[Bug 635511] Review Request: assimp - Library to import various 3D model formats into applications
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=635511
Ralf Corsepius changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tcall...@redhat.com
Blocks||182235(FE-Legal)
--- Comment #6 from Ralf Corsepius 2010-09-24 10:04:16
EDT ---
Technically, the package is fine. I would approve it, if there weren't a legal
detail:
The source *.zip contains data files ("artwork?") under different, some times
not really clear licenses. AFAIS, they all qualify as "freely distributable",
but some of them do not qualify a as "open source".
As the package doesn't install them, I am not sure if this is allowed in
Fedora.
=> Blocking FE-LEGAL for 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 226030] Merge Review: libiec61883
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226030 Jarod Wilson changed: What|Removed |Added CC|jwil...@redhat.com | --- Comment #2 from Jarod Wilson 2010-09-24 09:57:16 EDT --- Really only need to see the bz traffic once, thank you. ;) (jarod@ == jwilson@) Most of the changes look fine, though your patch removes %clean entirely from the spec. I have vague recollections that this may now be implied w/current rpm, but is that true for all current Fedora releases? -- 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 589866] Review Request: darktable - Utility to organize and develop raw images
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=589866 --- Comment #44 from Peter Lemenkov 2010-09-24 09:56:30 EDT --- In fact you did have "%doc README AUTHORS LICENSE TRANSLATORS" in your spec. And now you added it twice :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 589866] Review Request: darktable - Utility to organize and develop raw images
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=589866 --- Comment #43 from Edouard Bourguignon 2010-09-24 09:52:34 EDT --- Ok so the problem was in my files section because I did't have %doc README AUTHORS LICENSE TRANSLATORS. I added the rm and modified the files section,now it's building fine. Here are the latest files, I hope they will be ok: http://www.linuxed.net/~madko/fedora/darktable.spec SRPM: http://www.linuxed.net/~madko/fedora/darktable-0.6-9.fc13.src.rpm i386: http://www.linuxed.net/~madko/fedora/darktable-0.6-9.fc13.i686.rpm x64 : http://www.linuxed.net/~madko/fedora/darktable-0.6-9.fc13.x86_64.rpm Thank you Peter for the review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 552855] Merge Review: anthy - Japanese character set input 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=552855 --- Comment #3 from Parag AN(पराग) 2010-09-24 09:52:53 EDT --- Ping -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 226016] Merge Review: libgnomeprint22
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226016 Parag AN(पराग) changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ Last Closed||2010-09-24 09:47:08 --- Comment #3 from Parag AN(पराग) 2010-09-24 09:47:08 EDT --- This package is now cleaned in build libgnomeprint22-2.18.7-2.fc15 APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 225821] Merge Review: gnome-mag
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225821 Parag AN(पराग) changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ Last Closed||2010-09-24 09:48:26 --- Comment #2 from Parag AN(पराग) 2010-09-24 09:48:26 EDT --- This package is now cleaned in build gnome-mag-0.16.1-2.fc15 APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 225823] Merge Review: gnome-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=225823 Parag AN(पराग) changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ Last Closed||2010-09-24 09:47:49 --- Comment #2 from Parag AN(पराग) 2010-09-24 09:47:49 EDT --- This package is now cleaned in build gnome-menus-2.30.0-4.fc15 APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 226059] Merge Review: libwnck
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226059 Parag AN(पराग) changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ Last Closed||2010-09-24 09:47:18 --- Comment #2 from Parag AN(पराग) 2010-09-24 09:47:18 EDT --- This package is now cleaned in build libwnck-2.30.3-3.fc15 APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 636945] Review Request: perl-Convert-UU - Perl module for uuencode and uudecode
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=636945 Marcela Mašláňová changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Marcela Mašláňová 2010-09-24 09:40:32 EDT --- No worries. I'll fix also non-blocking issues before upload. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: perl-Convert-UU Short Description: Perl module for uuencode and uudecode Owners: mmaslano psabata ppisar Branches: F-15 devel InitialCC: perl-sig -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 226561] Merge Review: xjavadoc
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226561
--- Comment #2 from Stanislav Ochotnicky 2010-09-24
09:38:53 EDT ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[!] Rpmlint output:
xjavadoc.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary C XJavaDoc
Improve the summary
xjavadoc.src: W: non-standard-group Development/Testing
Development/Libraries or Tools?
xjavadoc.src:183: W: libdir-macro-in-noarch-package (main package)
%attr(-,root,root) %{_libdir}/gcj/%{name}
this would be fixed by removing gcj support alltogether.
I'll leave this up to you, but it would be nice
xjavadoc.src:92: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 92,tab:line 35)
obvious fix...
xjavadoc.src: W: invalid-url Source0: xjavadoc-src-1.1-RHCLEAN.tar.bz2
This needs at least an explanation in the spec file
xjavadoc.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary C XJavaDoc
xjavadoc.x86_64: W: non-standard-group Development/Testing
xjavadoc-javadoc.x86_64: W: non-standard-group Development/Documentation
Group: Documentation
xjavadoc-javadoc.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%post rm
xjavadoc-javadoc.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%postun rm
...you know what to do here.
