[Bug 531107] Review Request: perl-SQL-Tokenizer - A Perl package to tokenize SQL, generically
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=531107 Marcela Mašláňová changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review+ --- Comment #13 from Marcela Mašláňová 2010-07-28 03:07:42 EDT --- - rpmlint checks return: perl-SQL-Tokenizer.src: E: unknown-key GPG#b73652a5 OK - package meets naming guidelines OK - package meets packaging guidelines OK - license (GPL+ or Artistic) OK, text in %doc, matches source - spec file legible, in am. english OK - source matches upstream 0cd63eb036f81e22d1d58fc1f81beb5f OK - package compiles on devel (x86) OK - no missing BR OK - no unnecessary BR OK - no locales OK - not relocatable OK - owns all directories that it creates OK - no duplicate files OK - permissions ok OK - %clean ok OK - macro use consistent OK - code, not content OK - no need for -docs OK - nothing in %doc affects runtime OK - no need for .desktop file OK -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 591415] Review Request: R-timeDate - Rmetrics - chronological and calendarical objects
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=591415
Pierre-YvesChibon changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #10 from Pierre-YvesChibon 2010-07-28
03:09:11 EDT ---
* Latest version packaged
895b9ddfc48604ed908b0689cfeeb728d96ecc73 timeDate_2120.90.tar.gz
895b9ddfc48604ed908b0689cfeeb728d96ecc73
/home/pierrey/rpmbuild/SOURCES/timeDate_2120.90.tar.gz
* sha1sum are equals
- You should change the Require to R into R-core
Not all mandatory Requires are present in ['R', 'R-RUnit']
* All required BuildRequires are present
* The macro %check is present
* There is 1 %dir
%dir is OK
* There is 4 %doc
* The rpm installed in _datadir
* The rpm uses %{_datadir} and is noarch
* The rpm seems to have the required element in %install
LANG=C rpmbuild -ba /home/pierrey/rpmbuild/SPECS/R-timeDate.spec >
R-timeDate.spec-build.log 2>&1
* Build properly under 2.6.33.6-147.fc13.x86_64
* rpmlint:
R-timeDate.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Rmetrics -> Metrics, R
metrics, Metricates
R-timeDate.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) calendarical -> calendrical,
calendar, calendric
R-timeDate.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Rmetrics -> Metrics, R
metrics, Metricates
R-timeDate.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) calendarical ->
calendrical, calendar, calendric
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
Scratch build on koji for target f14
* Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2355826
0 free 0 open 2 done 0 failed
2355826 build (dist-f14, R-timeDate-2120.90-1.fc12.src.rpm) completed
successfully
* Build is clean from warnings or errors
* All checks are passed
* License (GPLv2+) is compatible with Fedora
* Warnings from rpmlint are safe to ignore (although calendarical might be
worth to change)
I trust you can fix the Requires issue before importing the package into the
CVS, therefore this package is
APPROVED.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 618638] Review Request: perl-Package-DeprecationManager - Manage deprecation warnings for your distribution
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=618638 Marcela Mašláňová changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mmasl...@redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 618761] Review request: Gold Allocation Manager for HPC
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=618761 Mark Chappell changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||trem...@tremble.org.uk AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|trem...@tremble.org.uk -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 618638] Review Request: perl-Package-DeprecationManager - Manage deprecation warnings for your distribution
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=618638 Marcela Mašláňová changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Marcela Mašláňová 2010-07-28 04:20:17 EDT --- - rpmlint checks return: - package meets naming guidelines OK - package meets packaging guidelines OK - license (Artistic 2.0) OK, text in %doc, matches source OK - spec file legible, in am. english OK - source matches upstream bc1d60d004b8b4d6aa8c11f3c4ccbc5f OK - package compiles on devel (x86) OK http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2355937 - no missing BR OK - no unnecessary BR OK - no locales OK - not relocatable OK - owns all directories that it creates OK - no duplicate files OK - permissions ok OK - %clean ok OK - macro use consistent OK - code, not content OK - no need for -docs OK - nothing in %doc affects runtime OK - no need for .desktop file OK Comments: Kwalitee tests don't have to run. Patches should be sent to upstream, but I suppose your patch make this module work with older releases in EPEL, so they won't be applied in upstream anyway. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 617986] Review Request: cryptkeeper - A Linux system tray applet that manages EncFS encrypted folders
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=617986 Tim Lauridsen changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||t...@rasmil.dk AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|t...@rasmil.dk Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Tim Lauridsen 2010-07-28 04:26:52 EDT --- I will review this none -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 617986] Review Request: cryptkeeper - A Linux system tray applet that manages EncFS encrypted folders
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=617986 Tim Lauridsen changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |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 617986] Review Request: cryptkeeper - A Linux system tray applet that manages EncFS encrypted folders
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=617986
--- Comment #2 from Tim Lauridsen 2010-07-28 04:31:25 EDT ---
Key:
[P] Pass
[F] Fail See [n]
[-] Not applicable
[?] Questions (see comments)
[P] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be
posted in the review.
$ rpmlint cryptkeeper-0.9.5-1.fc13.src.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
$ rpmlint ~/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/cryptkeeper-0.9.5-1.fc13.x86_64.rpm
cryptkeeper.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/cryptkeeper
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
[P] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming
Guidelines.
[P] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name},
in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
[P] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[P] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved
license and meet the Licensing Guidelines.
GPLv3
[P] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match
the actual license.
GPLv3
[P] 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.
[P] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[P] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[P] 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.
d02918b2058854177d2f59b837c2743f cryptkeeper-0.9.5.tar.gz (upstream)
d02918b2058854177d2f59b837c2743f cryptkeeper-0.9.5.tar.gz (srpm)
[P] 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.
[P] 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.
[P] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by
using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/[ ] is strictly
forbidden.
[-] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or sub package) which stores shared
library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's
default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[-] MUST: 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.
[P] 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. Refer to the Guidelines for examples.
[P] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files
listing.
[P] 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.
[P] MUST: The %clean section is not required for F-13 and above. Each package
for F-12 and below (or EPEL) MUST have a %clean section, which contains
rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
[P] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the
macros section of Packaging Guidelines.
[P] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissible content.
This is described in detail in the code vs. content section
of Packaging Guidelines.
[-] MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc sub package.
(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)
[P] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program
must run properly if it is not present.
[-] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[-] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -
[Bug 618668] Review Request: Derelict - a collection of D bindings to C shared 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=618668 Chen Lei changed: What|Removed |Added CC||supercyp...@gmail.com Summary|Derelict is a collection of |Review Request: Derelict - |D bindings to C shared |a collection of D bindings |libraries |to C shared libraries -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 618268] Review Request: geronimo-osgi-support - OSGI spec bundle support
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=618268 Stanislav Ochotnicky changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||socho...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|socho...@redhat.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Stanislav Ochotnicky 2010-07-28 04:56:20 EDT --- I'll do the review -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 618638] Review Request: perl-Package-DeprecationManager - Manage deprecation warnings for your distribution
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=618638 Paul Howarth changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Paul Howarth 2010-07-28 04:59:01 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1) > Comments: > Kwalitee tests don't have to run. I'll drop the BR: on Test::Kwalitee if they start failing down the line > Patches should be sent to upstream, but I suppose your patch make this module > work with older releases in EPEL, so they won't be applied in upstream anyway. Correct. Thanks for the review Marcela New Package CVS Request === Package Name: perl-Package-DeprecationManager Short Description: Manage deprecation warnings for your distribution Owners: pghmcfc Branches: EL-5 EL-6 F-12 F-13 InitialCC: perl-sig -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 618761] Review request: Gold Allocation Manager for HPC
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=618761
Mark Chappell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag||fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #3 from Mark Chappell 2010-07-28 05:08:37
EDT ---
- = N/A
/ = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[/] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[/] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[/] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines including the Perl specific items
[/] Versioned MODULE_COMPAT_ Requires
[-] Non-Versioned CPAN URL tag
[/] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture.
