[Bug 634388] Review Request: python-chameleon - XML-based template compiler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=634388 --- Comment #5 from Toshio Ernie Kuratomi 2010-09-18 02:07:57 EDT --- It looks like python-2.7 changes the exceptions that ElementTree returns (we ran into this in pyhton-formencode as well). New packages with a patch that's only applied on Fedora-14+ to fix this. Spec URL: http://toshio.fedorapeople.org/packages/python-chameleon.spec SRPM URL: http://toshio.fedorapeople.org/packages/python-chameleon-1.2.12-3.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 634515] Review Request: python-zope-i18n - Zope Internationalization 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=634515 Toshio Ernie Kuratomi changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review+ --- Comment #14 from Toshio Ernie Kuratomi 2010-09-18 01:28:10 EDT --- All issues taken care of. Current package builds in koji. 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 635208] Review Request: python-zope-processlifetime - Zope process lifetime events
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=635208 Robin Lee changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||633138 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 635208] New: Review Request: python-zope-processlifetime - Zope process lifetime events
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-zope-processlifetime - Zope process lifetime events https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=635208 Summary: Review Request: python-zope-processlifetime - Zope process lifetime events Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: robinlee.s...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://cheeselee.fedorapeople.org/python-zope-processlifetime.spec SRPM URL: http://cheeselee.fedorapeople.org/python-zope-processlifetime-1.0-2.fc14.src.rpm Description: This package provides interfaces / implementations for events relative to the lifetime of a server process (startup, database opening, etc.) $ rpmlint ./python-zope-processlifetime.spec /home/cheese/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/python-zope-processlifetime-1.0-2.fc14.noarch.rpm /home/cheese/rpmbuild/SRPMS/python-zope-processlifetime-1.0-2.fc14.src.rpm ./python-zope-processlifetime.spec: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install ./python-zope-processlifetime.spec: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %clean ./python-zope-processlifetime.spec: W: no-buildroot-tag ./python-zope-processlifetime.spec: W: no-%clean-section python-zope-processlifetime.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install python-zope-processlifetime.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %clean python-zope-processlifetime.src: W: no-buildroot-tag python-zope-processlifetime.src: W: no-%clean-section 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 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 635086] Review Request: python-zope-datetime - Zope datetime utilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=635086
--- Comment #1 from Robin Lee 2010-09-17 23:08:13 EDT
---
3.4.0-3
Spec URL: http://cheeselee.fedorapeople.org/python-zope-datetime.spec
SRPM URL:
http://cheeselee.fedorapeople.org/python-zope-datetime-3.4.0-3.fc14.src.rpm
Change:
- Co-own %%{python_sitelib}/zope/
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 634388] Review Request: python-chameleon - XML-based template compiler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=634388 --- Comment #4 from Robin Lee 2010-09-17 22:59:18 EDT --- Created attachment 448162 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=448162 Information of failed tests Two tests fail with Python 2.7 on Fedora 14. It is not a matter of the versions of its dependencies. I ran the tests in a clean environment, the same failure would still occur. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 634515] Review Request: python-zope-i18n - Zope Internationalization 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=634515
--- Comment #13 from Robin Lee 2010-09-17 22:17:02
EDT ---
3.7.4-2
Spec URL: http://cheeselee.fedorapeople.org/python-zope-i18n.spec
SRPM URL:
http://cheeselee.fedorapeople.org/python-zope-i18n-3.7.4-2.fc14.src.rpm
Changes:
- Moved the data files to %%{_datadir}/%%{name}/ and applied a small
complementary patch with help from Toshio Kuratomi
- Marked the data files with %%lang directives properly
- License revised to 'ZPL2.1 and UCD'
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 634515] Review Request: python-zope-i18n - Zope Internationalization 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=634515
Robin Lee changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #447865|0 |1
is obsolete||
--- Comment #12 from Robin Lee 2010-09-17 22:16:08
EDT ---
Created attachment 448156
--> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=448156
patch to zope.i18n to look for locale data files in FHS compliant location
Spec URL: http://cheeselee.fedorapeople.org/python-zope-i18n.spec
SRPM URL:
http://cheeselee.fedorapeople.org/python-zope-i18n-3.7.4-2.fc14.src.rpm
Changes:
- Moved the data files to %%{_datadir}/%%{name}/ and applied a small
complementary patch with help from Toshio Kuratomi
- Marked the data files with %%lang directives properly
- License revised to 'ZPL2.1 and UCD'
patch to zope.i18n to look for locale data files in FHS compliant location
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 633089] Review Request: rubygem-fakeweb - A tool for faking responses to HTTP requests
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=633089 Michael Stahnke changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #9 from Michael Stahnke 2010-09-17 17:26:23 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: rubygem-fakeweb Short Description: A tool for faking responses to HTTP Owners: stahnma Branches: F13 F14 EL5 EL6 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 634759] Review Request: rubygem-pkg-config - A pkg-config implmenetation by Ruby
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=634759 Mamoru Tasaka changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Mamoru Tasaka 2010-09-17 17:10:30 EDT --- Thank you for review! New Package SCM Request === Package Name:rubygem-pkg-config Short Description: A pkg-config implmenetation by Ruby Owners: mtasaka Branches:f14 f13 f12 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 635126] Review Request: rubygem-test-unit - Improved version of Test::Unit bundled in Ruby 1.8.x
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=635126 --- Comment #3 from Mamoru Tasaka 2010-09-17 17:07:27 EDT --- Well, one file (lib/test/unit.rb) is actually under Ruby or GPLv2 or Python, (dual of "ruby license" or Python), so the license tag can be (Ruby or GPLv2) and (Ruby or GPLv2 or Python), however I think "Ruby or GPLv2" is enough. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 633089] Review Request: rubygem-fakeweb - A tool for faking responses to HTTP requests
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=633089 Mamoru Tasaka changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #8 from Mamoru Tasaka 2010-09-17 16:57:23 EDT --- Okay. --- This package (rubygem-fakeweb) is APPROVED by mtasaka --- -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 635126] Review Request: rubygem-test-unit - Improved version of Test::Unit bundled in Ruby 1.8.x
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=635126 Michael Stahnke changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mastah...@gmail.com --- Comment #2 from Michael Stahnke 2010-09-17 16:52:27 EDT --- http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Combined_Dual_and_Multiple_Licensing_Scenario Looks like you need to specify PFSL in the License: field as well, as one file is licensed under the Python license. Builds cleanly. rpmlint is good. If you can fix that, I think you'll be approved. I am going to wait to approve right now since it is a licensing issue. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 595697] Review Request: ghc-regex-tdfa - Haskell "tagged" DFA regex engine