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 10 warnings.
[x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x] Spec file name must match the base package name, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
[x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms.
[!] Buildroot is correct
(%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n))
[x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type: BSD
[x] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package is included in %doc.
[!] All independent sub-packages have License of their own
javadoc subpackage should include license or depend on main package
[x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[!] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
Unable to checkout sources using provided comments
[x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x] Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[!] Permissions on files are set properly.
Fix defattrs for files to -,root,root,-
[x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
but I don't see point in checking if build root equals '/' (nice failsafe, but
shouldn't be needed)
[x] Package consistently uses macros.
[x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
[x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x] Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
subpackage
[!] Javadoc subpackages have Require: jpackage-utils
They have requires on coreutils (unneeded)
[!] Package uses %global not %define
[!] If package uses tarball from VCS include comment how to re-create that
tarball (svn export URL, git clone URL, ...)
As mentioned before, that comment needs expanding/fixing
[x] If source tarball includes bundled jar/class files these need to be
removed prior to building
[x] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
[x] If possible use upstream build method (maven/ant/javac)
[!] Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} with
%{_javadocdir}/%{name}-%{version} symlink
that unsafe command in post/postun issue from rpmlint
[?] If package contains pom.xml files install it even when building with ant
there seems to be project.xml but that seems like old version..might be worth
looking into if you have some time
[x] Avoid having BuildRequires on exact NVR unless necessary
[!] Package has BuildArch: noarch (if possible)
Is it not possible to have
[?] Latest version is packaged.t
[x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
Tested on: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
=== Issues ===
1. several rpmlint issues
2. license in javadoc subpackage
3. buildroot
4. way to get source tarball is not exact
5. gcj support/noarch and quite a few things related to this
6. define->global
7. requires in jpackage-utils in javadoc subpackage
8. permissions on files
9. ugly post/postun for javadoc subpackage
--
Configure bugmail: https
[Bug 636945] Review Request: perl-Convert-UU - Perl module for uuencode and uudecode
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=636945
--- Comment #3 from Petr Pisar 2010-09-24 09:31:32 EDT ---
> FIX: Summary text does not end with full stop.
TODO: Summary should be a sentence. Append a period character.
> FIX: BuildRequires perl(Exporter) (check-time) missing. This is needed because
> Exporter package could be dual-life in the future
> (http://search.cpan.org/search?query=Exporter&mode=all).
Ok.
> TODO: Remove unneeded BuildRoot tag as this is obviously post-F12 spec (no
> %clean section).
Ok.
> TODO: Report bad interpreter path in puudecode to upstream.
Ok (https://rt.cpan.org/Public/Bug/Display.html?id=61609).
> FIX: Remove puudecode puuencode from %doc (effectively same as in %{_bindir})
Ok.
> FIX: Package %{perl_privlib}/* instead of %{perl_vendorlib}/*
> (INSTALLDIRS=perl)
Ok.
> FIX: Does not builds on F15
> (http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2486640).
Ok (http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2486852).
See build.log:
+ make test
PERL_DL_NONLAZY=1 /usr/bin/perl "-MExtUtils::Command::MM" "-e" "test_harness(0,
'blib/lib', 'blib/arch')" t/*.t
t/ext-uu.t skipped: (no reason given)
TODO: Investigate why the test was skipped. It works for me on local.
I guess it executes `uudecode' utility from sharutils RPM package
(t/ext-uu.t:10). Try to BuildRequire sharutils.
> FIX: Add BuildRequires necessary for %check phase: perl(File::Spec),
> perl(Test::More), perl(Test::Pod) >= 1.00, perl(Test::Pod::Coverage).
Ok
Please consider fixing all `TODO:' prefixed comments.
Result: 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 636945] Review Request: perl-Convert-UU - Perl module for uuencode and uudecode
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=636945 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 623604] Review Request: xneur - X Neural Switcher
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=623604
--- Comment #4 from Martin Gieseking 2010-09-24
09:17:33 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> > - libxnconfig and xneur contain rpaths (see rpmlint output below).
> > The rpath must be removed.
> > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Beware_of_Rpath
> It is not problem for internal libraries -
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Rpath_for_Internal_Libraries
Since you provide a -devel subpackage, libxneur isn't purely internal to the
bundled xneur utility. A future package might BR: xneur-devel and depend on
libxneur. Hence, you should remove the rpath.
> > %{_mandir}/man1/xneur.1*
> > %{_mandir}/man5/xneurrc.5*
> I do not see any worth on it - we always want include all available mans.
The more verbose variants prevent accidentally installing files into wrong
places in future releases. I already came across packages with man3 files in
the man1 folder, and also non-manual files in one of the man folders. This was
because "make install" put them into the wrong directory. Using the above
mentioned lines would have made rpmbuild fail with an error. Thus, I recommend
to use the more explicit lines in %files. It helps keeping the package clean.
