content.
OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime.
See below - Package has rm -rf RPM_BUILD_ROOT at top of %install
OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch.
OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files.
OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own.
See below - Package owns all the directories it creates.
OK - Package obey's FHS standard (except for 2 exceptions)
OK - No rpmlint output.
See below - final provides and requires are sane.
SHOULD Items:
OK - Should build in mock.
OK - Should build on all supported archs
OK - Should have dist tag
OK - Should package latest version
OK - Should not use file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or
/usr/sbin
Issues:
1. You are disabling the internal dependency generator here, but not doing any
manual dependency generation. Why? I see no problems removing that line here.
2. The:
if [ ! $RPM_BUILD_ROOT = / ]
then
in install and clean sections should be removed. There are no longer required
or wanted. ;)
3. There seems to be a test suite here. Perhaps run it in %check?
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Perl#Testing_and_Test_Suites
4. You should include Changes and README as %doc files. Also, you may want
to ask upstream to include a copy of the license.
5. You need to own the %{perl_archlib}/Crypt/ directory here.
Either change %{perl_archlib}/Crypt/Cracklib.pm to just %{perl_archlib}/Crypt/
or add a %dir%{perl_archlib}/Crypt to files. Likewise for the auto/Crypt dir.
6. rpmlint says:
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
7. Did you take an existing spec to create this one? If so, please do leave the
old spec changelog entries to credit the orig author(s).
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 617400] Review Request: pfHandle - wrapper for tools to manage postfix mail queue
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=617400 --- Comment #2 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2010-07-24 16:08:39 EDT --- Some general comments before doing a full review here: - You probibly want a dist tag. If you don't have one it becomes difficult to ship the same version to multiple release branches. - You should get rid of the [ $RPM_BUILD_ROOT != / ] constructs. - You should get rid of the Vendor tag Fix those up and I can do the full 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 608069] Tango standard library for D language of d1 specification
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=608069
--- Comment #17 from MERCIER Jonathan bioinfornat...@gmail.com 2010-07-24
16:25:25 EDT ---
tango is not phobos
see this example:
module test;
import tango.stdc.stdio;
import tango.io.Console : Cout, Cerr;
import tango.io.Stdout;
import tango.text.convert.Format;
import tango.text.convert.Integer : format;
void main(){
uint a = 5;
uint b = 0;
char[1] tmp0;
char[1] tmp1;
//printf same in C
printf(hello, world\n);
//Cout same in C++
Cout(try divide )(format(tmp0, a, d))( by )(format(tmp1, b,
d)).newline;
//test
if (b == 0){
Cerr(Divide by zero!!).newline;
}
else{
Format(Result: {}\n, a/b);
Stdout.formatln (Result: '{}'/'{}'='{}', a, b, a/b);
}
}
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 608069] Tango standard library for D language of d1 specification
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=608069 --- Comment #19 from MERCIER Jonathan bioinfornat...@gmail.com 2010-07-24 16:37:43 EDT --- I forgot to remove the comments: //printf same in C And //Cout same in C++ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 616120] Review Request: spacecmd - Command-line interface to Spacewalk and Satellite servers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=616120 --- Comment #5 from Maxim Burgerhout ma...@wzzrd.com 2010-07-24 17:05:40 EDT --- Aron, I like the fact that you have moved the whole lot into site_packages. I see you have changed the specfile to require just 'python'. This is not necessary: the Python requirement is inserted by rpmbuild during creation of the RPM in the form of python(abi). This works for both EL5 and F13, so the 'python' requirement can be taken out. One more request is to add the -p flag to your install commands. I forgot about this initially, sorry. This is to keep the original timestamps on the files you install; see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Timestamps for futher info. Take care to also keep the orignal timestamp on the source tarball when building srpms. Please upload the corrected spec and srpm files somewhere and provide a link to them. Am I right in assuming Miroslav is going to actually maintain this package when it 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 578269] Review Request: xgospel - An X11 client for Internet Go Server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=578269 jjwei jin...@yahoo.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|needinfo?(jin...@yahoo.com) | --- Comment #29 from jjwei jin...@yahoo.com 2010-07-24 17:10:04 EDT --- I was thinking put up the fixes so the program will run smoothly on fedora, really do not have that much time to do all the rest. close it please. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 542990] Review Request: root - Numerical data analysis framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=542990
--- Comment #24 from Mattias Ellert mattias.ell...@fysast.uu.se 2010-07-24
17:57:36 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #23)
Summary:
1) Correct histograming spelling.
Histogramming is spelt correctly (with two m's - just like programming).
This is a proper English word - it is present participle form of the verbified
noun. Verbification of nouns is common practice in the English language, and
the fact that the spellcheck dictionary doesn't know about this particular case
doesn't make it incorrect. Google gives 34,000 hits for the word.
2) Try and remove the provides of libPyROOT.so.5.26()(64bit)
As explained above (comment #5) libPyROOT is a bidirectional interface, that
works both from Python to root and from root to Pyhton. There is a potential
legitimate use case for someone wanting to use the root to Python interface in
an application that uses the root libraries to link to this library. If such an
application was put in an rpm it would require this provides. It is therefore
not proper to filter it out.
3) I'm sure it says on the fedora pages some where to use
sed rather than dos2unix but can't find it now.
This used to be true, but the guidelines have changed. They now read:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Rpmlint_Errors
This error occurs because of DOS line breaks in a file. Fix it in the %prep
section with sed or dos2unix.
4) Explanation for the excludearch of ppc.
It is exclude arch ppc64 - 32 bit ppc works. The ppc64 build segfaults during
an invocation of cint.