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=595697 --- Comment #9 from Lakshmi Narasimhan 2010-09-17 16:40:59 EDT --- Spec file https://sites.google.com/site/lakshminaras2002/home/ghc-regex-tdfa.spec?attredirects=0&d=1 Source rpm https://sites.google.com/site/lakshminaras2002/home/ghc-regex-tdfa-1.1.4-1.fc13.src.rpm?attredirects=0&d=1 There has been a version update from 1.1.3 to 1.1.4 Rpmlint output ghc-regex-tdfa.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Haskell -> Gaskell, Gaitskell, Skellum The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. ghc-regex-tdfa.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libtre -> libre, Liberec, librate The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. ghc-regex-tdfa.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Haskell -> Gaskell, Gaitskell, Skellum The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. ghc-regex-tdfa.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libtre -> libre, Liberec, librate The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. ghc-regex-tdfa.x86_64: W: executable-stack /usr/lib64/ghc-6.12.1/regex-tdfa-1.1.4/libHSregex-tdfa-1.1.4-ghc6.12.1.so The binary declares the stack as executable. Executable stack is usually an error as it is only needed if the code contains GCC trampolines or similar constructs which uses code on the stack. One common source for needlessly executable stack cases are object files built from assembler files which don't define a proper .note.GNU-stack section. ghc-regex-tdfa-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Haskell -> Gaskell, Gaitskell, Skellum The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. ghc-regex-tdfa-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libtre -> libre, Liberec, librate The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. ghc-regex-tdfa-prof.x86_64: E: devel-dependency ghc-regex-tdfa-devel Your package has a dependency on a devel package but it's not a devel package itself. ghc-regex-tdfa-prof.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libtre -> libre, Liberec, librate The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. ghc-regex-tdfa-prof.x86_64: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files. ghc-regex-tdfa-prof.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/ghc-6.12.1/regex-tdfa-1.1.4/libHSregex-tdfa-1.1.4_p.a A development file (usually source code) is located in a non-devel package. If you want to include source code in your package, be sure to create a development package. 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 10 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 634759] Review Request: rubygem-pkg-config - A pkg-config implmenetation by Ruby
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=634759 Michael Stahnke changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Michael Stahnke 2010-09-17 16:32:30 EDT --- > > - Yes, once rubygem-hoe-2.6.2-3.fc14 is pushed into F14 stable > repository, it is also inherited into rawhide tree. > And I won't build packages for F-15 for now unless it is really > needed. > FESCo officially recommended publishing separate rawhide builds a few weeks ago. I would also like to see a rawhide build. rubygem-pkg-config.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) implmenetation -> implementation I assume you can fix that upon import. Everything else looks good. - Package rubygem-pkg-config 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 634515] Review Request: python-zope-i18n - Zope Internationalization 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=634515 --- Comment #11 from Toshio Ernie Kuratomi 2010-09-17 16:36:06 EDT --- That placement is fine with me. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 634608] Review Request: rubygem-ruby-ole - Ruby OLE 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=634608 Mamoru Tasaka changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 635126] Review Request: rubygem-test-unit - Improved version of Test::Unit bundled in Ruby 1.8.x
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=635126 --- Comment #1 from Mamoru Tasaka 2010-09-17 15:57:47 EDT --- This is needed for updating ruby-cairo to 1.10.0 for testsuite -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 634608] Review Request: rubygem-ruby-ole - Ruby OLE 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=634608 Mamoru Tasaka changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Mamoru Tasaka 2010-09-17 15:57:04 EDT --- I will take this one. Instead would you review my another review request bug 635126 (submitted 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 635126] New: Review Request: rubygem-test-unit - Improved version of Test::Unit bundled in Ruby 1.8.x
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: rubygem-test-unit - Improved version of Test::Unit bundled in Ruby 1.8.x https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=635126 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-test-unit - Improved version of Test::Unit bundled in Ruby 1.8.x Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/Review_request/rubygem-test-unit/rubygem-test-unit.spec SRPM URL: http://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/Review_request/rubygem-test-unit/rubygem-test-unit-2.1.1-1.fc.src.rpm Description: Test::Unit 2.x - Improved version of Test::Unit bundled in Ruby 1.8.x. Ruby 1.9.x bundles minitest not Test::Unit. Test::Unit bundled in Ruby 1.8.x had not been improved but unbundled Test::Unit (Test::Unit 2.x) will be improved actively. koji scratch build F-14: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2474343 F-13: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2474345 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 631558] Review Request: arduino - An IDE for Arduino-compatible electronics prototyping platforms
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=631558 --- Comment #6 from Peter Oliver 2010-09-17 15:48:18 EDT --- Thanks again. The package arduino-core contains license.txt and readme.txt, and both are listed as documentation if you run rpm -qd. Is this sufficient? At present, directory /usr/share/doc/arduino-0019/ is being used for documentation. If you use %doc, you end up with files in /usr/share/doc/arduino-core-0019/, which seems messy. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 623425] Review Request: python-pyside - Python bindings for Qt4
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=623425 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 623425] Review Request: python-pyside - Python bindings for Qt4
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=623425 --- Comment #31 from Fedora Update System 2010-09-17 15:21:17 EDT --- shiboken-0.5.0-2.fc13,generatorrunner-0.6.1-1.fc13,apiextractor-0.8.0-1.fc13,python-pyside-0.4.1-2.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/shiboken-0.5.0-2.fc13,generatorrunner-0.6.1-1.fc13,apiextractor-0.8.0-1.fc13,python-pyside-0.4.1-2.fc13 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 623425] Review Request: python-pyside - Python bindings for Qt4
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=623425 --- Comment #30 from Fedora Update System 2010-09-17 15:17:47 EDT --- shiboken-0.5.0-2.fc14,generatorrunner-0.6.1-1.fc14,apiextractor-0.8.0-1.fc14,python-pyside-0.4.1-2.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/shiboken-0.5.0-2.fc14,generatorrunner-0.6.1-1.fc14,apiextractor-0.8.0-1.fc14,python-pyside-0.4.1-2.fc14 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 622313] Review Request: rubygem-crack -- Really simple JSON and XML parsing, ripped from Merb and Rails
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=622313 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version||rubygem-crack-0.1.8-1.fc13 Resolution|NEXTRELEASE |ERRATA -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 630054] Review Request: rubygem-facon - Tiny mocking 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=630054 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System 2010-09-17 14:30:17 EDT --- rubygem-facon-0.4.1-2.fc13 has been pushed to the Fedora 13 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 622313] Review Request: rubygem-crack -- Really simple JSON and XML parsing, ripped from Merb and Rails
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=622313 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System 2010-09-17 14:30:04 EDT --- rubygem-crack-0.1.8-1.fc13 has been pushed to the Fedora 13 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 630054] Review Request: rubygem-facon - Tiny mocking 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=630054 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version||rubygem-facon-0.4.1-2.fc13 Resolution|NEXTRELEASE |ERRATA -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 625855] Review Request: perl-EBook-EPUB - Perl module for generating EPUB documents
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=625855 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|perl-EBook-EPUB-0.5-2.fc12 |perl-EBook-EPUB-0.5-2.fc13 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 633549] Review Request: rubygem-linode - Ruby wrapper for the Linode API