Tested: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2355956
[!] Rpmlint output:
gold.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pre -> per, ore, pee
gold.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US timeframe -> time frame,
time-frame, timeshare
gold.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/gold-2.1.12.2/LICENSE
gold.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/goldg.conf
gold.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/gold-2.1.12.2/README
gold.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/gold.conf
gold.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/goldd.conf
gold.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gmkaccount
... Snip many similar messages ...
gold.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary glsproject
gold.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pre -> per, ore, pee
gold.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US timeframe -> time frame,
time-frame, timeshare
gold.src:96: W: macro-in-comment %{buildroot}
gold.src:96: W: macro-in-comment %{_sysconfdir}
gold.src:98: W: macro-in-comment %{SOURCE1}
gold.src:98: W: macro-in-comment %{buildroot}
gold.src:98: W: macro-in-comment %{_sysconfdir}
gold-doc.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/gold-2.1.12.2/LICENSE
gold-doc.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/gold-doc-2.1.12.2/README
gold-doc.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/gold-doc-2.1.12.2/LICENSE
gold-doc.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/gold-2.1.12.2/README
gold-web.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US frontend -> fronted,
front end, front-end
gold-web.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/gold-web-2.1.12.2/README
gold-web.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/gold-web-2.1.12.2/LICENSE
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 62 warnings.
[/] Package is not relocatable.
[/] Buildroot is correct ( Not needed if >= EL6 and >= F13 )
Buildroot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
[/] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
[/] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type: BSD
(http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/legal/2010-July/001338.html)
[/] 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.
[/] With any Subpackage installed the license must also be installed (this may
belong to another subpackage)
[!] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[/] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
d2cd0943ea4d574f7c101510ad11d02d gold-2.1.12.2.tar.gz
d2cd0943ea4d574f7c101510ad11d02d SOURCES/gold-2.1.12.2.tar.gz
[/] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch
[/] 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.
[/] Package must own all directories that it creates.
[/] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[!] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[/] Permissions on files are set properly.
[/] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -fR $RPM_BUILD_ROOT. ( Not
needed if >= EL6 and >= F13 )
[/] Package consistently uses macros.
[/] Package contains code, or permissible content.
[/] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[/] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Static libraries in -static subpackage, if present.
[-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present.
[-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[/] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[/] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
[-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
[/] Package does not own files o
[Bug 618761] Review request: Gold Allocation Manager for HPC
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=618761 --- Comment #4 from Jessica Jones 2010-07-28 05:45:08 EDT --- (In reply to comment #3) > [!] Package does not contain duplicates in %files. > === COMMENTS === > > Only the LICENSE file should be included in all the %doc stansas. (the rest > should be based on what's appropriate, normally just the main package) > > While the spec file is legible, it's supposed to be en_US > timeframe -> time frame, time-frame Is there some way to check this sort of thing (I am finding conflicting sources)? I copied the description from the website, which is in US English as far as I know. > file-not-utf8 (LICENSE, README) > # standard fix (preserving timestamps) > iconv -f iso8859-1 -t utf8 README >README.utf8 > touch -r README README.utf8 > mv README.utf8 README Do you want me to add that to the spec file? > Ignore the lack of man-page messages, upstream don't provide them and there is > other documentation. > > non-conffile-in-etc (/etc/gold(|g|d).conf > - Use the %conf macro > > macro-in-comment > - Ignore, > Okay will do. > Is there a make test rule (that doesn't require a database)? If so it > *should* > be used. No there isn't. I already looked into this, and there isn't a make check either. I have been talking to the upstream maintainer off-list about this and other issues, so it may appear later. > It's worth running a recent rpmlint over all the files before submitting, the > EL-5 rpmlint is rather out of date. It would be nice if the people.fedoraproject.org servers had the koji client and rpmlint (and rpmbuild for creating SRPMs) on them. I will have to spend some time setting up a VM so that I can use it to build otherwise. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 618985] Review Request: Swift - XMPP 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=618985 Jan Kaluža changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mschm...@redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 589075] Review Request: dpkt - Packet creation / parsing library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=589075 Chen Lei changed: What|Removed |Added CC||supercyp...@gmail.com --- Comment #8 from Chen Lei 2010-07-28 05:44:18 EDT --- This package should be renamed to python-dpkg. See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageNamingGuidelines#Addon_Packages_.28python_modules.29 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 618985] New: Review Request: Swift - XMPP client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: Swift - XMPP client https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=618985 Summary: Review Request: Swift - XMPP client Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: jkal...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Target Release: --- Spec URL: http://jkaluza.fedorapeople.org/swift.spec SRPM URL: http://jkaluza.fedorapeople.org/swift-1.0-0.1.beta5.fc13.src.rpm Description: Swift is easy to use XMPP client which is trying to plug a hole in the XMPP client landscape. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 427484] Review Request: publican-RedHat - Red Hat theme
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427484
--- Comment #13 from Paul Howarth 2010-07-28 05:57:42 EDT
---
You should have:
Provides: documentation-devel-%{brand} = %{version}-%{release}
Obsoletes: documentation-devel-%{brand} <= 0.4-0
That should fix the complaints about provides and obsoletes.
However, I note that the original submission in this review is for
documentation-devel-RedHat-0.4-0.fc9, which is a higher release number (with
the dist tag) than
documentation-devel-RedHat-0.4-0. So I'd change the obsolete to:
Obsoletes: documentation-devel-%{brand} < 0.4-1
Or maybe even:
Obsoletes: documentation-devel-%{brand} < %{version}-%{release}
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 618761] Review request: Gold Allocation Manager for HPC
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=618761 --- Comment #5 from Mark Chappell 2010-07-28 05:58:44 EDT --- (In reply to comment #4) > (In reply to comment #3) > > While the spec file is legible, it's supposed to be en_US > > timeframe -> time frame, time-frame > > Is there some way to check this sort of thing (I am finding conflicting > sources)? I copied the description from the website, which is in US English > as > far as I know. I rely on RPMlint on the whole, if you've an online US dictionary contradicting this don't worry too much. > > file-not-utf8 (LICENSE, README) > > Do you want me to add that to the spec file? Yes, sorry if that wasn't clear. > > It's worth running a recent rpmlint over all the files before submitting, > > the > > EL-5 rpmlint is rather out of date. > > It would be nice if the people.fedoraproject.org servers had the koji client > and rpmlint (and rpmbuild for creating SRPMs) on them. I will have to spend > some time setting up a VM so that I can use it to build otherwise. rpmbuild is a deliberate omission, and koji would require your ssh private keys. Personally I think it would be useful to add rpmlint to the post build scripts in koji... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 601577] Review Request: liblockfile - This library implements a number of functions found in -lmail on SysV systems
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=601577 --- Comment #9 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) 2010-07-28 06:34:22 EDT --- Sorry for delay. Now now any answer regard to licensing? Regarding to name I do not understand about what library you speak? In RPM you pack only one binarie. There at your choose - include also library (may be in subpackage), or rename package. Now name have some confusing about it content. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 618761] Review request: Gold Allocation Manager for HPC
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=618761 --- Comment #6 from Jessica Jones 2010-07-28 06:35:22 EDT --- (In reply to comment #5) > (In reply to comment #4) > > (In reply to comment #3) > > > While the spec file is legible, it's supposed to be en_US > > > timeframe -> time frame, time-frame > > > > Is there some way to check this sort of thing (I am finding conflicting > > sources)? I copied the description from the website, which is in US > > English as > > far as I know. > > I rely on RPMlint on the whole, if you've an online US dictionary > contradicting > this don't worry too much. I have made the changes suggested by rpmlint, although I did not change 'pre'. I'm finding all of those suggestions are fine according to the online US dictionary, but nevermind. > > > file-not-utf8 (LICENSE, README) > > > > Do you want me to add that to the spec file? > > Yes, sorry if that wasn't clear. Okay, done. > > > It's worth running a recent rpmlint over all the files before submitting, > > > the > > > EL-5 rpmlint is rather out of date. > > > > It would be nice if the people.fedoraproject.org servers had the koji client > > and rpmlint (and rpmbuild for creating SRPMs) on them. I will have to spend > > some time setting up a VM so that I can use it to build otherwise. > > rpmbuild is a deliberate omission, and koji would require your ssh private > keys. Personally I think it would be useful to add rpmlint to the post build > scripts in koji... True. I forget that koji uses ssh keys and not kerberos. I have updated the spec file and SRPM on my people.fedoraproject space (so same URL as before). Please could you check again? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 618761] Review request: Gold Allocation Manager for HPC