> > $ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-13-x86_64/result/*.rpm
> > xneur.src: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found ru
> If I understand it correctly - you just do not have installed ru dictionary
> for
> hunspell and rpmlint can't spell it language.
Right. The warning can be ignored.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 636946] Review Request: perl-Astro-FITS-Header - Object Orientated interface to FITS HDUs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=636946 --- Comment #1 from Petr Pisar 2010-09-24 08:52:48 EDT --- Source file original. License verified from lib/Astro/FITS/Header.pm. TODO: %doc GPL file contains GPL-2 version but source files states perl license (GPL-1). Report bug to upstream. All test pass. FIX: Missing BuildRequires for %check phase: perl(Starlink::AST), perl(Astro::FITS::CFITSIO), perl(GSD), perl(NDF) TODO: Remove unneeded BuildRoot because this post-F12 spec. $ rpmlint perl-Astro-FITS-Header.spec ../SRPMS/perl-Astro-FITS-Header-3.01-1.fc13.src.rpm ../RPMS/noarch/perl-Astro-FITS-Header-3.01-1.fc13.noarch.rpm perl-Astro-FITS-Header.spec: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %clean perl-Astro-FITS-Header.spec: W: no-%clean-section perl-Astro-FITS-Header.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US arguement -> argument, arrangement, enlargement perl-Astro-FITS-Header.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %clean perl-Astro-FITS-Header.src: W: no-%clean-section perl-Astro-FITS-Header.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US arguement -> argument, arrangement, enlargement 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. FIX: Description spelling is incorrect. $ rpm -pq --requires ../RPMS/noarch/perl-Astro-FITS-Header-3.01-1.fc13.noarch.rpm | sort |uniq -c 1 perl(Astro::FITS::CFITSIO) 1 perl(Astro::FITS::Header::Item) 1 perl(base) 1 perl(Carp) 1 perl(File::Spec) 1 perl(GSD) 1 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.10.1) 1 perl(NDF) 1 perl(overload) 1 perl(Starlink::AST) 1 perl(strict) 1 perl(vars) 1 perl(warnings) 1 perl >= 0:5.006 1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 1 rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1 1 rpmlib(VersionedDependencies) <= 3.0.3-1 Binary dependencies Ok. FIX: Missing perl(File::Spec) BuildRequires for %check phase (dual-life package possible). $ rpm -pq --provides ../RPMS/noarch/perl-Astro-FITS-Header-3.01-1.fc13.noarch.rpm | sort |uniq -c 1 perl(Astro::FITS::Header::AST) = 3.01 1 perl(Astro::FITS::Header::CFITSIO) = 3.01 1 perl(Astro::FITS::HeaderCollection) 1 perl(Astro::FITS::Header::GSD) = 3.01 1 perl(Astro::FITS::Header::Item) = 3.01 1 perl(Astro::FITS::Header::NDF) = 3.01 1 perl(Astro::FITS::Header) = 3.01 1 perl-Astro-FITS-Header = 3.01-1.fc13 Binary provides Ok. $ rpm -pqlv ../RPMS/noarch/perl-Astro-FITS-Header-3.01-1.fc13.noarch.rpm drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 zář 24 14:20 /usr/share/doc/perl-Astro-FITS-Header-3.01 -rw-r--r--1 rootroot15663 bře 17 2009 /usr/share/doc/perl-Astro-FITS-Header-3.01/ChangeLog -rw-r--r--1 rootroot18009 úno 11 2009 /usr/share/doc/perl-Astro-FITS-Header-3.01/GPL -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 6532 bře 17 2009 /usr/share/doc/perl-Astro-FITS-Header-3.01/README -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 251 úno 11 2009 /usr/share/doc/perl-Astro-FITS-Header-3.01/TODO -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 7920 zář 24 14:20 /usr/share/man/man3/Astro::FITS::Header.3pm.gz -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 2560 zář 24 14:20 /usr/share/man/man3/Astro::FITS::Header::AST.3pm.gz -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 2686 zář 24 14:20 /usr/share/man/man3/Astro::FITS::Header::CFITSIO.3pm.gz -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 2523 zář 24 14:20 /usr/share/man/man3/Astro::FITS::Header::GSD.3pm.gz -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 3905 zář 24 14:20 /usr/share/man/man3/Astro::FITS::Header::Item.3pm.gz -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 3279 zář 24 14:20 /usr/share/man/man3/Astro::FITS::Header::NDF.3pm.gz drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 zář 24 14:20 /usr/share/perl5/Astro drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 zář 24 14:20 /usr/share/perl5/Astro/FITS drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 zář 24 14:20 /usr/share/perl5/Astro/FITS/Header -rw-r--r--1 rootroot48951 bře 17 2009 /usr/share/perl5/Astro/FITS/Header.pm -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 3350 bře 17 2009 /usr/share/perl5/Astro/FITS/Header/AST.pm -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 7819 bře 17 2009 /usr/share/perl5/Astro/FITS/Header/CFITSIO.pm -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 3921 bře 17 2009 /usr/share/perl5/Astro/FITS/Header/GSD.pm -rw-r--r--1 rootroot21751 bře 17 2009 /usr/share/perl5/Astro/FITS/Header/Item.pm -rw-r--r--1 rootroot11376 bře 17 2009 /usr/share/perl5/Astro/FITS/Header/NDF.pm Files permissions and location Ok. Spec file in line with Perl packaging
[Bug 589866] Review Request: darktable - Utility to organize and develop raw images
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=589866
--- Comment #42 from Peter Lemenkov 2010-09-24 08:42:22
EDT ---
(In reply to comment #41)
> That was exactly the same line I added as I said in Comment #37. I'm trying
> again maybe I was not awake.
