[Bug 631763] Review Request: zif - Simple wrapper for rpm
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=631763 --- Comment #17 from Richard Hughes 2010-10-04 09:11:05 EDT --- (In reply to comment #16) > 1) If I look into > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets#Shared_libraries > and > considered /etc/rpmdevtools/spectemplate-lib.spec as a reference for library > packaging specfile then I don't see following > > Requires(post): /sbin/ldconfig > Requires(postun): /sbin/ldconfig > > 2) Following is no longer mandatory by review guidelines since long time > > Requires: pkgconfig > > So you can remove this safely. Reference see this guidelines update diff > https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Packaging%3AGuidelines&diff=145230&oldid=144537 Parag, please can you remove them from zif in fedora git master. You know what you are doing :-) 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 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 #3 from Petr Pisar 2010-10-04 09:18:10 EDT ---
Changes:
--- perl-Astro-FITS-Header.spec 2010-09-23 20:24:18.0 +0200
+++ perl-Astro-FITS-Header.spec.1 2010-10-04 14:19:09.0 +0200
@@ -6,10 +6,12 @@
Group: Development/Libraries
URL:http://search.cpan.org/dist/Astro-FITS-Header/
Source0:
http://www.cpan.org/authors/id/T/TJ/TJENNESS/Astro-FITS-Header-%{version}.tar.gz
-BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
BuildArch: noarch
BuildRequires: perl(ExtUtils::MakeMaker)
+# test BR
BuildRequires: perl(Test::More)
+# perl(Starlink::AST),perl(NDF), perl(GSD)
+BuildRequires: perl(File::Spec), perl(Astro::FITS::CFITSIO)
Requires: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_%(eval "`%{__perl} -V:version`"; echo
$version))
%description
> FIX: Missing BuildRequires for %check phase: perl(Starlink::AST),
> perl(Astro::FITS::CFITSIO), perl(GSD), perl(NDF)
Available %check-dependecies added. Ok.
TODO: Package %check-time dependencies to enable all tests.
> $ 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.
TODO: Fix the spelling (arguement → argument).
> FIX: Missing perl(File::Spec) BuildRequires for %check phase (dual-life
> package possible).
Ok.
Builds on F15 (http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2510543).
# LANG=en yum --nogpgcheck localinstall
~test/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/perl-Astro-FITS-Header-3.01-1.fc15.noarch.rpm
Failed to set locale, defaulting to C
Setting up Local Package Process
Examining
/home/test/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/perl-Astro-FITS-Header-3.01-1.fc15.noarch.rpm:
perl-Astro-FITS-Header-3.01-1.fc15.noarch
Marking
/home/test/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/perl-Astro-FITS-Header-3.01-1.fc15.noarch.rpm
to be installed
Resolving Dependencies
--> Running transaction check
---> Package perl-Astro-FITS-Header.noarch 0:3.01-1.fc15 set to be installed
--> Processing Dependency: perl(GSD) for package:
perl-Astro-FITS-Header-3.01-1.fc15.noarch
--> Processing Dependency: perl(NDF) for package:
perl-Astro-FITS-Header-3.01-1.fc15.noarch
--> Processing Dependency: perl(Starlink::AST) for package:
perl-Astro-FITS-Header-3.01-1.fc15.noarch
--> Finished Dependency Resolution
Error: Package: perl-Astro-FITS-Header-3.01-1.fc15.noarch
(/perl-Astro-FITS-Header-3.01-1.fc15.noarch)
Requires: perl(GSD)
Error: Package: perl-Astro-FITS-Header-3.01-1.fc15.noarch
(/perl-Astro-FITS-Header-3.01-1.fc15.noarch)
Requires: perl(Starlink::AST)
Error: Package: perl-Astro-FITS-Header-3.01-1.fc15.noarch
(/perl-Astro-FITS-Header-3.01-1.fc15.noarch)
Requires: perl(NDF)
You could try using --skip-broken to work around the problem
You could try running: rpm -Va --nofiles --nodigest
FIX: Package necessary packages to resolve missing binary dependencies
(perl(GSD), perl(NDF), perl(Starlink::AST)), or filter them from Requires. Make
sure the package remains useful.