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=618761 --- Comment #7 from Jessica Jones 2010-07-28 06:44:25 EDT --- Sorry, as release was incremented, the SRPM changed name. SRPM: http://people.fedoraproject.org/~zaniyah/gold/gold-2.1.12.2-2.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 562585] Review Request: ccd2iso - CloneCD image to ISO image file converter
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=562585
Mohammed Safwat changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #433155|0 |1
is obsolete||
--- Comment #18 from Mohammed Safwat 2010-07-28
07:04:12 EDT ---
Created an attachment (id=434980)
--> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=434980)
SPEC file after removing %{name} macro from URL links
Some URL's are still difficult to simply copy/paste to a browser because they
contain the %{version} macro; I was asked to add it on comment 4
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=562585#c4 earlier.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 619012] New: Review Request: cagibi - SSDP (UPnP discovery) cache/proxy daemon
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: cagibi - SSDP (UPnP discovery) cache/proxy daemon https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=619012 Summary: Review Request: cagibi - SSDP (UPnP discovery) cache/proxy daemon Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: jrez...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Target Release: --- Spec URL: http://rezza.hofyland.cz/fedora/packages/cagibi/cagibi.spec SRPM URL: http://rezza.hofyland.cz/fedora/packages/cagibi/cagibi-0.1.0-1.fc13.src.rpm Description: Cagibi is a cache/proxy daemon for SSDP (the discovery part of UPnP). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 562585] Review Request: ccd2iso - CloneCD image to ISO image file converter
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=562585 Mohammed Safwat changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #433156|0 |1 is obsolete|| --- Comment #19 from Mohammed Safwat 2010-07-28 07:05:41 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=434981) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=434981) source RPM I'll try to accomplish the steps for getting sponsored by reviewing some other packages by the end of this week. Sorry for being late to do. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 Stanislav Ochotnicky changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||socho...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|socho...@redhat.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #7 from Stanislav Ochotnicky 2010-07-28 07:25:37 EDT --- I am going to do the review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 551912] Review Request: monodevelop-java - A java plugin for monodevelop
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=551912 --- Comment #9 from Claudio Rodrigo Pereyra DIaz 2010-07-28 07:34:25 EDT --- (In reply to comment #8) > #7 : Is this based on my srpm? Yes!, is based on your 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 534095] Review Request: oxygen-molecule-gnome-theme - Oxygen Molecule GTK Theme
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=534095 Michael Schwendt changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | --- Comment #1 from Michael Schwendt 2010-07-28 07:34:27 EDT --- Dropping FE-NEEDSPONSOR as I see you in FAS already as "mmoeller". -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 619025] New: Review Request: python-dpkt - Simple packet creation/parsing python 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: python-dpkt - Simple packet creation/parsing python library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=619025 Summary: Review Request: python-dpkt - Simple packet creation/parsing python library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: yan...@declera.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://declera.com/~yaneti/python-dpkt/python-dpkt.spec SRPM URL: http://declera.com/~yaneti/python-dpkt/python-dpkt-1.7-4.fc14.src.rpm Description: Package rename of the recently imported "dpkt" from review request - bug 589075 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 589075] Review Request: dpkt - Packet creation / parsing library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=589075 --- Comment #9 from Yanko Kaneti 2010-07-28 08:00:36 EDT --- Oh well. I guess I should have checked what debian and opensuse were doing with this. Here is the (rename) review request. bug 619025. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 589075] Review Request: dpkt - Packet creation / parsing library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=589075 --- Comment #10 from Chen Lei 2010-07-28 08:10:16 EDT --- (In reply to comment #9) > Oh well. I guess I should have checked what debian and opensuse were doing > with > this. > Here is the (rename) review request. bug 619025. OK, here is the retire process for dpkt, we should be careful when naming an addons package. I can help to approve python-dpkt, if no one take it after two days(F14 split). http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/RetiredPackages -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 595551] Review Request: ibus-table-mathwriter - ibus-table-mathwriter provides input method for writing Unicode Math symbols
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=595551 Bug 595551 depends on bug 597035, which changed state. Bug 597035 Summary: Review Request: ibus-table-others - Various tables for IBus-Table https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=597035 What|Old Value |New Value Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||WONTFIX -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 597035] Review Request: ibus-table-others - Various tables for IBus-Table
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=597035 Caius Chance changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||WONTFIX --- Comment #2 from Caius Chance 2010-07-28 08:18:00 EDT --- Naveen acknowledged that he will resubmit review request for this package. I was instructed to close this ticket so Naveen could resubmit as reporter. 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 619025] Review Request: python-dpkt - Simple packet creation/parsing python library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=619025
--- Comment #1 from Chen Lei 2010-07-28 08:24:56 EDT ---
Some initial comments here:
1.
4%{?dist} can be resetted to 1%{?dist}
2.
%{!?python_sitelib: %global python_sitelib %(%{__python} -c "from
distutils.sysconfig import get_python_lib; print(get_python_lib())")}
->
%if ! (0%{?fedora} > 12 || 0%{?rhel} > 5)
%{!?python_sitelib: %global python_sitelib %(%{__python} -c "from
distutils.sysconfig import get_python_lib; print(get_python_lib())")}
%endif
%python_sitelib is defined in rpm macros for F13/F14 and EL6.
3.
Group: Development/Languages
->
Group: Development/Libraries
Development/Languages is for python runtime(e.g. python python3) or
compilers(e.g. gcc clang) only.
4.
Provides: dpkt = 1.7-3
Obsoletes: dpkt < 1.7-3
->
Obsoletes: dpkt < 1.7-4
Since dpkt is a new package, we can safely remove provides here.
5.
I suggest to remove python from summary and description since package name
already indicates it's a python module.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 618985] Review Request: Swift - XMPP 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=618985 Michal Schmidt changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED 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 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
Stanislav Ochotnicky changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #8 from Stanislav Ochotnicky 2010-07-28
08:45:23 EDT ---
OK: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted
in the review.
empty output...completely clean
OK: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
OK: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. .
OK: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
OK: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines .
OK: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
PL: 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: All independent sub-packages have License of their own (if it exists)
OK: The spec file must be written in American English.
OK: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
OK: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no
upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL
Guidelines for how to deal with this.
OK: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture.
OK: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of
those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
OK: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
OK: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a
directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that
directory.
OK: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings.
OK: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with
executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
%defattr(...) line.
OK: Each package must consistently use macros.
OK: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
OK: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of
large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to
size. Large can refer to either size or quantity).
OK: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of
the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly
if it is not present.
OK: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages.
The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the
files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for
example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with any of the
files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that
you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns,
then please present that at package review time.
OK: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
Note that there is also install macro. You might want to use it since
you are already using macros for other commands.