>
> I see duplicated docs too:
> /usr/share/doc/darktable and /usr/share/doc/darktable-0.6
> I guess the best to keep is the one with the version? So I need to change my
> files section %doc %{_datadir}/doc/darktable to %doc
> %{_datadir}/doc/darktable-%{version} ?
Nope. Just keep
%doc README AUTHORS LICENSE TRANSLATORS
This line tells rpmbuild that it needs to explicitly create
/usr/share/doc/darktable-0.6 and install the mentioned files into this
directory.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 562585] Review Request: ccd2iso - CloneCD image to ISO image file converter
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=562585 --- Comment #26 from Mohammed Safwat 2010-09-24 08:43:00 EDT --- Yes sorry, I know I'm quite late for this. It's just that I don't have a permanent internet connection(; most of the time I'm offline). When I get connected, most probably I don't have my fedora machine with me. Anyway, I'll try hard to get this package imported within a couple of weeks. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 589866] Review Request: darktable - Utility to organize and develop raw images
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=589866
--- Comment #41 from Edouard Bourguignon 2010-09-24
08:29:37 EDT ---
That was exactly the same line I added as I said in Comment #37. I'm trying
again maybe I was not awake.
I see duplicated docs too:
/usr/share/doc/darktable and /usr/share/doc/darktable-0.6
I guess the best to keep is the one with the version? So I need to change my
files section %doc %{_datadir}/doc/darktable to %doc
%{_datadir}/doc/darktable-%{version} ?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 623604] Review Request: xneur - X Neural Switcher
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=623604
--- Comment #3 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus)
2010-09-24 08:28:14 EDT ---
Damian and Martin, firstly thanks for the (pre)review.
(In reply to comment #1)
> - MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
> license.
>
> $ grep -B 1 later xneur-0.9.9/COPYING
> specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any
> later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions
> either of that version or of any later version published by the Free
> --
> the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
> (at your option) any later version.
>
> NOT OK. The spec says it's GPLv2, but the licens is "or later version"
> like[1],
> so the GPLv2+ should be used instead.
You are quote incorrect file - this is onlu standard text on GPLv2 license and
phrase "or later version" there used in context of example of use it.
By the way, you are accidentally right, and source say also it should be
GPLv2+. Fixed.
> - MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
> least one primary architecture.
>
> NOT OK.
> It doesn't build for i686 in mock for F-14 and F-15(rawhide) [3].
> Please look for:
> /usr/include/libnotify/notification.h:28:21: fatal error: gtk/gtk.h: No such
> file or directory
> compilation terminated.
Eeeh. You are right, very thanks. It built fine on Fedora 13 thought. Now I ask
it in ML
(http://www.mail-archive.com/de...@lists.fedoraproject.org/msg15816.html) and
apply workaround.
> NOT OK.
> It looks that the package doesn't own all necessary directories
> (/usr/lib/xneur)[5].
Good point, fixed.
> Just please consider to replace %{_libdir}/xneur/*.so.*
> with the %{_libdir}/%{name}/*.so.*
Replaced.
(In reply to comment #2)
> Hi Pavel and Damian
>
> (In reply to comment #1)
> > NOT OK.
> > The summary attempts to compare this program to a different one:
> > "It's program like Punto Switcher, ..."
> > which should be avoided[2]. BTW, for people who don't know what the
> > Punto Switches program is designed for, such a comparison is rather useless.
>
> I agree here. I suggest to use a slightly shortened paragraph from Wikipedia,
> for example:
>
> X Neural Switcher is a program for automatic (intelligent) keyboard layout
> changing in the X Window System. It is mainly used to change between Russian
> and English, but also supports Ukrainian, Belorussian, French, Romanian,
> Kazakh
> and German.
It sounds good to me. I take it with only full lists of supported languages.
> > - MUST: Packages must NOT OK bundle copies of system libraries.
> >
> > NOT OK.
> > It looks that it the xneur library needs to be packaged separately[4].
>
> It's OK to put libraries that are an original part of the program into the
> same
> package as the program (here: xneur and libxneur). Nonetheless, it might be
> useful to put the library in a subpackage to avoid conflicts in multilib
> environments (where the 32bit and 64bit version of the library are installed).
> But this is up to the packager.