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=633549 --- Comment #3 from Michael Stahnke 2010-09-17 14:27:12 EDT --- Fixed all issues. http://stahnma.fedorapeople.org/reviews/rubygem-linode-0.6.2-2.fc15.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 526567] Review Request: mongodb - high-performance, open source, schema-free document-oriented database
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=526567 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||mongodb-1.6.2-2.fc13 Resolution||ERRATA Last Closed||2010-09-17 14:26:39 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 625854] Review Request: perl-CGI-Application-Plugin-CAPTCHA - Easily create, use, and verify CAPTCHAs in CGI::Application-based web apps
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=625854 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|perl-CGI-Application-Plugin |perl-CGI-Application-Plugin |-CAPTCHA-0.01-2.fc13|-CAPTCHA-0.01-2.fc12 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 625854] Review Request: perl-CGI-Application-Plugin-CAPTCHA - Easily create, use, and verify CAPTCHAs in CGI::Application-based web apps
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=625854 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System 2010-09-17 14:25:28 EDT --- perl-CGI-Application-Plugin-CAPTCHA-0.01-2.fc13 has been pushed to the Fedora 13 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 625855] Review Request: perl-EBook-EPUB - Perl module for generating EPUB documents
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=625855 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|perl-EBook-EPUB-0.5-2.fc14 |perl-EBook-EPUB-0.5-2.fc12 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 625855] Review Request: perl-EBook-EPUB - Perl module for generating EPUB documents
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=625855 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System 2010-09-17 14:27:01 EDT --- perl-EBook-EPUB-0.5-2.fc13 has been pushed to the Fedora 13 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 625854] Review Request: perl-CGI-Application-Plugin-CAPTCHA - Easily create, use, and verify CAPTCHAs in CGI::Application-based web apps
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=625854 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|perl-CGI-Application-Plugin |perl-CGI-Application-Plugin |-CAPTCHA-0.01-2.fc14|-CAPTCHA-0.01-2.fc13 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 625854] Review Request: perl-CGI-Application-Plugin-CAPTCHA - Easily create, use, and verify CAPTCHAs in CGI::Application-based web apps
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=625854 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System 2010-09-17 14:26:11 EDT --- perl-CGI-Application-Plugin-CAPTCHA-0.01-2.fc12 has been pushed to the Fedora 12 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 526567] Review Request: mongodb - high-performance, open source, schema-free document-oriented database
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=526567 --- Comment #34 from Fedora Update System 2010-09-17 14:26:33 EDT --- mongodb-1.6.2-2.fc13 has been pushed to the Fedora 13 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 625855] Review Request: perl-EBook-EPUB - Perl module for generating EPUB documents
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=625855 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System 2010-09-17 14:24:18 EDT --- perl-EBook-EPUB-0.5-2.fc12 has been pushed to the Fedora 12 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 624699] Review Request: perl-Term-Shell - Simple command-line shell framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=624699 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|perl-Term-Shell-0.02-2.el5 |perl-Term-Shell-0.02-2.fc13 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 459892] Review Request: rubygem-mocha - Mocking and stubbing 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=459892 --- Comment #41 from Fedora Update System 2010-09-17 14:21:37 EDT --- rubygem-mocha-0.9.8-1.fc13 has been pushed to the Fedora 13 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 620042] Review Request: dvdbackup - Command line tool for ripping video DVDs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=620042 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||dvdbackup-0.4.1-1.fc13 Resolution||ERRATA Last Closed||2010-09-17 14:21:16 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 459892] Review Request: rubygem-mocha - Mocking and stubbing 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=459892 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|0.9.7-1.fc11|rubygem-mocha-0.9.8-1.fc13 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 624699] Review Request: perl-Term-Shell - Simple command-line shell framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=624699 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System 2010-09-17 14:19:51 EDT --- perl-Term-Shell-0.02-2.fc13 has been pushed to the Fedora 13 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 620042] Review Request: dvdbackup - Command line tool for ripping video DVDs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=620042 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System 2010-09-17 14:21:11 EDT --- dvdbackup-0.4.1-1.fc13 has been pushed to the Fedora 13 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 635086] New: Review Request: python-zope-datetime - Zope datetime utilities
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-zope-datetime - Zope datetime utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=635086 Summary: Review Request: python-zope-datetime - Zope datetime utilities Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: robinlee.s...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://cheeselee.fedorapeople.org/python-zope-datetime.spec SRPM URL: http://cheeselee.fedorapeople.org/python-zope-datetime-3.4.0-2.fc14.src.rpm Description: This package provides commonly used date and time related utility functions. $ rpmlint ./python-zope-datetime.spec /home/cheese/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/python-zope-datetime-3.4.0-2.fc14.noarch.rpm /home/cheese/rpmbuild/SRPMS/python-zope-datetime-3.4.0-2.fc14.src.rpm ./python-zope-datetime.spec: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install ./python-zope-datetime.spec: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %clean ./python-zope-datetime.spec: W: no-buildroot-tag ./python-zope-datetime.spec: W: no-%clean-section python-zope-datetime.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install python-zope-datetime.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %clean python-zope-datetime.src: W: no-buildroot-tag python-zope-datetime.src: W: no-%clean-section 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 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 635086] Review Request: python-zope-datetime - Zope datetime utilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=635086 Robin Lee changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||633138 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 633089] Review Request: rubygem-fakeweb - A tool for faking responses to HTTP requests
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=633089 --- Comment #7 from Michael Stahnke 2010-09-17 14:03:18 EDT --- Removed the BR versioning. Remove mocha as a runtime require. Removed gemspec. http://stahnma.fedorapeople.org/reviews/rubygem-fakeweb-1.3.0-3.fc15.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 632554] Review Request: python-zope-component - Zope Component Architecture
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=632554 Robin Lee changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #9 from Robin Lee 2010-09-17 13:37:49 EDT --- Thanks for you both. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-zope-component Short Description: Zope Component Architecture Owners: cheeselee Branches: el5 el6 f13 f14 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 633549] Review Request: rubygem-linode - Ruby wrapper for the Linode API
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=633549
--- Comment #2 from Mamoru Tasaka 2010-09-17
13:38:25 EDT ---
For 0.6.2-1:
* Dependency
- Writing ">= 0.4.4" on "(Build)Requires: rubygem(httparty)" is not needed
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Explicit_Requires
- If you use "BuildRequires(check)" syntax, I guess
"rubygem(mocha)" "rubygem(httparty)" are needed only for %check so
using "BR(check)" is apppropriate
! Note that rubygem(httparty) is also needed for Requires, as you already
wrote so.