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 226335] Merge Review: pyOpenSSL
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226335 --- Comment #3 from Tomas Mraz 2010-10-04 09:18:13 EDT --- Applied patch and updated to pyOpenSSL-0.10 in rawhide. -- 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 639346] Review Request: gudev-sharp - C# bindings for gudev
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=639346 --- Comment #5 from Nathaniel McCallum 2010-10-04 09:20:23 EDT --- Spec URL: http://npmccallum.fedorapeople.org/banshee/gudev-sharp.spec SRPM URL: http://repos.fedorapeople.org/repos/npmccallum/banshee/fedora-14/SRPMS/gudev-sharp-0.1-3.fc14.src.rpm * Mon Oct 04 2010 Nathaniel McCallum - 0.1-3 - Fix directory ownership -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 632051] Review Request: libmeegotouch - MeeGo Touch 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=632051 --- Comment #5 from Jaroslav Reznik 2010-10-04 09:13:05 EDT --- Created attachment 451396 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=451396 qmake in qtdir to qmake-qt4 I'm able to build it with this patch - it directly takes qmake-qt4 (not qmake - it's qt 3 one!). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 639348] Review Request: gkeyfile-sharp - C# bindings for glib2's keyfile implementation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=639348 --- Comment #5 from Nathaniel McCallum 2010-10-04 09:21:48 EDT --- Spec URL: http://npmccallum.fedorapeople.org/banshee/gkeyfile-sharp.spec SRPM URL: http://repos.fedorapeople.org/repos/npmccallum/banshee/fedora-14/SRPMS/gkeyfile-sharp-0.1-3.fc14.src.rpm * Mon Oct 04 2010 Nathaniel McCallum - 0.1-3 - Fix directory ownership -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 639346] Review Request: gudev-sharp - C# bindings for gudev
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=639346 Peter Lemenkov changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Peter Lemenkov 2010-10-04 09:42:22 EDT --- Ok, I don't see any other issues wo this package is APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 624474] Review Request: perl-Lingua-EN-Inflect-Phrase - Inflect short English Phrases
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=624474 Bug 624474 depends on bug 624471, which changed state. Bug 624471 Summary: Review Request: perl-Lingua-EN-Tagger - Part-of-speech tagger for English natural language processing https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=624471 What|Old Value |New Value Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 624471] Review Request: perl-Lingua-EN-Tagger - Part-of-speech tagger for English natural language processing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=624471 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 638582] Review Request: jpanoramamaker -
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=638582 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System 2010-10-04 04:07:13 EDT --- jpanoramamaker-5-2.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/jpanoramamaker-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 624474] Review Request: perl-Lingua-EN-Inflect-Phrase - Inflect short English Phrases
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=624474 Marcela Mašláňová changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mmasl...@redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 639348] Review Request: gkeyfile-sharp - C# bindings for glib2's keyfile implementation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=639348 Peter Lemenkov changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Peter Lemenkov 2010-10-04 09:47:16 EDT --- Ok, I don't see any other issues so this package is APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 531107] Review Request: perl-SQL-Tokenizer - A Perl package to tokenize SQL, generically
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=531107 --- Comment #14 from Marcela Mašláňová 2010-10-04 04:59:33 EDT --- Could you comment these two issues: perl-SQL-Tokenizer.src: E: unknown-key GPG#b73652a5 perl-SQL-Tokenizer.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/SQL/._Tokenizer.pm After resolving these two, it should be ok. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 638582] Review Request: jpanoramamaker -