I think it is not intended use of this library anywhere outside xneur. So, it
is not system library then. I do not willing packaging it separately until some
one ask it for its work.
> > NOT OK.
> > It looks that the package doesn't own all necessary directories
> > (/usr/lib/xneur)[5].
>
> Right. Add "%dir %{_libdir}/xneur" to the base package to make the package own
> this directory. Also, replace "%{includedir}/xneur/*" with
> "%{includedir}/xneur/". It adds the directory plus its contents.
Fixed, thanks. But I only prefer use %{name} there instead of directly mention
"xneur".
> Here are some more notes:
> - BR: autoconf, automake, and libtool are not required and should be removed
Removed.
> - libxnconfig and xneur contain rpaths (see rpmlint output below).
> The rpath must be removed.
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Beware_of_Rpath
It is not problem for internal libraries -
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Rpath_for_Internal_Libraries
> - I recommend to be more specific in %files to avoid packaging unwanted files:
> %{_bindir}/xneur
I use it (again with macros variant %{name}).
> %{_mandir}/man1/xneur.1*
> %{_mandir}/man5/xneurrc.5*
I do not see any worth on it - we always want include all available mans.
> $ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-13-x86_64/result/*.rpm
> xneur.src: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found ru
If I understand it correctly - you just do not have installed ru dictionary for
hunspell and rpmlint can't spell it language.
Errors about zero-length files may be safely ignored. I want leave it in
package as upstream make it - it just as placeholders.
http://hubbitus.net.ru/rpm/Fedora13/xneur/xneur-0.9.9-2.fc14.src.rpm
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla
[Bug 637134] New: Review Request: bird - BIRD Internet Routing Daemon
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: bird - BIRD Internet Routing Daemon https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=637134 Summary: Review Request: bird - BIRD Internet Routing Daemon Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: jgo...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Target Release: --- Spec URL: http://jgorig.fedorapeople.org/bird/bird.spec SRPM URL: http://jgorig.fedorapeople.org/bird/bird-1.2.4-1.fc13.src.rpm Description: BIRD is dynamic routing daemon supporting IPv4 and IPv6 versions of routing protocols BGP, RIP and OSPF. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 636945] Review Request: perl-Convert-UU - Perl module for uuencode and uudecode
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=636945 --- Comment #2 from Marcela Mašláňová 2010-09-24 08:02:19 EDT --- Thorough review, thank you very much. Build passed: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2486741 Spec url: http://mmaslano.fedorapeople.org/review/perl-Convert-UU.spec And bug for upstream: https://rt.cpan.org/Public/Bug/Display.html?id=61609 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 636892] Review Request: perl-threads-shared - Perl extension for sharing data structures between threads
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=636892 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Petr Pisar 2010-09-24 07:59:31 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: perl-threads-shared Short Description: Perl extension for sharing data structures between threads Owners: ppisar mmaslano psabata Branches: InitialCC: perl-sig F15 branch please if you process it after rawhide to F16 transition. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 226561] Merge Review: xjavadoc
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226561 Stanislav Ochotnicky changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||socho...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|socho...@redhat.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Stanislav Ochotnicky 2010-09-24 07:49:17 EDT --- I'll look into this -- 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 636947] Review Request: ding-libs - "Ding is not Glib" assorted utility libraries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=636947 --- Comment #3 from Stephen Gallagher 2010-09-24 07:43:18 EDT --- Fixed the source address. Also, yes. I plan to close the review bugs and follow the dead.package process for the other packages. Spec URL: http://sgallagh.fedorapeople.org/packagereview/ding-libs.spec SRPM URL: http://sgallagh.fedorapeople.org/packagereview/ding-libs-0.1.1-2.fc13.src.rpm Built in koji (rawhide): http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2486716 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 636946] Review Request: perl-Astro-FITS-Header - Object Orientated interface to FITS HDUs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=636946 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||ppi...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ppi...@redhat.com Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 636947] Review Request: ding-libs - "Ding is not Glib" assorted utility libraries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=636947 --- Comment #2 from Jakub Hrozek 2010-09-24 07:12:01 EDT --- I think we should also close the separate review bugs and have the few separate packages that already had dist-git done removed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 636947] Review Request: ding-libs - "Ding is not Glib" assorted utility libraries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=636947
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Hrozek 2010-09-24 07:11:02 EDT
---
[!] - The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL.
- The spec URL looks like it's not correct, I think it should be either a
full URL or in case of a snapshot or similar, a method how to generate it.