* %{geminstdir}/linode.gemspec
- Would you check if this is really needed?
* %doc attribute in -doc subpackage
- I think writing %doc attribute in -doc subpackage is redundant because
the name of the rpm already indicates that the rpm is for documentation.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 634515] Review Request: python-zope-i18n - Zope Internationalization 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=634515
--- Comment #10 from Robin Lee 2010-09-17 13:34:59
EDT ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> SO these files would fall under that defintion.
OK.
As my experience with Zope packages, upstream never separates data files from
source tree. But most of those packages contains no data files. This should be
the one which contains the greatest amount of data.
And if we change the source code but leave setup.py unchanged, upstream may not
accept our patch. Though our patch is small, it will impress the packaging
convention in the Zope world. So at this time I may prefer to just place the
data to our conventional place %{_datadir}%{name}. Do you agree?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 631874] Review Request: liboauth - OAuth library functions
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=631874 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System 2010-09-17 13:33:51 EDT --- bti-028-1.el5, liboauth-0.9.0-2.el5.1 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update bti liboauth'. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/bti-028-1.el5,liboauth-0.9.0-2.el5.1 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 627224] Review Request: perl-Net-Telnet-Cisco - Interact with a Cisco router
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=627224 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|perl-Net-Telnet-Cisco-1.10- |perl-Net-Telnet-Cisco-1.10- |3.fc12 |3.el5 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 627224] Review Request: perl-Net-Telnet-Cisco - Interact with a Cisco router
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=627224 --- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System 2010-09-17 13:33:16 EDT --- perl-Net-Telnet-Cisco-1.10-3.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 633333] Review Request: iosum - An I/O bandwidth and syscall summarizer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=63 --- Comment #5 from g.da...@assyoma.it 2010-09-17 12:55:01 EDT --- Hi Kevin, I surely want to mantain the package for Fedora also. The point is that I read in the how-to that I need to select the EPEL branch if I want to contribute primary to EPEL. If I go wrong, please excuse me. In this case, I can I submit a package to EPEL? 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 628202] Review Request: gretl - A tool for econometric analysis
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=628202 hannes changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE Last Closed||2010-09-17 12:43:20 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 628202] Review Request: gretl - A tool for econometric analysis
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=628202 --- Comment #21 from hannes 2010-09-17 12:44:28 EDT --- build in rawhide: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=10925 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 630272] Review Request: ghc-tagsoup - Parsing HTML/XML documents 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=630272
--- Comment #2 from Lakshmi Narasimhan 2010-09-17
12:36:02 EDT ---
I see a line # tagsoup.htm. Can this comment be removed?
Must items
+ OK , ! - Not sure , NA - Not Applicable
[+]MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
the review.
ghc-tagsoup.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Haskell -> Gaskell,
Gaitskell, Skellum
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ghc-tagsoup.src: W: strange-permission tagsoup-0.10.1.tar.gz 0640L
A file that you listed to include in your package has strange permissions.
Usually, a file should have 0644 permissions.
ghc-tagsoup.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Haskell -> Gaskell,
Gaitskell, Skellum
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ghc-tagsoup.x86_64: W: executable-stack
/usr/lib64/ghc-6.12.1/tagsoup-0.10.1/libHStagsoup-0.10.1-ghc6.12.1.so
ghc-tagsoup-prof.x86_64: E: devel-dependency ghc-tagsoup-devel
Your package has a dependency on a devel package but it's not a devel package
itself.
ghc-tagsoup-prof.x86_64: W: no-documentation
The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include
documentation files.
ghc-tagsoup-prof.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/ghc-6.12.1/tagsoup-0.10.1/libHStagsoup-0.10.1_p.a
A development file (usually source code) is located in a non-devel package. If
you want to include source code in your package, be sure to create a
development package.
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 6 warnings.
[+]MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
[+]MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec
[+]MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
Naming-Yes
Version-release - Matches
License - OK
No prebuilt external bits - OK
Spec legibity - OK
Package template - OK
Arch support - OK
Libexecdir - OK
rpmlint - yes
changelogs - OK
Source url tag - OK, validated.
Buildroot is ignored - present anyway. OK
%clean is ignored - present anyway. OK
Build Requires list - OK
Summary and description - OK
API documentation - OK
[+]MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines .
[+]MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[+]MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package must be included in %doc.
[+]MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+]MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+]MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream
source,as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task.
[~ ghc-tagsoup]$ md5sum tagsoup-0.10.1.tar.gz
a0a15e88465282de5263ea3d19b68290 tagsoup-0.10.1.tar.gz
[~ ghc-tagsoup-0.10.1-1.fc14.src]$ md5sum tagsoup-0.10.1.tar.gz
a0a15e88465282de5263ea3d19b68290 tagsoup-0.10.1.tar.gz
[+]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.