I didn't find any good documentation for this so I filed a bug report
(referenced in the new spec file). The reply from upstream was that it is a
known issue and they have no intent to fix it.
5) Explanation for %{ix86} x86_64 and -cint package.
It is cintex that is intel only. The cint package is OK.
This is documented in the configure file. ./configure will turn off cintex if
you try to enable it on something else than ix86 and x86_64, giving a warning
about incompatible Cintex architecture. So even if you tried to enable it
configure wouldn't let you.
I have added a comment to the spec file that references a relevant comment in
an existing bug report.
New version:
http://www.grid.tsl.uu.se/review/root-5.26.00c-2.fc12.src.rpm
http://www.grid.tsl.uu.se/review/root.spec
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 547601] Review Request: pfacter - A perl port of facter
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=547601
Jérôme Fenal jfe...@free.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jfe...@free.fr
--- Comment #7 from Jérôme Fenal jfe...@free.fr 2010-07-24 18:28:17 EDT ---
This is not a review, because I'm not yet a blessed Fedora Packager, but a few
useful (I hope) comments :
Name of the package is perl-pfacter, perl package is pfacter, but perl
namespace of this module is Pfacter. I'd need to check the right case for the
right case naming, but I guess you're right here.
In %install :
- s/PERL_INSTALL_ROOT/DESTDIR/
- chmod -R u+w could be replaced by %{_fixperms}
In %files :
- No README, no Changes despite being present in the source tarball.
- %{perl_vendorlib}/* is way too open. Using %dir %{perl_vendorlib}/Pfacter and
%{perl_vendorlib}/Pfacter.pm would be ok.
- What's the difference between /usr/share/perl5/pfacter.pod
/usr/share/man/man3/pfacter.3pm.gz in the resulting package ? The first one
does not add anything.
HTH,
J.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 607873] Review Request: OTRS - Open Source Ticket Request System
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=607873 Nick Bebout n...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Bug 607873 depends on bug 607878, which changed state. Bug 607878 Summary: Review Request: perl-XML-TreePP - Pure Perl implementation for parsing/writing XML documents https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=607878 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||ERRATA Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Bug 607873 depends on bug 607875, which changed state. Bug 607875 Summary: Review Request: perl-Net-IMAP-Simple-SSL - Simple IMAP account handling with SSL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=607875 What|Old Value |New Value Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||ERRATA Bug 607873 depends on bug 607876, which changed state. Bug 607876 Summary: Review Request: perl-Net-IMAP-Simple - Simple IMAP account handling https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=607876 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||ERRATA Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 547601] Review Request: pfacter - A perl port of facter
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=547601 --- Comment #8 from Jérôme Fenal jfe...@free.fr 2010-07-24 18:50:12 EDT --- Just opened a ticket for the upstream, the CPAN package is not in right shape : https://rt.cpan.org/Public/Bug/Display.html?id=59681 Running perl Makefile.PL leads to an error due to missing file : $ perl Makefile.PL Checking if your kit is complete... Warning: the following files are missing in your kit: t/01-core.t Please inform the author. Writing Makefile for Pfacter Also, version is set at 1.14 in lib/Pfacter.pm, whereas distribution is 1.13-3. Last, the pfacter script is not installed, because not mentioned in EXE_FILES in Makefile.PL Let's see if the author/maintainer responds quickly. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 592733] Review Request: turpial - Is cool twitter client with many features and very light
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=592733 --- Comment #9 from Edwind Richzendy Contreras Soto richze...@gmail.com 2010-07-25 00:40:55 EDT --- I have a new release, spec file in: http://richzendy.org/repo/turpial/turpial.spec The src.rpm it's here: http://richzendy.org/repo/turpial/turpial-1.3.3-2.fc12.src.rpm rpmlint -i turpial-1.3.3-2.fc12.noarch.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint -i turpial-1.3.3-2.fc12.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Any feedback is appreciated. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 592733] Review Request: turpial - Is cool twitter client with many features and very light
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=592733
--- Comment #10 from Chen Lei supercyp...@gmail.com 2010-07-25 00:58:28 EDT
---
Several minor issues:
1.
BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
%install
rm -rf %{buildroot}
buildroot and cleaning %{buildroot} in %install section is not needed in
fedora.
2.
%setup -q -n turpial-1.3.3
-%setup -q
3.
Summary:Is cool twitter client with many features and very light
-Summary:Cool twitter client with many features and very light
4.
%find_lang %{name}
cat %{name}.lang %{name}-all.lang
Why rename %{name}.lang to %{name}-all.lang?
5.
%attr(0755,root,root) %{python_sitelib}/%{name}/main.py
Why add excutable bit for main.py?
Normally, %attr is not needed in %file. %{python_sitelib}/%{name}/main.py
should not be listed seperately, list files twice in %file is forbidden in
spec.
6.
BuildRequires: python-babel = 0.9.1, python2-devel python-setuptools
Requires: python-simplejson = 1.9.2, python-imaging notify-python =
0.1.1, pygame = 1.7, pygtk2 = 2.12, pywebkitgtk gnome-python2-gtkspell =
2.25.3
Please check the version of those packages in F12, if the version in F12
minimum version, then you should not use versioned requirement.
e.g.
pygtk2 = 2.12 - pygtk2
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 578269] Review Request: xgospel - An X11 client for Internet Go Server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=578269 Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Blocks|177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |201449(FE-DEADREVIEW) Resolution||NOTABUG Flag|fedora-review? | --- Comment #30 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2010-07-25 01:08:05 EDT --- Thank you for reply. Once closing. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