Koji scratch builds (f14 and devel):
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2486519
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2486524
RPMLint output - binaries
libpath_utils.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Filesystem -> File
system, File-system, Systematic
libpath_utils.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US filesystem ->
file system, file-system, systematic
libpath_utils.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pathnames ->
pathname, path names, path-names
libpath_utils-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libpath -> lib
path, lib-path, librate
libpath_utils-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) utils -> utile,
utilizes, utilize
libpath_utils-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US filesystem
-> file system, file-system, systematic
libpath_utils-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pathnames
-> pathname, path names, path-names
libdhash.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US resize -> resile,
reside, re size
libdhash-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US resize ->
resile, reside, re size
libref_array.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) refcounted -> recounted,
ref counted, ref-counted
libref_array-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libref -> libre,
lib ref, lib-ref
libini_config.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US config -> con
fig, con-fig, configure
libini_config.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libcollection ->
lib collection, lib-collection, collection
libini_config-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libini ->
libidinal, libido, Libia
libini_config-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) config -> con fig,
con-fig, configure
libini_config-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US config ->
con fig, con-fig, configure
libini_config-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
libcollection -> lib collection, lib-collection, collection
RPMLint output - source RPM:
ding-libs.src: W: invalid-url Source0: ding-libs-0.1.1.tar.gz
- This was discussed above
The rest looks pretty good:
[OK] - The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[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 be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines .
[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 package MUST successfully compile and build
[OK] - All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires
- The two above were tested with koji scratch build
[OK] - 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] - Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries
[OK] - A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not
create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
create that directory.
[OK] - A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings.
[OK] - Each package must consistently use macros.
[OK] - The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[OK] - Header files must be in a -devel package.
[OK] - 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] - In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release}
[OK] - Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be
removed in the spec if they are built.
[OK] - Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
[OK] - All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
[OK] - Permissions on files must be set properly.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
_
[Bug 636945] Review Request: perl-Convert-UU - Perl module for uuencode and uudecode
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=636945
--- Comment #1 from Petr Pisar 2010-09-24 07:11:01 EDT ---
Source tar ball is original.
License verified from lib/Convert/UU.pm.
FIX: Summary text does not end with full stop.
FIX: BuildRequires perl(Exporter) (check-time) missing. This is needed because
Exporter package could be dual-life in the future
(http://search.cpan.org/search?query=Exporter&mode=all).
TODO: Remove unneeded BuildRoot tag as this is obviously post-F12 spec (no
%clean section).
TODO: Report bad interpreter path in puudecode to upstream.
FIX: Remove puudecode puuencode from %doc (effectively same as in %{_bindir})
FIX: Package %{perl_privlib}/* instead of %{perl_vendorlib}/*
(INSTALLDIRS=perl)
All tests pass.
$ rpmlint perl-Convert-UU.spec ../SRPMS/perl-Convert-UU-0.5201-1.fc13.src.rpm
../RPMS/noarch/perl-Convert-UU-0.5201-1.fc13.noarch.rpm
perl-Convert-UU.spec: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %clean
perl-Convert-UU.spec: W: no-%clean-section
perl-Convert-UU.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) uuencode -> encoder,
encode, Unicode
perl-Convert-UU.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) uudecode -> Unicode,
undecided, decoupage
perl-Convert-UU.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US uuencode ->
encoder, encode, Unicode
perl-Convert-UU.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US uudecode ->
Unicode, undecided, decoupage
perl-Convert-UU.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %clean
perl-Convert-UU.src: W: no-%clean-section
perl-Convert-UU.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) uuencode -> encoder,
encode, Unicode
perl-Convert-UU.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) uudecode -> Unicode,
undecided, decoupage
perl-Convert-UU.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US uuencode ->
encoder, encode, Unicode
perl-Convert-UU.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US uudecode ->
Unicode, undecided, decoupage
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 12 warnings.
rpmlint ouptut is Ok.
$ rpm -pq --requires ../RPMS/noarch/perl-Convert-UU-0.5201-1.fc13.noarch.rpm |
sort |uniq -c
1 perl(Carp)
1 perl(Convert::UU)
1 perl(Exporter)
1 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.10.1)
1 perl(strict)
1 perl(vars)
1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1
1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
1 rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1
1 rpmlib(VersionedDependencies) <= 3.0.3-1
1 /usr/bin/perl
Binary dependencies Ok.
$ rpm -pq --provides ../RPMS/noarch/perl-Convert-UU-0.5201-1.fc13.noarch.rpm |
sort |uniq -c
1 perl(Convert::UU) = 0.5201
1 perl-Convert-UU = 0.5201-1.fc13
Binary provides Ok.
$ rpm -pqlv ../RPMS/noarch/perl-Convert-UU-0.5201-1.fc13.noarch.rpm
-rwxr-xr-x1 rootroot 1010 zář 24 12:35
/usr/bin/puudecode
-rwxr-xr-x1 rootroot 980 zář 24 12:35
/usr/bin/puuencode
drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 zář 24 12:35
/usr/share/doc/perl-Convert-UU-0.5201
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 2341 bře 2 2008
/usr/share/doc/perl-Convert-UU-0.5201/ChangeLog
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 1870 bře 2 2008
/usr/share/doc/perl-Convert-UU-0.5201/README
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 925 zář 24 12:35
/usr/share/doc/perl-Convert-UU-0.5201/puudecode
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 895 bře 2 2008
/usr/share/doc/perl-Convert-UU-0.5201/puuencode
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 2016 zář 24 12:35
/usr/share/man/man1/puudecode.1.gz
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 2033 zář 24 12:35
/usr/share/man/man1/puuencode.1.gz
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 2594 zář 24 12:35
/usr/share/man/man3/Convert::UU.3pm.gz
drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 zář 24 12:35
/usr/share/perl5/Convert
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 5332 bře 2 2008
/usr/share/perl5/Convert/UU.pm
File permissions and location Ok.