[+]MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.
[NA]MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly using the %find_lang macro
[NA]MUST: Packages stores shared library files must call ldconfig in %post and
%postun.
[+]MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[NA]MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review.
[+]MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates.
[+]MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file's %files listings.
[+]MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
[+]MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[+]MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[+]MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
[+]MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application.
[+]MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[NA]MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[NA]MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g.
libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in
a -devel package.
[+]MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned
dependency: Requires: {name} = %{version}-%{release}
[NA]MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be
removed
[Bug 633089] Review Request: rubygem-fakeweb - A tool for faking responses to HTTP requests
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=633089 --- Comment #6 from Mamoru Tasaka 2010-09-17 12:26:50 EDT --- Now for 1.3.0-2: * (Build)Requires - Writing >= 0.9.5 for rubygem(mocha) dependency is not needed because rubygem-mocha on currently supported Fedora/EPEL branches all satisfies this dependency: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Explicit_Requires - "R: rubygem(mocha)" is not needed because this is for add_development_dependency in installed gemspec file and is not needed on runtime. * %_geminstdir/*gemspec - Would you check if this is really needed? (Note that gemspec file is also installed under %gemdir/specifications/) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 633333] Review Request: iosum - An I/O bandwidth and syscall summarizer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=63 Kevin Fenzi changed: What|Removed |Added Component|osutil |Package Review Version|el5 |rawhide Product|Fedora EPEL |Fedora --- Comment #4 from Kevin Fenzi 2010-09-17 12:20:00 EDT --- You should not do this. Package reviews are always against the Fedora "Package Review" component. EPEL doesn't have a specific component for these, so you end up assigning it to some random EPEL package maintainer who has no idea whats going on. Do you not intend to also maintain it in Fedora? People looking for package reviews to review will only be looking at the fedora "Package Review" component in any case. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 509445] Review Request: sblim-cmpi-rpm - CIM access to rpm and other information about installed packages
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=509445 Praveen K Paladugu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NOTABUG Last Closed||2010-09-17 12:18:31 --- Comment #20 from Praveen K Paladugu 2010-09-17 12:18:31 EDT --- The packages are on git and the builds are fine. So closing this issue. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 617524] Review Request: tidyp - Clean up and pretty-print HTML/XHTML/XML
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=617524 --- Comment #10 from Kevin Fenzi 2010-09-17 12:09:31 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 576482] Review Request: ghc-deepseq - Haskell library to fully evaluate data structures
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=576482 --- Comment #9 from Kevin Fenzi 2010-09-17 12:08:41 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 633058] Review Request: mingw32-gdk-pixbuf - MinGW Windows GDK Pixbuf 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=633058 --- Comment #5 from Kevin Fenzi 2010-09-17 12:10:13 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 632554] Review Request: python-zope-component - Zope Component Architecture
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=632554
--- Comment #8 from Toshio Ernie Kuratomi 2010-09-17
11:34:59 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #7)
>
> It seems moving all .txt files to %{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version} directly is
> inappropriate.
>
Agreed because of conflicting file.
>
> From fields.txt - "This document highlights unusual and subtle aspects of
> various fields and field classes, and is not intended to be a general
> introduction to schema fields.", so obviously this .txt file is not a API docs
> for zope.schema package. It's normally useful when the developer want to take
> a
> look at the code of the fields.py.
>
It's normally useful when a developer wants to make use of that API and it is
not behaving the way they expect. To me this is API documentation just not
complete API documentation (ie: it tells how to use the API in complex cases,
not in the easy, normal case.)
> I'm not sure if it'll be clearer to recreate the directory structure under
> %{_docdir}[1] than just leaving those .txt files under module directory.
> It looks like those directory structures[1] are a bit complicated.
My view is that /usr/share/doc is where people look for documentation...
anything helpful for them to read should be placed there. %{python_sitelib} is
not the place where people look for documentation so things that are helpful
for users to read should not be left there.
> I don't
> intend to oppose moving text files to %{_docdir}, however I think leaving some
> text files under python module directories is necessary and helpful[2].
> Personally, I think leaving text files under %{_libdir}/python2.x/idlelib is
> reasonable.
>
Looking over idlelib; the txt files appear to be data that is used within
idle's help system so yes, those are necessary to the runtime operation of idle
and belong in that directory and should not be marked %doc.