Package nice and 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 592579] Review Request: Frama-c - Framework for source code analysis of C software
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=592579
Chen Lei changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||supercyp...@gmail.com
--- Comment #47 from Chen Lei 2010-07-28 08:51:46 EDT
---
Some suggestions:
1. Why not package the latest version - frama-c-Boron-20100401 instead?
2.I think Development/Libraries should be changed to Development/Tools.
3.
%{_datadir}/applications should not be listed in %file, you need to use
%{_datadir}/applications/*.desktop instead.
4.
I suggest to rename %{name}.desktop to %{name}-gui.desktop. Actually, frama-c
is a command line tool.
5.
ExcludeArch: PPC, PPC64, ARM, IA64, MIPS, S390
I think you should use ExclusiveArch: alpha armv4l %{ix86} ia64 x86_64 ppc
sparc sparcv9 ppc64 instead to keep consistency with ocaml.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 610079] Review Request: bindex - Bundle Manifest Header Mapper
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=610079 Stanislav Ochotnicky changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||socho...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|socho...@redhat.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #3 from Stanislav Ochotnicky 2010-07-28 08:56:57 EDT --- I can do the review, but it seems like you will need to have a look into https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#SnapshotPackages Maybe I am wrong and package version/release is correct but it seems like there should be some changes. I'll let you know. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 569492] Review Request: Ailurus - make Linux easier to use for newcomers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=569492 Liang Suilong changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||CANTFIX --- Comment #14 from Liang Suilong 2010-07-28 08:59:44 EDT --- Homer Xing, the author of ailurus, decided to be more absorbed in developing ailurus. So he has given up this bug report. The package review should be closed. I will take over ailurus' request. So I will close this bug report and open a new one. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 619048] New: ailurus - A simple application installer and GNOME tweaker
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: ailurus - A simple application installer and GNOME tweaker https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=619048 Summary: ailurus - A simple application installer and GNOME tweaker Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: liangsuil...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora SPEC: http://liangsuilong.fedorapeople.org/ailurus.spec SRPM: http://liangsuilong.fedorapeople.org/ailurus-10.07.6-1.fc13.src.rpm Description: Ailurus is an application which aims at making Linux easier to use. It provides these functionality. * Help users study some Linux skills * Install/remove some nice applications * Display information about BIOS, motherboard, CPU and battery * Configure some GNOME settings Rpmlint is silent, and it can build on koji targeting to dist-rawhide. Koji Result: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2354010 Now Ailurus does not contain any patent contents. I believe that it has obey Fedora Licensing Guideline. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 619025] Review Request: python-dpkt - Simple packet creation/parsing python library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=619025
--- Comment #2 from Yanko Kaneti 2010-07-28 09:02:39 EDT
---
Thanks for the comments.
(In reply to comment #1)
> Some initial comments here:
>
> 1.
> 4%{?dist} can be resetted to 1%{?dist}
> 2.
Did reset it while also removing the previous parts of the changelog
> %{!?python_sitelib: %global python_sitelib %(%{__python} -c "from
> distutils.sysconfig import get_python_lib; print(get_python_lib())")}
> ->
> %if ! (0%{?fedora} > 12 || 0%{?rhel} > 5)
> %{!?python_sitelib: %global python_sitelib %(%{__python} -c "from
> distutils.sysconfig import get_python_lib; print(get_python_lib())")}
> %endif
>
> %python_sitelib is defined in rpm macros for F13/F14 and EL6.
This is just compatibility cruft.
I have no plans to maintain this for anything other than F14+
> 3.
> Group: Development/Languages
> ->
> Group: Development/Libraries
>
> Development/Languages is for python runtime(e.g. python python3) or
> compilers(e.g. gcc clang) only.
Changed.
> 4.
>
> Provides: dpkt = 1.7-3
> Obsoletes: dpkt < 1.7-3
> ->
> Obsoletes: dpkt < 1.7-4
>
> Since dpkt is a new package, we can safely remove provides here.
I have no plans to touch the already published F13 update so I think the
Provides should stay. and it makes rpmlint happy. Change both to 1.7-4
> 5.
> I suggest to remove python from summary and description since package name
> already indicates it's a python module.
Done.
New
Spec URL: http://declera.com/~yaneti/python-dpkt/python-dpkt.spec
SRPM URL: http://declera.com/~yaneti/python-dpkt/python-dpkt-1.7-1.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 615577] Review Request: opencc - A library for conversion between traditional and simplified Chinese
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=615577 --- Comment #7 from Chen Lei 2010-07-28 09:03:29 EDT --- Hi Chia-Pao Kuo, Is there any progress on opencc package review? Free free to contact me for any packaging issues either in Chinese or English. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 618985] Review Request: Swift - XMPP 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=618985 --- Comment #1 from Michal Schmidt 2010-07-28 09:06:43 EDT --- Another package called "swift". I have asked the packager of the other one if changing the name to "OpenStack-swift" would be acceptable: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=617632#c3 For the record: We already know the upstream developer of this swift would not object to the package name "swift-im". -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 617632] Review Request: swift - OpenStack Object Storage (swift)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=617632 Michal Schmidt changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mschm...@redhat.com --- Comment #3 from Michal Schmidt 2010-07-28 09:03:31 EDT --- Hello, there is a naming collision with another software also called "swift" (http://swift.im/releases/swift-1.0beta5/ , in Fedora review in bug 618985). We'll have to rename at least one of the "swift" packages. Would a name OpenStack-swift or openstack-swift be acceptable for your package? I am not familiar with OpenStack, but from a quick look at https://launchpad.net/openstack/ it seems that it encompasses more projects than just swift, as there's also OpenStack Compute (nova) - having a common prefix might be therefore useful for this reason too (e.g. a hypothetical Fedora package: OpenStack-nova). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 619025] Review Request: python-dpkt - Simple packet creation/parsing python library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=619025
--- Comment #3 from Chen Lei 2010-07-28 09:12:50 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Thanks for the comments.
> (In reply to comment #1)
> > Some initial comments here:
> >
> > 1.
> > 4%{?dist} can be resetted to 1%{?dist}
> > 2.
> Did reset it while also removing the previous parts of the changelog
It depends on you, actually you can remain the original changelog, but remove
release number(e.g. - 1.7-2 -> -
1.7
).
> > %{!?python_sitelib: %global python_sitelib %(%{__python} -c "from
> > distutils.sysconfig import get_python_lib; print(get_python_lib())")}
> > ->
> > %if ! (0%{?fedora} > 12 || 0%{?rhel} > 5)
> > %{!?python_sitelib: %global python_sitelib %(%{__python} -c "from
> > distutils.sysconfig import get_python_lib; print(get_python_lib())")}
> > %endif
> >
> > %python_sitelib is defined in rpm macros for F13/F14 and EL6.
> This is just compatibility cruft.
This part is changed in packaging guideline already. Since you only maintain
dpkt for F13+, I suggest you to remove the following lines from spec which is
useless for F13 and above:
1.%{!?python_sitelib: %global python_sitelib %(%{__python} -c "from
distutils.sysconfig import get_python_lib; print(get_python_lib())")}
2.BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u}
-n)
3.
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT( in %install section)
4.
%clean
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
> > 4.
> >
> > Provides: dpkt = 1.7-3
> > Obsoletes: dpkt < 1.7-3
> > ->
> > Obsoletes: dpkt < 1.7-4
> >
> > Since dpkt is a new package, we can safely remove provides here.
> I have no plans to touch the already published F13 update so I think the
> Provides should stay. and it makes rpmlint happy. Change both to 1.7-4
rpmlint is wrong, except there are already some packages depends on dpkt, you
can remove provides to save a namespace in rpmdb.