Spec file in line with Perl packaging guidelines.
FIX: Does not builds on F15
(http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2486640).
FIX: Add BuildRequires necessary for %check phase: perl(File::Spec),
perl(Test::More), perl(Test::Pod) >= 1.00, perl(Test::Pod::Coverage).
Please fix all `FIX:' prefixed comments and publish new spec file.
Result: NOT 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 635788] Review Request: nautilus-terminal - Terminal embedded in Nautilus
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=635788 --- Comment #3 from Hicham HAOUARI 2010-09-24 06:54:55 EDT --- New upstream release SPEC URL : http://hicham.fedorapeople.org/nautilus-terminal/nautilus-terminal.spec SRPM URL : http://hicham.fedorapeople.org/nautilus-terminal/nautilus-terminal-0.7-1.fc13.src.rpm Description: Nautilus Terminal is a terminal embedded in Nautilus, the GNOME's file browser. It is always open in the current folder, and follows the navigation (like an automated "cd" command). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 225953] Merge Review: jsch
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225953 Stanislav Ochotnicky changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE Last Closed||2010-09-24 06:52:50 -- 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 636945] Review Request: perl-Convert-UU - Perl module for uuencode and uudecode
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=636945 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||ppi...@redhat.com QAContact|extras...@fedoraproject.org |ppi...@redhat.com Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 225953] Merge Review: jsch
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225953 Stanislav Ochotnicky changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Stanislav Ochotnicky 2010-09-24 06:27:19 EDT --- Nice. All problems solved. *** APPROVED *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 225953] Merge Review: jsch
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225953 --- Comment #3 from Alexander Kurtakov 2010-09-24 06:07:22 EDT --- === Issues === 1. buildroot According to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag we don't need the tag anymore and I've removed it. 2. License in subpackages Fixed. 3. Requires on jpackage-utils in main package and javadoc subpackage Fixed. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=196674 -- 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 226026] Merge Review: libgtop2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226026 --- Comment #3 from Parag AN(पराग) 2010-09-24 05:44:21 EDT --- Created attachment 449376 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=449376 spec cleanup mclasen, I have removed libs.patch as I don't see any effect of it in existing spec written. Please approve attached patch. -- 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 226026] Merge Review: libgtop2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226026 Parag AN(पराग) changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||mcla...@redhat.com, ||panem...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|panem...@gmail.com Flag|needinfo?(sandm...@redhat.c | |om) | -- 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 629332] Review Request: GoAccess - Apache web log analyzer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=629332 --- Comment #7 from Martin Gieseking 2010-09-24 05:44:04 EDT --- When running goaccess without any options but with an additional argument, it crashes with a segfault. This should be reported upstream. $ goaccess x GoAccess - version 0.3.2 - Sep 24 2010 11:21:59 An error has occurred Error occured at: parser.c - parse_log - 531 Message: An error has occurred while opening the log file. Make sure it exists. Abgebrochen (Speicherabzug geschrieben) BTW, I can sponsor you if you're willing to do two or three informal package reviews in order to show a (basic) understanding of the packaging guidelines. This is important because you're allowed to formally review and approve other packager's submissions, once you have been sponsored. For that reason, you should be familiar with the guidelines and the reviewing process. If you're still interested in joining the packager group, let me know. :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 595603] Review Request: ghc-hslogger - Haskell logging 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=595603 Jens Petersen changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo?(lakshminaras2002@ ||gmail.com) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 499069] Review Request: ghc-rpm-macros - RPM macros for building GHC 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=499069 Jens Petersen changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #17 from Jens Petersen 2010-09-24 05:33:10 EDT --- Package Change Request == Package Name: ghc-rpm-macros New Branches: el6 Owners: petersen InitialCC: haskell-sig -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 636930] Review Request:projectcenter - The GNUstep IDE
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=636930
Jussi Lehtola changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jussi.leht...@iki.fi
--- Comment #2 from Jussi Lehtola 2010-09-24 05:28:33
EDT ---
And you're missing ownership of the directories
%{_libdir}/GNUstep/Frameworks/ProjectCenter.framework/Versions/
%{_libdir}/GNUstep/Frameworks/ProjectCenter.framework/Versions/%{version}
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 225953] Merge Review: jsch
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225953
--- Comment #2 from Stanislav Ochotnicky 2010-09-24
05:24:04 EDT ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x] Rpmlint output: false positives
jsch.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sshd -> ssh, ss hd, ss-hd
jsch.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sshd -> ssh, ss hd, ss-hd
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
[x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x] Spec file name must match the base package name, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
[x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms.
[!] Buildroot is correct
(%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n))
[x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type: BSD
[x] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package is included in %doc.