/me updates python bug so that that is not overlooked.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 629326] Review Request: mysql-workbench - A MySQL visual database modeling, administration and querying tool.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=629326 --- Comment #6 from Liang Suilong 2010-09-17 11:26:29 EDT --- (In reply to comment #5) > > no-manual-page-for.. > No man in provided by upstream. > > > devel-file-in-non-devel-package > This library are dlopen by workbench. > No -devel are needed. For now, plugins are only python / lua script. No API > provided. > So I feels this report looks quite strange. I do not trust all the things of rpmlint in this report. > I will look at rawhide build issue ASAP. Waiting for your good news. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 634759] Review Request: rubygem-pkg-config - A pkg-config implmenetation by Ruby
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=634759 --- Comment #3 from Mamoru Tasaka 2010-09-17 11:02:01 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2) > Should this build in rawhide? > > It looks like perhaps hoe was not updated in rawhide? I am pulling in > rubygem-hoe.noarch 0:2.6.2-2.fc14 from mock. - Yes, once rubygem-hoe-2.6.2-3.fc14 is pushed into F14 stable repository, it is also inherited into rawhide tree. And I won't build packages for F-15 for now unless it is really needed. > This is a snip of build.log from mock, fedora-rawhide-i386 > > > Executing(%check): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.yQiJNx > + umask 022 > + cd /builddir/build/BUILD > + cd rubygem-pkg-config-1.0.3 > + unset DISPLAY > + pushd ./usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/pkg-config-1.0.3 > ~/build/BUILD/rubygem-pkg-config-1.0.3/usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/pkg-config-1.0.3 > ~/build/BUILD/rubygem-pkg-config-1.0.3 > + rake test --verbose --trace > (in > /builddir/build/BUILD/rubygem-pkg-config-1.0.3/usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/pkg-config-1.0.3) > rake aborted! > No such file or directory - Manifest.txt > /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/hoe-2.6.2/lib/hoe.rb:626:in `initialize' > /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/hoe-2.6.2/lib/hoe.rb:626:in `open' > /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/hoe-2.6.2/lib/hoe.rb:626:in `read_utf' > /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/hoe-2.6.2/lib/hoe.rb:355:in `define_spec' > /usr/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/rubygems/specification.rb:425:in `initialize' - Yes, so rubygem-hoe >= 2.6.2-3 is needed (this issue is reported on hoe bug tracker) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 634998] New: Review Request: tkdiff - Graphical front end to the diff program
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: tkdiff - Graphical front end to the diff program https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=634998 Summary: Review Request: tkdiff - Graphical front end to the diff program Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: steve.tray...@cern.ch QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://cern.ch/straylen/rpms/tkdiff/tkdiff.spec SRPM URL: http://cern.ch/straylen/rpms/tkdiff/tkdiff-4.1.4-2.fc13.src.rpm Description: tkdiff is a graphical front end to the diff program. It provides a side-by-side view of the differences between two files, along with several innovative features such as diff bookmarks and a graphical map of differences for quick navigation. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 634515] Review Request: python-zope-i18n - Zope Internationalization 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=634515 --- Comment #9 from Toshio Ernie Kuratomi 2010-09-17 10:49:34 EDT --- Spot says: """ I think we would want to mark any files which are: Optional to functionality (e.g. app still works if these files aren't present) and language specfic. """ SO these files would fall under that defintion. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 625603] Review Request: libaacs - Open implementation of AACS specification
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=625603 --- Comment #5 from Xavier Bachelot 2010-09-17 10:47:05 EDT --- Thanks for the update, Spot. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 634759] Review Request: rubygem-pkg-config - A pkg-config implmenetation by Ruby
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=634759 --- Comment #2 from Michael Stahnke 2010-09-17 10:47:50 EDT --- Should this build in rawhide? It looks like perhaps hoe was not updated in rawhide? I am pulling in rubygem-hoe.noarch 0:2.6.2-2.fc14 from mock. This is a snip of build.log from mock, fedora-rawhide-i386 Executing(%check): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.yQiJNx + umask 022 + cd /builddir/build/BUILD + cd rubygem-pkg-config-1.0.3 + unset DISPLAY + pushd ./usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/pkg-config-1.0.3 ~/build/BUILD/rubygem-pkg-config-1.0.3/usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/pkg-config-1.0.3 ~/build/BUILD/rubygem-pkg-config-1.0.3 + rake test --verbose --trace (in /builddir/build/BUILD/rubygem-pkg-config-1.0.3/usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/pkg-config-1.0.3) rake aborted! No such file or directory - Manifest.txt /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/hoe-2.6.2/lib/hoe.rb:626:in `initialize' /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/hoe-2.6.2/lib/hoe.rb:626:in `open' /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/hoe-2.6.2/lib/hoe.rb:626:in `read_utf' /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/hoe-2.6.2/lib/hoe.rb:355:in `define_spec' /usr/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/rubygems/specification.rb:425:in `initialize' -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 630272] Review Request: ghc-tagsoup - Parsing HTML/XML documents 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=630272 Lakshmi Narasimhan changed: What|Removed |Added CC||lakshminaras2...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Lakshmi Narasimhan 2010-09-17 09:55:46 EDT --- There is an updated package version available v0.11 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 625603] Review Request: libaacs - Open implementation of AACS specification
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=625603 --- Comment #4 from Tom "spot" Callaway 2010-09-17 09:18:23 EDT --- Not yet. When I get back in the US, I'll talk to Red Hat Legal. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 634873] Review Request: spyder - Python development environment
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=634873 Chen Lei changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED CC||supercyp...@gmail.com Resolution||DUPLICATE Last Closed||2010-09-17 08:29:00 --- Comment #1 from Chen Lei 2010-09-17 08:29:00 EDT --- Can you review my review request for spyder and co-maintain it? *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 568968 *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 568968] Review Request: spyder - Scientific Python Development Environment
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=568968 Chen Lei changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rnova...@redhat.com --- Comment #6 from Chen Lei 2010-09-17 08:29:00 EDT --- *** Bug 634873 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 633058] Review Request: mingw32-gdk-pixbuf - MinGW Windows GDK Pixbuf 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=633058 --- Comment #4 from Erik van Pienbroek 2010-09-17 08:01:17 EDT --- Thanks for the hint, I'll add it before importing the package -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 622820] Review Request: acgvision-agent - Monitoring client for ACGVision
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=622820 --- Comment #5 from Rémi Debay 2010-09-17 07:57:14 EDT --- Oh sorry i forgot to upload this Here is it : http://edge.launchpad.net/acgvision-agent/5.1.6/5.1.6-fedora/+download/acgvision-agent-5.1.6-2.fc15.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 633058] Review Request: mingw32-gdk-pixbuf - MinGW Windows GDK Pixbuf 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=633058 Erik van Pienbroek changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Erik van Pienbroek 2010-09-17 07:48:54 EDT --- Thanks for the quick review! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: mingw32-gdk-pixbuf Short Description: MinGW Windows GDK Pixbuf library Owners: epienbro rjones sailer Branches: f14 el6 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 633058] Review Request: mingw32-gdk-pixbuf - MinGW Windows GDK Pixbuf 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=633058
Kalev Lember changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ka...@smartlink.ee
--- Comment #3 from Kalev Lember 2010-09-17 07:51:16 EDT
---
(In reply to comment #1)
> # rpmlint src/mingw32-gdk-pixbuf-2.21.7-1.fc15.src.rpm
> mingw32-gdk-pixbuf.src: W: unexpanded-macro %description -l C
> %{_mingw32_debug_package}
>
> Warnings can be ignored, the spell error is bogous and the macro isn't
> defined due to the mingw32 packages on my system not being cutting edge.
You could try using ? to avoid having unexpanded macro in %description:
%{?_mingw32_debug_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 631558] Review Request: arduino - An IDE for Arduino-compatible electronics prototyping platforms
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=631558
--- Comment #5 from Alexander Kurtakov 2010-09-17
07:45:27 EDT ---
Review:
OK: rpmlint must be run on every package. There are a number of
devel-file-in-non-devel-package warnings but as this is an IDE for cross
compiling and these headers/sources are used only for crosscompiling there is
no reason to put them in devel package.