See
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upgrade_paths_%E2%80%94_renaming_or_splitting_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 618985] Review Request: Swift - XMPP 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=618985 --- Comment #2 from Michal Schmidt 2010-07-28 09:17:33 EDT --- %description should be longer. Where does swift.xpm (Source2) come from? You do not need to define "BuildRoot:..." anymore, rpmbuild will use a sane one automatically (since F-10). You do not need to clean the buildroot manually at the beginning of %install (since F-10). You do not need the %clean section either (since F-13). http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag It's good that you remove bundled libraries in %prep. Only why you do not remove all of them? The "3rdParty" directory still contains: Boost CppUnit DocBook hippomocks.h LCov -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 617986] Review Request: cryptkeeper - A Linux system tray applet that manages EncFS encrypted folders
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=617986 --- Comment #3 from Hicham HAOUARI 2010-07-28 09:18:30 EDT --- Thanks Tim for reviewing this package -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 617986] Review Request: cryptkeeper - A Linux system tray applet that manages EncFS encrypted folders
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=617986 Hicham HAOUARI 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 617986] Review Request: cryptkeeper - A Linux system tray applet that manages EncFS encrypted folders
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=617986 --- Comment #4 from Hicham HAOUARI 2010-07-28 09:22:22 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: cryptkeeper Short Description: A Linux system tray applet that manages EncFS encrypted folders Owners: hicham Branches: F-12 F-13 InitialCC: hicham -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 569492] Review Request: Ailurus - make Linux easier to use for newcomers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=569492 Chen Lei changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|CANTFIX |DUPLICATE --- Comment #15 from Chen Lei 2010-07-28 09:20:14 EDT --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 619048 *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 619048] ailurus - A simple application installer and GNOME tweaker
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=619048 Chen Lei changed: What|Removed |Added CC||homer.x...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Chen Lei 2010-07-28 09:20:14 EDT --- *** Bug 569492 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 619048] ailurus - A simple application installer and GNOME tweaker
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=619048 Chen Lei changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||supercyp...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|supercyp...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 616357] Review Request: spamassassin-FuzzyOcr - Spamassassin plugin to identify image spam
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=616357 Marcela Mašláňová changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mmasl...@redhat.com --- Comment #1 from Marcela Mašláňová 2010-07-28 09:02:39 EDT --- If you are using iconv, you should BR iconv. md5sum is fine d434a339fb0bb5cc9120772325908df5 build passed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2356045 Shouldn't you install also samples into %doc? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 572515] Review Request: jogl - Java bindings for OpenGL
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=572515 --- Comment #17 from Jon Ciesla 2010-07-28 09:27:29 EDT --- Aidan, ping? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 619025] Review Request: python-dpkt - Simple packet creation/parsing python library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=619025
--- Comment #4 from Yanko Kaneti 2010-07-28 09:31:35 EDT
---
(In reply to comment #3)
> (In reply to comment #2)
> > Thanks for the comments.
> > (In reply to comment #1)
> > > Some initial comments here:
>
> > > %{!?python_sitelib: %global python_sitelib %(%{__python} -c "from
> > > distutils.sysconfig import get_python_lib; print(get_python_lib())")}
> > > ->
> > > %if ! (0%{?fedora} > 12 || 0%{?rhel} > 5)
> > > %{!?python_sitelib: %global python_sitelib %(%{__python} -c "from
> > > distutils.sysconfig import get_python_lib; print(get_python_lib())")}
> > > %endif
> > >
> > > %python_sitelib is defined in rpm macros for F13/F14 and EL6.
> > This is just compatibility cruft.
> This part is changed in packaging guideline already. Since you only maintain
> dpkt for F13+, I suggest you to remove the following lines from spec which is
> useless for F13 and above:
>
> 1.%{!?python_sitelib: %global python_sitelib %(%{__python} -c "from
> distutils.sysconfig import get_python_lib; print(get_python_lib())")}
>
> 2.BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u}
> -n)
>
> 3.
> rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT( in %install section)
>
> 4.
> %clean
> rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
You are right. I've removed them all.
>
> > > 4.
> > >
> > > Provides: dpkt = 1.7-3
> > > Obsoletes: dpkt < 1.7-3
> > > ->
> > > Obsoletes: dpkt < 1.7-4
> > >
> > > Since dpkt is a new package, we can safely remove provides here.
> > I have no plans to touch the already published F13 update so I think the
> > Provides should stay. and it makes rpmlint happy. Change both to 1.7-4
>
> rpmlint is wrong, except there are already some packages depends on dpkt, you
> can remove provides to save a namespace in rpmdb.
>
> See
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upgrade_paths_%E2%80%94_renaming_or_splitting_packages
>
This only takes in account the packages in the disrto. For a library type
package you can't really know if some user outside the tree might not be
depending on the stable package names.
Granted for dpkt this is unlikely at this point. I've removed the Provides.
New
Spec URL: http://declera.com/~yaneti/python-dpkt/python-dpkt.spec
SRPM URL: http://declera.com/~yaneti/python-dpkt/python-dpkt-1.7-1.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 617632] Review Request: swift - OpenStack Object Storage (swift)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=617632 Jared Smith changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jaredsm...@jaredsmith.net --- Comment #4 from Jared Smith 2010-07-28 09:36:11 EDT --- I'm not a Fedora packager (yet?), but I took a look at your spec file and it looks great to me. I didn't see anything that stood out to me from a packaging standpoint. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 616357] Review Request: spamassassin-FuzzyOcr - Spamassassin plugin to identify image spam
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=616357 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Colin Kissa 2010-07-28 09:46:18 EDT --- Hi The requested changes have been made, updated srpm and spec: http://topdog-software.com/oss/SRPMS/fedora/spamassassin-FuzzyOcr/spamassassin-FuzzyOcr-3.6.0-2.fc13.src.rpm http://topdog-software.com/oss/SRPMS/fedora/spamassassin-FuzzyOcr/spamassassin-FuzzyOcr.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 610079] Review Request: bindex - Bundle Manifest Header Mapper
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=610079
--- Comment #4 from Stanislav Ochotnicky 2010-07-28
09:48:05 EDT ---
OK: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the
review.
bindex.src: W: invalid-url Source0: bindex.r96.svn.tar.gz
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
NEEDSWORK: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
.
I am not sure how you got to "Version: 2.2". I couldn't find anything
in the archive/homepage suggesting that's the last version of the
package. This seems like the snapshot pre-release of version 0. So it
should be something like:
Version: 0
Release: 0.1.svn96%{?dist}
You are welcome to prove me wrong. One way or the other it would be
nice to get in touch with upstream and get them to actually release
versioned binary release (e.g. bindex-%{version}.zip/tar.xx)
OK: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. .
OK: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
OK: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines .
OK: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
OK: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package must be included in %doc.
OK: All independent sub-packages have License of their own (if it exists)
OK: The spec file must be written in American English.
NEEDSWORK: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
You define a LOT of macros that are only used once:
* svnRev/svnURL
* bnd
* installJAR
* rmFiles/rmFiles_lst
Please don't do this, it just makes the spec file harder to read
without adding any benefit. I know it can be tempting to treat spec
file as a bash script, but think of it more as a "recipe" where you
just define the ingredients and few hints how to cook it :-) Make it
as simple as possible.
Plus one more thing. Instead of creating lnSysJar macro, use
build-classpath or build-classpath-directory commands. They have been
created especially for this situation. I noticed you used
build-classpath in the spec file...so maybe you just didn't know about
-directory version of it? I know it doesn't work well with renames
when creating symlinks, so maybe you would have to patch the
bindex.bnd file or something like that...I still find it better
than custom functions that recreate those already provided.
OK: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no
upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL
Guidelines for how to deal with this.
OK: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture.
OK: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of
those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
OK: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
OK: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a
directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that
directory.
OK: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings.
OK: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with
executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
%defattr(...) line.