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=638582 jiri vanek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2010-10-04 03:53:38 --- Comment #12 from jiri vanek 2010-10-04 03:53:38 EDT --- all builds on koji passed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 639351] Review Request: gtk-sharp-beans - C# bindings for GTK+ API not included in GTK#
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=639351 --- Comment #4 from Peter Lemenkov 2010-10-04 06:28:17 EDT --- Postponing starting the review until gio-sharp will hit Rawhide -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 --- Comment #48 from Jens Petersen 2010-10-04 03:22:18 EDT --- Yes please just lower the BR to >= 0.7.0 for F13 and F12. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 616779] Review Request: rubygem-json_pure - JSON implementation in pure 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=616779 --- Comment #18 from Michal Fojtik 2010-10-04 07:25:48 EDT --- (In reply to comment #17) > Umm... > > http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2509174 > http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2509176 > http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2509178 Seems like, this failure happens only under F14. I removed this test anyway and I'll contact upstream to fix it. Spec URL: http://mifo.sk/RPMS/rubygem-json_pure.spec SRPM URL: http://mifo.sk/RPMS/rubygem-json_pure-1.4.6-3.fc13.src.rpm http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2510390 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 Marcela Mašláňová changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE Last Closed||2010-10-04 07:27:47 --- Comment #6 from Marcela Mašláňová 2010-10-04 07:27:47 EDT --- sharutils were really needed for whole test suite. Fixed in rawhide. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 586473] Review Request: mg - Tiny Emacs-like editor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=586473 Martin Gieseking changed: What|Removed |Added CC||martin.giesek...@uos.de --- Comment #10 from Martin Gieseking 2010-10-04 03:16:32 EDT --- Jussi, are you going to sponsor Mark? If you don't have the time at the moment, I could do it. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 624474] Review Request: perl-Lingua-EN-Inflect-Phrase - Inflect short English Phrases
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=624474 Marcela Mašláňová changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Marcela Mašláňová 2010-10-04 04:54:04 EDT --- rpmlint: only pre F-12 warnings BR, R ok build pass on my F-15 machine when I installed BR perl-Lingua-* macro: I'd rather have package without vendor, but that's not a blocker. license: correct -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 639991] New: Review Request: rubygem-rb-inotify - A Ruby wrapper for Linux's inotify, using FFI
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-rb-inotify - A Ruby wrapper for Linux's inotify, using FFI https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=639991 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-rb-inotify - A Ruby wrapper for Linux's inotify, using FFI Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: mfoj...@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://mifo.sk/RPMS/rubygem-rb-inotify.spec SRPM URL: http://mifo.sk/RPMS/rubygem-rb-inotify-0.8.1-1.fc13.src.rpm Description: This is a simple wrapper over the inotify Linux kernel subsystem for monitoring changes to files and directories. It uses the FFI gem to avoid having to compile a C extension. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 626666] Review Request: groonga - An Embeddable Fulltext Search 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=62
--- Comment #5 from Daiki Ueno 2010-10-04 05:57:31 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> > This seems not that easy. Since currently those bindings are not under
> > groonga
> > build infrastructure, building those bindings requires groonga-devel already
> > installed on the system (or a patch to do that). Any ideas?
>
> I guess setting CFLAGS / LDFLAGS will workaround this.
Aha, this works.
I was also worried about $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/{%_libdir} path is embedded in *.so,
but it seems not the case. Updated (with Python and PHP binding):
Spec URL: http://ueno.fedorapeople.org/groonga/groonga.spec
SRPM URL: http://ueno.fedorapeople.org/groonga/groonga-1.0.2-4.fc13.src.rpm
> Maybe ruby is needed to build test suite?