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.
FIXIT: 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.
There is a lisense.txt file which you should put as %doc.
OK: The spec file must be written in American English.
OK: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
OK: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL. Instructions to generate the tarball included.
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
OK: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
OK: A package must own all directories that it creates.
OK: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings.
OK: Permissions on files must be set properly. 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: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of
the application.
OK: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file,
and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the
%install section.
OK: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages.
OK: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
So there is just one small issue the missing %doc for lisence.txt it would be
good if you add readme.txt too.
When these are fixed I'll approve the package and sponsor you.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 630222] Review Request: ghc-colour - A model for human colour/color perception
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=630222
Lakshmi Narasimhan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lakshminaras2...@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Lakshmi Narasimhan 2010-09-17
07:41:16 EDT ---
Hi Ben,
Here is my review on this package. I used the guidelines from
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines . I saw that Jens'
review on another package had some additional items. I used that.
Must items
+ OK , ! - Not sure , NA - Not Applicable
[+]MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
the review.
ghc-colour.i386: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US colours -> colors, co
lours, co-lours
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ghc-colour.i386: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Colours -> Co lours,
Co-lours, Col ours
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ghc-colour.i386: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 2.3.1-1 ['2.3.1-1.f13',
'2.3.1-1.f13']
The last entry in %changelog contains a version identifier that is not
coherent with the epoch:version-release tuple of the package.
ghc-colour.i386: W: executable-stack
/usr/lib/ghc-6.12.1/colour-2.3.1/libHScolour-2.3.1-ghc6.12.1.so
The binary declares the stack as executable. Executable stack is usually an
error as it is only needed if the code contains GCC trampolines or similar
constructs which uses code on the stack. One common source for needlessly
executable stack cases are object files built from assembler files which don't
define a proper .note.GNU-stack section.
ghc-colour.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US colours -> colors, co
lours, co-lours
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ghc-colour.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Colours -> Co lours,
Co-lours, Col ours
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ghc-colour.src: W: strange-permission colour-2.3.1.tar.gz 0640L
A file that you listed to include in your package has strange permissions.
Usually, a file should have 0644 permissions.
ghc-colour-devel.i386: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US colours ->
colors, co lours, co-lours
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ghc-colour-devel.i386: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Colours -> Co
lours, Co-lours, Col ours
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ghc-colour-prof.i386: E: devel-dependency ghc-colour-devel
Your package has a dependency on a devel package but it's not a devel package
itself.
ghc-colour-prof.i386: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US colours ->
colors, co lours, co-lours
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ghc-colour-prof.i386: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Colours -> Co
lours, Co-lours, Col ours
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ghc-colour-prof.i386: W: no-documentation
The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include
documentation files.
ghc-colour-prof.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib/ghc-6.12.1/colour-2.3.1/libHScolour-2.3.1_p.a
A development file (usually source code) is located in a non-devel package. If
you want to include source code in your package, be sure to create a
development package.
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 13 warnings.
[+]MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
[+]MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec
[+]MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
Naming-Yes
Version-release - Matches
License-Not sure, nothing mentioned in the LICENSE file.
No prebuilt external bits - Yes
Spec legibity - OK
Package template - OK
Arch support - No exclude arch
Libexecdir - OK
rpmlint - yes
changelogs - OK
Source url tag - OK, validated.
Buildroot is ignored - present anyway. OK
Build Requires list - OK
Summary and description - OK
[!]MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines .
No explicit short license name is mentioned.
[!]MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
Depends on previous item
[+]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.
echo "%{_datadir}/%{pkg_name}-%{version}/CHANGELOG" >> %{name}.files
echo "%{_datadir}/%{pkg_name}-%{version}/README" >> %{nam
[Bug 633058] Review Request: mingw32-gdk-pixbuf - MinGW Windows GDK Pixbuf 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=633058
Gerd Hoffmann changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Gerd Hoffmann 2010-09-17 07:19:22 EDT
---
# rpmlint src/mingw32-gdk-pixbuf-2.21.7-1.fc15.src.rpm
mingw32-gdk-pixbuf.src: W: unexpanded-macro %description -l C
%{_mingw32_debug_package}
mingw32-gdk-pixbuf.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mingw -> mingy,
mingle, Mingus
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
# rpmlint noarch/mingw32-gdk-pixbuf-2.21.7-1.fc15.noarch.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Warnings can be ignored, the spell error is bogous and the macro isn't
defined due to the mingw32 packages on my system not being cutting edge.
---
# md5sum gdk-pixbuf-2.21.7.tar.bz2*
341ef6c8870fddb411f8bb24b9fb638b gdk-pixbuf-2.21.7.tar.bz2
341ef6c8870fddb411f8bb24b9fb638b gdk-pixbuf-2.21.7.tar.bz2.fetched
MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the
review.
OK - see above for the output
MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
OK
MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
OK
MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
OK
MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines.
OK - LGPLv2+
MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
OK
MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package must be included in %doc.
OK
MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
OK
MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
OK
MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
OK - see above for the md5sums
MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture.
OK
MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
OK
MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
OK
MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library
files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must
call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
OK - mingw32 exception, no need to run ldconfig
MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
OK
MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker.
OK
MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create
a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create
that directory.
OK
MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific situations)
OK
MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with
executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
%defattr(...) line.
OK
MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
OK
MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
OK
MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
OK - docs are in the native package
MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime
of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run
properly if it is not present.
OK
MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
OK - mingw32 exception
MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
OK
MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1),
then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel
package.
OK - mingw32 exception
MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed
in the spec if they are built.
OK - mingw32 exception, .la files are needed here
MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file,
...
OK
MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages. ...