OK: Each package must consistently use macros.
OK: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
OK: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages.
The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the
files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for
example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with any of the
files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that
you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns,
then please present that at package review time.
OK: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
That's about it for now I guess
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 619048] ailurus - A simple application installer and GNOME tweaker
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=619048
--- Comment #2 from Chen Lei 2010-07-28 09:50:00 EDT ---
The spec file is sane, except some minor issues:
1.rpmlint ailurus.spec
ailurus.spec: W: no-buildroot-tag
ailurus.spec:7: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 7, tab: line 6)
W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs should be fixed IMHO.
2.
%files -f %{name}.lang
%defattr(-,root,root)
->
%files -f %{name}.lang
%defattr(-,root,root,-)
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 616357] Review Request: spamassassin-FuzzyOcr - Spamassassin plugin to identify image spam
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=616357 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Colin Kissa 2010-07-28 09:48:04 EDT --- P.S The samples are installed under %doc [buil...@build1 ~]$ rpm -qlp rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/spamassassin-FuzzyOcr-3.6.0-2.fc13.noarch.rpm SNIP /usr/share/doc/spamassassin-FuzzyOcr-3.6.0/samples /usr/share/doc/spamassassin-FuzzyOcr-3.6.0/samples/README /usr/share/doc/spamassassin-FuzzyOcr-3.6.0/samples/ocr-animated.eml /usr/share/doc/spamassassin-FuzzyOcr-3.6.0/samples/ocr-gif.eml /usr/share/doc/spamassassin-FuzzyOcr-3.6.0/samples/ocr-jpg.eml /usr/share/doc/spamassassin-FuzzyOcr-3.6.0/samples/ocr-multi.eml /usr/share/doc/spamassassin-FuzzyOcr-3.6.0/samples/ocr-obfuscated.eml /usr/share/doc/spamassassin-FuzzyOcr-3.6.0/samples/ocr-png.eml /usr/share/doc/spamassassin-FuzzyOcr-3.6.0/samples/ocr-wrongext.eml SNIP -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 619048] ailurus - A simple application installer and GNOME tweaker
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=619048
--- Comment #3 from Chen Lei 2010-07-28 09:55:21 EDT ---
formal review here:
+:ok, =:needs attention, -:needs fixing
MUST Items:
[+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package.
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. [FIXME?: covers this
list and more]
[+] 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.
<>
[+] MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one supported architecture.
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires
[+] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro.
[+] MUST: Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files (not just
symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in
%post and %postun.
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not
create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
create that directory.
[+] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
%defattr(...) line.
[+] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros
section of Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissible content. This is
described in detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application.
[+] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be
removed in the spec.
[+] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the
%install section.
[+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
[+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
SHOULD Items:
[+] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[=] SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file
should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[+] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all
supported architectures.
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described.
[+] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane.
[+] SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin,
/usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file
instead of the file itself.
Fixed the two minor issues and update ailurus to the lastest
verion(ailurus-10.07.7) , I'll approve this package.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 592579] Review Request: Frama-c - Framework for source code analysis of C software
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=592579
--- Comment #48 from David A. Wheeler 2010-07-28
10:05:08 EDT ---
Comment 47 has some good points.
Regarding: "1. Why not package the latest version - frama-c-Boron-20100401
instead?" I'd really like to see that happen, but there are reasons that the
current one isn't packaged yet. In particular, ocaml-lablgtk needs to get
updated (feel free to badger Richard W.M. Jones :-) ). Details below.
First, I completely agree that it'd be *great* to update frama-c to the current
version. I have an updated packaging of "why" that *cannot* be used until the
latest version of frama-c is packaged, so I would ALSO like to see the latest
version of frama-c (Boron-20100401) packaged.
I asked the Fedora frama-c packager (Mark Rader) to explain why he didn't
package the latest version. He explained to me that at least one problem is
that the latest version of frama-c requires gtksourceview2, but the
ocaml-lablgtk package in Fedora does *NOT* include support for gtksourceview2
(it only supports gtksourceview 1.0). This is a fundamental blocker to
updating to the current version of Frama-C.
I've already sent a patch to Richard W.M. Jones to modify ocaml-lablgtk so that
it adds support for gtksourceview2. (I sent it yesterday, before I saw your
email, so great minds think alike I guess). It's a trivial patch, so I really
hope it will be added ASAP. It forces a lot of rebuilds of other OCaml
packages, but that's a one-time event and I think it *should* be done.
The best instructions I know of for Fedora are (and it's painful):
http://itrs.tw/wiki/Frama-C_Installation_Note_on_Fedora_12
There may be other issues. I know that for best results ltl2ba needs to be
packaged, and there may be issues with ocamlgraph too. If you could help,
that'd be GREAT
For completeness, here's my patch to the spec file of ocaml-lablgtk as it
exists in Fedora 13:
Name: ocaml-lablgtk
Version:2.14.0
-Release:4%{?dist}
+Release:5%{?dist}
Summary:Objective Caml interface to gtk+
@@ -34,6 +34,7 @@
BuildRequires: ocaml-ocamldoc
BuildRequires: zlib-devel
BuildRequires: gtksourceview-devel
+BuildRequires: gtksourceview2-devel
%global __ocaml_requires_opts -i GtkSourceView_types -i GtkSourceView2_types
@@ -79,6 +80,7 @@
%configure --with-gl --enable-debug
perl -pi -e "s|-O|$RPM_OPT_FLAGS|" src/Makefile
make world
+make opt
make doc CAMLP4O="camlp4o -I %{_libdir}/ocaml/camlp4/Camlp4Parsers"
@@ -152,6 +154,9 @@
%changelog
+* Tue Jul 27 2010 David A. Wheeler - 2.14.0-5
+- Add support for gtksourceview2 (in addition to gtksourceview 1.0).
+
* Tue Jan 5 2010 Richard W.M. Jones - 2.14.0-4
- Use upstream RPM 4.8 dependency generator.
- -devel package should depend on gtk2-devel, otherwise lablgtk programs
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 598860] Review Request: httpd-itk - MPM Itk for Apache HTTP Server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=598860 --- Comment #1 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) 2010-07-28 10:06:33 EDT --- New apache version: http://hubbitus.net.ru/rpm/Fedora13/httpd-itk/httpd-itk-2.2.16-2.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 617632] Review Request: swift - OpenStack Object Storage (swift)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=617632 --- Comment #5 from Silas Sewell 2010-07-28 10:16:19 EDT --- @Michal Schmidt I would prefer that the other package be renamed mainly because 1) the Debian/Ubuntu package is going to be named swift (http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~swift-core/swift/debian/files/head%3A/debian/), 2) it increases the length of the service names (swift-account => openstack-swift-account, swift-auth => openstack-swift-auth, etc...) and 3) will make init/path names more inconsistent with upstream. I'm guessing it will be less of an issue with the other package as it doesn't look like it would be used from the cli. @Jared Smith I appreciate you checking it over, the more eyes on it the better. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 618761] Review request: Gold Allocation Manager for HPC
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=618761 --- Comment #8 from Mark Chappell 2010-07-28 10:20:44 EDT --- * The LICENSE file also needs the iconv treatment * Sorry should have been %config(noreplace) not simply %config -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 617632] Review Request: swift - OpenStack Object Storage (swift)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=617632 --- Comment #6 from Silas Sewell 2010-07-28 10:37:38 EDT --- @Michal Schmidt Nevermind, after talking to the Debian packager we've decided to prefix openstack. You're welcome to use the swift name. Update coming soon. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 510864] Review Request: colorize - Perl script to colorize logs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=510864 --- Comment #11 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) 2010-07-28 10:33:44 EDT --- (In reply to comment #8) > (In reply to comment #6) > > Manuel, do you think I shoulkd place > > http://web.archive.org/web/20040604132106/http://colorize.raszi.hu/downloads/colorize_0.3.4.tar.bz2 > > in Source0? > > To be honest, I would not do that because no one knows how long will > archive.org preserve anything AND they are not the actual upstream. Now we have not any information what it should be end shortly. Why we can't treat it as mirror? > >What it imported from PLD repository already mentioned in first line of > >changelog entry. And all old entries removed by your suggestion. > In my opinion all the comments from the first entry of the changelog could be > removed. Just make it: > > - Initial version, based on > ftp://ftp.icm.edu.pl/vol/rzm1/linux-pld-linux/dists/3.0/PLD/SRPMS/RPMS/colorize-0.3.4-1.src.rpm > - Add Russian summary and description Ok, I'll do that. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 592579] Review Request: Frama-c - Framework for source code analysis of C software
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=592579
Mark Rader changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RELEASE_PENDING
--- Comment #49 from Mark Rader 2010-07-28 10:36:03 EDT ---
1. I tend to agree with you on the frama-c-Boron vs the older version but as
David noted the technical difficulties became greater than a simple switch and
sometimes it is better to get it out there than just keep trying to get the
latest and greatest.