[!] All independent sub-packages have License of their own
demo and javadoc subpackages are missing License (or Requires on main package)
[x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
MD5SUM this package: ccf75ce1ee6e2eba717602ff8c344c74
MD5SUM upstream package: ccf75ce1ee6e2eba717602ff8c344c74
[x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x] Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x] Permissions on files are set properly.
[x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
[x] Package consistently uses macros.
[x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
[x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x] Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
subpackage
[!] Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
main package is missing jpackage-utils in Requires
[!] Javadoc subpackages have Require: jpackage-utils
same for javadoc subpackage
[-] Package uses %global not %define
[-] If package uses tarball from VCS include comment how to re-create that
tarball (svn export URL, git clone URL, ...)
[-] If source tarball includes bundled jar/class files these need to be
removed prior to building
[x] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
=== Other suggestions ===
[x] If possible use upstream build method (maven/ant/javac)
[x] Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} with
%{_javadocdir}/%{name}-%{version} symlink
[-] If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even when
building with ant
[x] Avoid having BuildRequires on exact NVR unless necessary
[x] Package has BuildArch: noarch (if possible)
[x] Latest version is packaged.
[x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
Tested on: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
=== Issues ===
1. buildroot
2. License in subpackages
3. Requires on jpackage-utils in main package and javadoc subpackage
--
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 226030] Merge Review: libiec61883
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226030 --- Comment #1 from Parag AN(पराग) 2010-09-24 05:06:52 EDT --- Created attachment 449373 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=449373 spec cleanup Please commit the attached patch that will clean this spec 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 226030] Merge Review: libiec61883
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226030 Parag AN(पराग) changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||panem...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|panem...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 636930] Review Request:projectcenter - The GNUstep IDE
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=636930 Martin Gieseking changed: What|Removed |Added CC||martin.giesek...@uos.de --- Comment #1 from Martin Gieseking 2010-09-24 04:45:00 EDT --- Hi Jochen, here are some initial comments: - the URL should be http://www.gnustep.org/experience/ProjectCenter.html - the base package contains 2 source files: AppController.h AppController.m - there are some dangling symlink issues (see rpmlint output) - the application crashes on my system: $ ProjectCenter 2010-09-24 10:39:32.191 ProjectCenter[19226] Did not find correct version of backend, falling back to std. 2010-09-24 10:39:32.192 ProjectCenter[19226] NSApplication.m:286 Assertion failed in initialize_gnustep_backend. Unable to find backend back ProjectCenter: Uncaught exception NSInternalInconsistencyException, reason: NSApplication.m:286 Assertion failed in initialize_gnustep_backend. Unable to find backend back Abgebrochen (Speicherabzug geschrieben) $ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-13-x86_64/result/*.rpm projectcenter.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib64/libProjectCenter.so.0.5.0 ./GNUstep/Frameworks/ProjectCenter.framework/Versions/Current/libProjectCenter.so.0.5.0 projectcenter.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib64/GNUstep/Frameworks/ProjectCenter.framework/ProjectCenter ./Versions/Current/ProjectCenter projectcenter.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib64/libProjectCenter.so.0 ./GNUstep/Frameworks/ProjectCenter.framework/Versions/Current/libProjectCenter.so.0 projectcenter.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib64/GNUstep/Frameworks/ProjectCenter.framework/Versions/Current 0.5.0 projectcenter.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib64/GNUstep/Frameworks/ProjectCenter.framework/Versions/0.5.0/ProjectCenter libProjectCenter.so projectcenter.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib64/GNUstep/Frameworks/ProjectCenter.framework/Resources Versions/Current/Resources projectcenter.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/GNUstep/Applications/ProjectCenter.app/Resources/Application.project/Resources/AppController.h projectcenter.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ProjectCenter projectcenter-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation projectcenter-devel.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib64/GNUstep/Frameworks/ProjectCenter.framework/Headers Versions/Current/Headers 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 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 225953] Merge Review: jsch
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225953 Stanislav Ochotnicky changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||socho...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|socho...@redhat.com --- Comment #1 from Stanislav Ochotnicky 2010-09-24 04:45:09 EDT --- I am gonna look at this -- 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 636947] Review Request: ding-libs - "Ding is not Glib" assorted utility libraries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=636947 Jakub Hrozek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jhro...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jhro...@redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 226009] Merge Review: libgdiplus
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226009 --- Comment #6 from Parag AN(पराग) 2010-09-24 03:18:31 EDT --- Created attachment 449352 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=449352 spec cleanup This will make the package to follow some new guidelines recommendations. Please commit this patch or approve 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 226009] Merge Review: libgdiplus
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226009 --- Comment #5 from Parag AN(पराग) 2010-09-24 03:16:29 EDT --- I think MPL-1.1.html is not needed as cairo is used from system installed and not internally added source code in libgdiplus. -- 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 226009] Merge Review: libgdiplus
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226009 Parag AN(पराग) changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||panem...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|panem...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