OK
MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must
[Bug 613993] Review Request: mingw32-celt051 - An audio codec for use in low-delay speech and audio communication
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=613993 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 613993] Review Request: mingw32-celt051 - An audio codec for use in low-delay speech and audio communication
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=613993 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System 2010-09-17 07:13:44 EDT --- mingw32-celt051-0.5.1.3-3.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mingw32-celt051-0.5.1.3-3.fc14 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 622820] Review Request: acgvision-agent - Monitoring client for ACGVision
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=622820 --- Comment #4 from Alexander Kurtakov 2010-09-17 07:04:09 EDT --- Please upload the new srpm too. So I can be sure I'm reviewing exactly what 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 631558] Review Request: arduino - An IDE for Arduino-compatible electronics prototyping platforms
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=631558 Alexander Kurtakov changed: What|Removed |Added 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 634911] New: Review Request: node -
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: node - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=634911 Summary: Review Request: node - Product: Fedora Version: 14 Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: lkund...@v3.sk QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Depends on: 634906,634908,634909 Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora SPEC: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SPECS/node.spec SRPM: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SRPMS/node-0.2.1-1.fc13.src.rpm Description: Node's goal is to provide an easy way to build scalable network programs. In the above example, the two second delay does not prevent the server from handling new requests. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 634906] Review Request: http-parser - HTTP request/response parser for C
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=634906 Lubomir Rintel changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||634911 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 634911] Review Request: node - Evented I/O for v8 JavaScript
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=634911 Lubomir Rintel changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: node - |Review Request: node - ||Evented I/O for v8 ||JavaScript -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 634908] Review Request: libeio - Event-based fully asynchronous I/O 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=634908 Lubomir Rintel changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||634911 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 634909] Review Request: v8 - JavaScript Engine
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=634909 Lubomir Rintel changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||634911 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 634909] New: Review Request: v8 - JavaScript Engine
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: v8 - JavaScript Engine https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=634909 Summary: Review Request: v8 - JavaScript Engine Product: Fedora Version: 14 Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: lkund...@v3.sk QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora SPEC: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SPECS/v8.spec SRPM: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SRPMS/v8-2.3.8-1.fc13.src.rpm Description: V8 is Google's open source JavaScript engine. V8 is written in C++ and is used in Google Chrome, the open source browser from Google. V8 implements ECMAScript as specified in ECMA-262, 3rd edition. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 634908] New: Review Request: libeio - Event-based fully asynchronous I/O 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: libeio - Event-based fully asynchronous I/O library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=634908 Summary: Review Request: libeio - Event-based fully asynchronous I/O library Product: Fedora Version: 14 Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: lkund...@v3.sk QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora SPEC: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SPECS/libeio.spec SRPM: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SRPMS/libeio-3.65-1.fc13.src.rpm Description: Libeio is a full-featured asynchronous I/O library for C, modelled in similar style and spirit as libev. Features include: asynchronous read, write, open, close, stat, unlink, fdatasync, mknod, readdir etc. (basically the full POSIX API). sendfile (native on solaris, linux, hp-ux, freebsd, emulated everywehere else), readahead (emulated where not available). It is fully event-library agnostic and can easily be integrated into any event-library (or used standalone, even in polling mode). It is very portable and relies only on POSIX threads. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 634906] New: Review Request: http-parser - HTTP request/response parser for C
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: http-parser - HTTP request/response parser for C https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=634906 Summary: Review Request: http-parser - HTTP request/response parser for C Product: Fedora Version: 14 Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: lkund...@v3.sk QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora SPEC: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SPECS/http-parser.spec SRPM: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SRPMS/http-parser-0.3-1.20100911git.fc13.src.rpm Description: This is a parser for HTTP messages written in C. It parses both requests and responses. The parser is designed to be used in performance HTTP applications. It does not make any syscalls nor allocations, it does not buffer data, it can be interrupted at anytime. Depending on your architecture, it only requires about 40 bytes of data per message stream (in a web server that is per connection). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 629145] Review Request: ghc-cmdargs - Haskell command argument parsing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=629145 --- Comment #10 from Jens Petersen 2010-09-17 06:33:17 EDT --- 0.5 was released btw. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 632342] Review Request: eclipse-mpc - Eclipse Marketplace 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=632342 Alexander Kurtakov changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|akurt...@redhat.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #6 from Alexander Kurtakov 2010-09-17 06:12:01 EDT --- Notes: * It fails to compile. There is a missing BR on eclipse-p2-discovery package. * Either set the Source0 to proper url or provide the script you used to create it. * If you're creating the tarball please make it tar.xz * URL is wrong- gives 404 * W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/eclipse-mpc-1.0.1/license.html Once these are fixed I'll do the full review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 634622] Review Request: eclipse-p2-discovery - Equinox p2 discovery
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=634622
--- Comment #5 from Alexander Kurtakov 2010-09-17
06:01:53 EDT ---
Review:
FIXIT: rpmlint must be run on every package. Output:
eclipse-p2-discovery.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/share/doc/eclipse-p2-discovery-1.0.0/license.html
eclipse-p2-discovery.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/share/doc/eclipse-p2-discovery-1.0.0/epl-v10.html
These files should not have executable permission set.
eclipse-p2-discovery.src: W: strange-permission
eclipse-p2-discovery-fetch-src.sh 0755L
So does this one.
OK: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
OK: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
OK: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
OK: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines .
OK: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
OK: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package must be included in %doc.
OK: The spec file must be written in American English.
OK: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
OK: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
OK: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture.
OK: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires,
OK: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
OK: A package must own all directories that it creates.
OK: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific situations)
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: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of
the application.
OK: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages.
OK: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
Please fix the rpmlint issues pointed and I'll approve and sponsor you.
Btw, please think about using better compression for the tarball e.g. xz will
give you ~30% smaller tarball
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 226477] Merge Review: tanukiwrapper
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226477 Parag AN(पराग) changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED CC||panem...@gmail.com Resolution||NOTABUG Last Closed||2010-09-17 06:00:45 --- Comment #2 from Parag AN(पराग) 2010-09-17 06:00:45 EDT --- I can see this package is dead now. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 226364] Merge Review: redhat-menus
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226364 --- Comment #6 from Parag AN(पराग) 2010-09-17 05:53:30 EDT --- Created attachment 447966 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=447966 This will cleanup spec. This will cleanup spec. Please commit this patch and build new package or allow to commit it. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 226223] Merge Review: ORBit2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226223 --- Comment #7 from Parag AN(पराग) 2010-09-17 05:50:34 EDT --- Just to update here, I am working on this review, meanwhile some modification are available at SRPM: http://paragn.fedorapeople.org/ORBit2-2.14.18-3.fc15.src.rpm SPEC: http://paragn.fedorapeople.org/ORBit2.spec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