2. Since this has been put in the repository and is now available as a
package, I will see about changing this for the next version.
3. Since this has been put in the repository and is now available as a
package, I will see about changing this for the next version.
4. Since this has been put in the repository and is now available as a
package, I will see about changing this for the next version. Actually frama-c
has both. you have frama-c (command line) and frama-c-gui which is the gui.
5. Not as familiar with that command. I will look into it.
(In reply to comment #47)
> Some suggestions:
>
> 1. Why not package the latest version - frama-c-Boron-20100401 instead?
>
> 2.I think Development/Libraries should be changed to Development/Tools.
>
> 3.
> %{_datadir}/applications should not be listed in %file, you need to use
> %{_datadir}/applications/*.desktop instead.
>
> 4.
> I suggest to rename %{name}.desktop to %{name}-gui.desktop. Actually, frama-c
> is a command line tool.
>
> 5.
> ExcludeArch: PPC, PPC64, ARM, IA64, MIPS, S390
>
> I think you should use ExclusiveArch: alpha armv4l %{ix86} ia64 x86_64 ppc
> sparc sparcv9 ppc64 instead to keep consistency with ocaml.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 618985] Review Request: Swift - XMPP 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=618985 Silas Sewell changed: What|Removed |Added CC||si...@sewell.ch --- Comment #3 from Silas Sewell 2010-07-28 10:39:12 EDT --- 617632 will update its name to prefix it with openstack, you're welcome to use the swift name. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 618985] Review Request: Swift - XMPP 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=618985 --- Comment #4 from Jan Kaluža 2010-07-28 11:05:01 EDT --- I've updated the spec file and srpm: Spec URL: http://jkaluza.fedorapeople.org/swift.spec SRPM URL: http://jkaluza.fedorapeople.org/swift-1.0-0.2.beta5.fc13.src.rpm (In reply to comment #2) > %description should be longer. Fixed. > Where does swift.xpm (Source2) come from? It was brought from Debian package, but I've just removed it and new spec file uses icon from Source0 tarball. > You do not need to define "BuildRoot:..." anymore, rpmbuild will use a sane > one > automatically (since F-10). > You do not need to clean the buildroot manually at the beginning of %install > (since F-10). > You do not need the %clean section either (since F-13). > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag Thanks, fixed. > It's good that you remove bundled libraries in %prep. Only why you do not > remove all of them? The "3rdParty" directory still contains: > Boost CppUnit DocBook hippomocks.h LCov I've removed all unused bundled libraries. DocBook is still used, because build fails with DocBook from rawhide. I will ask upstream for help, but it's only build-time dependency, so it should not be problem just now. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 617632] Review Request: swift - OpenStack Object Storage (swift)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=617632 Ian Weller changed: What|Removed |Added CC||i...@ianweller.org AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|i...@ianweller.org --- Comment #7 from Ian Weller 2010-07-28 11:05:05 EDT --- When you've got an updated package, I'd be willing to do the review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 573294] Review Request: kadu - An instant messanger compatile with the Gadu-Gadu protocol
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=573294 Radek L 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 573294] Review Request: kadu - An instant messanger compatile with the Gadu-Gadu protocol
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=573294 --- Comment #15 from Radek L 2010-07-28 11:08:10 EDT --- Package Change Request == Package Name: kadu New Branches: devel F-13 F-12 Owners: radekl It's an orphaned package, and I want to take the ownership for just mentioned branches. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 618985] Review Request: Swift - XMPP 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=618985 --- Comment #5 from Jan Kaluža 2010-07-28 11:06:16 EDT --- (In reply to comment #3) > 617632 will update its name to prefix it with openstack, you're welcome to use > the swift name. Thanks for fast response regarding the name conflict and also for the solution. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 617632] Review Request: swift - OpenStack Object Storage (swift)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=617632 --- Comment #8 from Michal Schmidt 2010-07-28 11:18:56 EDT --- (In reply to comment #6) > Nevermind, after talking to the Debian packager we've decided to prefix > openstack. Thanks for resolving this so quickly. One comment about your spec file: Requires: python(abi) >= 2.6 rpmbuild is supposed to detect the python(abi) Requires by itself, no need to tell it explicitly. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 573294] Review Request: kadu - An instant messanger compatile with the Gadu-Gadu protocol
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=573294 Paul Howarth changed: What|Removed |Added CC||p...@city-fan.org --- Comment #16 from Paul Howarth 2010-07-28 11:15:29 EDT --- You don't need a package change request for that. Just log into pkgdb, browse to the kadu package and click "Take Ownership" for the branches you're interested in. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 572515] Review Request: jogl - Java bindings for OpenGL
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=572515 --- Comment #18 from Aidan Delaney 2010-07-28 11:33:40 EDT --- A spec file that addresses Chen Lei's points from comment #12 is available at http://culturalinformatics.org.uk/~ajd9/jogl.spec rpmlint shows only the expected warning for no-build-root I think I need to fix some stuff in gluegen as it installs the jars to /usr/lib/gluegen, when I'd expect them in /usr/share/java/ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 Victor G. Vasilyev changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #9 from Victor G. Vasilyev 2010-07-28 12:25:20 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: felix-main Short Description: Apache Felix Main Owners: victorv Branches: InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 572515] Review Request: jogl - Java bindings for OpenGL
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=572515
--- Comment #19 from Chen Lei 2010-07-28 12:37:39 EDT
---
(In reply to comment #18)
> A spec file that addresses Chen Lei's points from comment #12 is available at
> http://culturalinformatics.org.uk/~ajd9/jogl.spec
> rpmlint shows only the expected warning for no-build-root
> I think I need to fix some stuff in gluegen as it installs the jars to
> /usr/lib/gluegen, when I'd expect them in /usr/share/java/
%{_libdir}/%{name} is the right place for JAR files that use JNI.
See
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Packaging_JAR_files_that_use_JNI
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 617632] Review Request: openstack-swift - OpenStack Object Storage (swift)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=617632 Silas Sewell changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: swift - |Review Request: |OpenStack Object Storage|openstack-swift - OpenStack |(swift) |Object Storage (swift) --- Comment #9 from Silas Sewell 2010-07-28 12:47:35 EDT --- Spec: http://github.com/silas/rpms/raw/master/openstack-swift/openstack-swift.spec SRPM: http://github.com/downloads/silas/rpms/openstack-swift-1.0.2-4.fc14.src.rpm Thanks Ian, much appreciated. I updated the package name and removed python(abi). rpmlint openstack-swift.noarch: W: non-standard-uid /var/run/swift swift ...(repeats): see above 8 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 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 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 #6 from Kevin Fenzi 2010-07-28 13:10:36 EDT --- Cool. We are getting there. ;) 1. Thats fine, but: a) You can just do "%doc COPYING README". No need to use _defaultdocdir or the like. b) You seem to have changed the upstream release contents without changing the release. This is not good practice. Anytime you change the contents, make a new release. Now when people look at the '1' version they won't know if it's the one without COPYING and README changes or not. ;) c) You have in README: "See COPYING for licensing information" Which is not explicit enough. Just based on copying, the license here would be "GPL+" ie, any version of the gpl ever published. ;) If you just want v2, say "This package is released under the GPLv2 only" 2. Looks good. 3. Excellent. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #15 from Kevin Fenzi 2010-07-28 13:12:44 EDT --- 4. Looks good. 5. Looks good. I don't see any further blockers here, so this package is APPROVED. Let me know your fedora account system login and I will sponsor you. Please feel free to ping me on irc, email or this bug and I will be happy to help answer any questions you have. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 585813] Review Request: R-gtools - Various R programming tools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=585813 --- Comment #5 from Pierre-YvesChibon 2010-07-28 13:25:38 EDT --- ping ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 609079] Review Request: R-GenomicRanges - Representation and manipulation of genomic intervals
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=609079 --- Comment #4 from Pierre-YvesChibon 2010-07-28 13:26:05 EDT --- ping ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 #7 from Carl Thompson 2010-07-28 14:23:55 EDT --- SPEC: http://red-dragon.com/pfHandle.spec SRPM: http://red-dragon.com/pfHandle-1.1-3.fc13.src.rpm cleaned up %doc section Properly updated the upstream versioning updated README to state its GPLv2 and that the full license is in COPYING. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 Kevin Fenzi changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ke...@tummy.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #4 from Kevin Fenzi 2010-07-28 14:28:27 EDT --- I'll look at doing a review here soon. ;) If you have another package to submit also that would be good, or can do a few more 'pre-reviews'. One quick comment on this spec: Can you avoid using %makeinstall? See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/MakeInstall (or the non draft section in the main guidelines) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 #5 from François Cami 2010-07-28 14:49:10 EDT ---
Thank you Kevin.
Updated Spec: http://fcami.fedorapeople.org/srpms/throttle.spec
Updated SRPM: http://fcami.fedorapeople.org/srpms/throttle-1.2-4.fc13.src.rpm
I've switched from %makeinstall to "make DESTDIR=%{buildroot} install".
Another package should be up tomorrow.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on 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 changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #8 from Kevin Fenzi 2010-07-28 15:22:47 EDT --- ok, looks good. I see no further blockers now, so this package is APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 #16 from Carl Thompson 2010-07-28 15:25:04 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: perl-Crypt-Cracklib Short Description: perl module to interact with libcrack Owners: redragon Branches: F-13 InitialCC: redragon -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 Carl Thompson 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 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 #9 from Carl Thompson 2010-07-28 15:49:48 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: pfHandle Short Description: wrapper for postfix queue management tools Owners: redragon Branches: F-13 InitialCC: redragon -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 Carl Thompson 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 616251] Review Request: uptrack - Client for the Ksplice Uptrack rebootless kernel update service
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=616251
Tom "spot" Callaway changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tcall...@redhat.com
--- Comment #1 from Tom "spot" Callaway 2010-07-28
16:45:12 EDT ---
perl -0pe 's/^(\s+)main\(\)$/\1PackageKitYumBackend.rebootpkgs = tuple(p for p
in PackageKitYumBackend.rebootpkgs if not p.startswith("kernel"))\n$&/m or die'
/usr/share/PackageKit/helpers/yum/yumBackend.py >yumBackend.py.ksplice
...
# Install our version of the yum PackageKit backend
mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/PackageKit/helpers/yum
install -p -m 755 yumBackend.py.ksplice
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/PackageKit/helpers/yum
You're overwriting part of PackageKit? That's not acceptable. Is this essential
to the functionality of uptrack? It looks like you're just pulling "kernel" out
of the list of packages that require a reboot.
While uptrack may be able to patch the kernel in place, should a user wish to
upgrade to the Fedora kernel rpm as is, we don't want to skip the reboot.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 618852] Review Request: laughlin-backgrounds - Laughlin desktop backgrounds
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=618852 Julian Aloofi changed: What|Removed |Added CC||julian.fed...@googlemail.co ||m --- Comment #1 from Julian Aloofi 2010-07-28 17:26:26 EDT --- I'm taking this completely for free ;) I guess this must be finished before Aug 3rd then? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 618852] Review Request: laughlin-backgrounds - Laughlin desktop backgrounds
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=618852 Julian Aloofi changed: What|Removed |Added QAContact|extras...@fedoraproject.org |julian.fed...@googlemail.co ||m -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 618852] Review Request: laughlin-backgrounds - Laughlin desktop backgrounds
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=618852 --- Comment #2 from Martin Sourada 2010-07-28 17:31:47 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1) > I'm taking this completely for free ;) > Thanks ;) > I guess this must be finished before Aug 3rd then? It needs to be build by that date, so to have enough time for CVS import it would be even better if it were at least a day earlier. In short, the sooner the better. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 618852] Review Request: laughlin-backgrounds - Laughlin desktop backgrounds
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=618852 Julian Aloofi changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|julian.fed...@googlemail.co ||m 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 616251] Review Request: uptrack - Client for the Ksplice Uptrack rebootless kernel update service
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=616251 --- Comment #2 from Nelson Elhage 2010-07-28 18:21:07 EDT --- > You're overwriting part of PackageKit? That's not acceptable. Is this > essential > to the functionality of uptrack? It looks like you're just pulling "kernel" > out > of the list of packages that require a reboot. Correct. The goal is here is to have a clean user experience: We found on Ubuntu that users were confused about continuing to get a "reboot required" notification for kernel package updates after installing Ksplice, since they were upgrading the in-memory kernel rebootlessly. We agree users should keep the Fedora kernel rpm up to date -- we just found users were confused being warned that they still needed to reboot after installing a new one. We're not totally thrilled about the mechanism (overwriting PackageKit), though, and we'd definitely be happy to consider cleaner alternatives there. If suppressing these notifications is a total non-starter, we can probably take them out, but we've found it greatly improves the user experience. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 618852] Review Request: laughlin-backgrounds - Laughlin desktop backgrounds
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=618852 --- Comment #3 from Julian Aloofi 2010-07-28 18:34:04 EDT --- This package looks like there aren't any problems anyway. You used "F13 Laughlin" in the changelog, but that's about the only thing I was able to find. I'll probably do the full review stuff tomorrow. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 427484] Review Request: publican-RedHat - Red Hat theme
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427484 --- Comment #14 from Ruediger Landmann 2010-07-28 18:50:39 EDT --- Many thanks Paul -- that does indeed fix the problems! :) New spec and SRPM: http://rlandmann.fedorapeople.org/publican/publican-redhat.spec http://rlandmann.fedorapeople.org/publican/publican-redhat-2.0-2.fc13.src.rpm I've also made the same changes to the other Publican brand package currently up for review (JBoss) -- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427483 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 427483] Review Request: publican-JBoss - JBoss Theme
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427483 --- Comment #11 from Ruediger Landmann 2010-07-28 18:53:42 EDT --- Updated spec and SRPM in light of comments in Bug #427484 New files: http://rlandmann.fedorapeople.org/publican/publican-jboss.spec http://rlandmann.fedorapeople.org/publican/publican-jboss-1.9-2.fc13.src.rpm rpmlint now clean: $ rpmlint publican-jboss.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint ../SRPMS/publican-jboss-1.9-2.fc13.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint ../RPMS/noarch/publican-jboss-1.9-2.fc13.noarch.rpm 1 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