Looks so.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 638906] Review Request: erlang-gen_leader - A leader election behavior modeled after gen_server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=638906 Nathaniel McCallum changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||nathan...@natemccallum.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|nathan...@natemccallum.com --- Comment #1 from Nathaniel McCallum 2010-10-04 09:55:24 EDT --- [ OK ] specfiles match: 67931592d06373389253e810914e8939 [ OK ] source files match upstream: 209792fa762bafdfef1c475b2ffb577c [ OK ] package meets naming and versioning guidelines. [ OK ] spec is properly named, cleanly written, and uses macros consistently. [ OK ] dist tag is present. [ OK ] build root is correct. [ OK ] license field matches the actual license. [ OK ] license is open source-compatible. [ FAIL ] license text included in package. [ OK ] latest version is being packaged. [ OK ] BuildRequires are proper. [ OK ] compiler flags are appropriate. [ OK ] %clean is present. [ OK ] package builds in mock. [ OK ] package installs properly. [ OK ] debuginfo package looks complete. [ FAIL ] rpmlint is silent. 1. erlang-gen_leader.ppc: E: no-binary 2. erlang-gen_leader.ppc: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 3. erlang-gen_leader.ppc: W: no-documentation #1 and #2 are ok. #3 could easily be solved by packaging a copy of the license. [ OK ] final provides and requires are sane [ NA ] %check is present and all tests pass: [ OK ] no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. [ ?? ] owns the directories it creates. What owns /usr/lib64/erlang and /usr/lib64/erlang/lib? Is this package in the requires? [ OK ] doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. [ OK ] no duplicates in %files. [ OK ] file permissions are appropriate. [ OK ] scriptlets match those on ScriptletSnippets page. [ OK ] code, not content. [ OK ] documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. [ OK ] %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. [ OK ] no headers. [ OK ] no pkgconfig files. [ OK ] no libtool .la droppings. [ NA ] desktop files valid and installed properly. Add the license text as a doc and clarify my understanding of the directories and then we will be good to go. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 639346] Review Request: gudev-sharp - C# bindings for gudev
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=639346 --- Comment #3 from Peter Lemenkov 2010-10-04 06:24:31 EDT --- Koji scratch build for F-14 (currently wip): http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2510247 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 586473] Review Request: mg - Tiny Emacs-like editor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=586473 --- Comment #11 from Jussi Lehtola 2010-10-04 03:38:39 EDT --- Martin: please do it. I've been so busy with other things that I haven't even had the time to maintain my own packages as well as I would have wanted... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 639945] Review Request: LibreOffice - Community developed Free Software Office Suite
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=639945 David Tardon changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||dtar...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|dtar...@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 639369] Review Request: gfs2-utils - Fileysystem utilities for the GFS2 Filesystem
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=639369 --- Comment #2 from Steve Whitehouse 2010-10-04 05:15:24 EDT --- Note that the initscript that was mentioned as missing in the opening comment has now been added upstream. So we are getting closer 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 639874] New: Review Request: python-rocket - Modern, multi-threaded, comet-friendly WSGI web server
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-rocket - Modern, multi-threaded, comet-friendly WSGI web server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=639874 Summary: Review Request: python-rocket - Modern, multi-threaded, comet-friendly WSGI web server Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: ilia.cheishv...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://github.com/icheishvili/rpms/raw/master//python-rocket.spec SRPM URL: http://github.com/icheishvili/rpms/raw/master//python-rocket-1.1.1-1.fc13.src.rpm Description: This is a modern, multi-threaded, comet-friendly WSGI web server for python. I am hoping to get it included into Extras. The Rocket web server is a server designed to handle the increased needs of modern web applications implemented in pure Python. It can serve WSGI applications and static files. Rocket has the ability to be extended to handle different types of networked request-response jobs. Rocket runs on cPython 2.5- 3.x and Jython 2.5 (without the need to run through the 2to3 translation tool). Rocket is similar in purpose to Cherrypy's Wsgiserver but with added flexibility, speed and concurrency. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 624660] Review Request: rakudo-star - Rakudo, Perl6-modules, Blizkost and documentation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=624660 Marcela Mašláňová changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE Last Closed||2010-10-04 05:08:16 --- Comment #28 from Marcela Mašláňová 2010-10-04 05:08:16 EDT --- It could be closed now. The package was built in all mentioned branches. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 626666] Review Request: groonga - An Embeddable Fulltext Search 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=62 --- Comment #4 from Mamoru Tasaka 2010-10-04 04:53:39 EDT --- (In reply to comment #3) > > * BR > > - Looking into bindings/ directory, it seems that some languages bindings > > are available for this package (python, php, and also perhaps ruby?). > > Would you try to enable these bindings? > > This seems not that easy. Since currently those bindings are not under > groonga > build infrastructure, building those bindings requires groonga-devel already > installed on the system (or a patch to do that). Any ideas? I guess setting CFLAGS / LDFLAGS will workaround this. I just tried python bindings and something like: 1210 pushd bindings/python/ql/ 1212 python setup.py config 1219 mkdir groonga 1220 pushd groonga/ 1221 ln -sf ../../../../groonga.h 1222 popd 1223 python setup.py build 1226 sed -i.cflgs -e 's|^cflags =.*|cflags = []|' setup.py 1230 CFLAGS=-I. LDFLAGS=-L../../../lib/.libs python setup.py build 1231 popd makes build succeed. (I am not familiar with php). Maybe ruby is needed to build test suite? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 637134] 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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=637134 Jan Vcelak changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo?(jgo...@redhat.com ||) --- Comment #2 from Jan Vcelak 2010-10-04 09:10:33 EDT --- MUST ITEMS [!!] rpmlint bird.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary C BIRD bird.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary C BIRD Seems to be fine. (However "Internet Routing Daemon" can be used as well.) bird.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary bird6 bird.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary birdc6 bird.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary bird bird.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary birdc According to guidelines, all binaries/scripts should have manual page. This is not as important to reject the review, but you should work with upstream on this. bird.x86_64: E: incoherent-subsys /etc/rc.d/init.d/bird bird6 bird.x86_64: E: incoherent-subsys /etc/rc.d/init.d/bird bird6 This is bad. I suggest creating separate initscripts and bird6 subpackage. [ok] naming [ok] licensing source package doesn't contain file with license [ok] spec: American English [ok] spec: legible [ok] spec: sources match the upstream sources [ok] possible to build on rawhide (f15) x86_64 in mock [ok] buildrequires [ok] locales none included [ok] shared libraries none included [ok] no bundled libraries [ok] clean section [ok] relocatable, /usr prefix [ok] owns all directories [ok] no duplicates in %files [ok] permissions on files set properly [ok] consistent use of macros [ok] contains code or permissible content [ok] large documentation goes in -doc subpackage not needed [ok] will run properly without %doc files [ok] headers in -devel subpackage not needed [ok] static libraries in -static subpackage not needed [ok] dynamic libraries without version specification in -devel subpackage not needed [ok] devel package dependencies not needed [ok] no libtool archives [ok] desktop file for gui application not gui application [ok] doesn't own already owned directories [ok] all filenames valid utf-8 SHOULD ITEMS [--] license file in upstream release please, query upstream to include license file [--] package translation for Non-English languages IMHO this is not needed for this package [ok] builds in mock rawhide x86_64 [ok] package functions installs, starts, runs [ok] sane scriptlets [ok] subpackage dependencies fully versioned [ok] pkgconfig files not included [ok] dependencies on packages instead of binaries [--] man pages for all binaries and scripts INITSCRIPT ISSUES [!!] separate bird and bird6 Please, create separate initscripts for bird a bird6. And move all IPv6 stuff into bird6 subpackage. It will make many administrators happy. ;-) It's done the same for example in Debian. [!!] doesn't conform with initscripts guidelines http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SysVInitScript - missing condrestart and try-restart - validate exit codes OTHER ISSUES [--] description It's not important, but I think the description is really short. Maybe you should point out command-line interface, soft reconfiguration and powerful language for routing (as written on upstream website). [!!] requires for post and preun You are missing requirements for post and preun scriptlets. Requires(post): chkconfig Requires(preun): chkconfig [!!] restart after upgrade, stop before removing You should condrestart the service when the package is upgraded. You should stop the service when the package is being removed. (Don't forget to add 'Requires(...): initscripts' where necessary.) SUMMARY following issuses have to be fixed: - initscript(s) - specfile: requires for scriptlets - specfile: restart/stop the service on upgrade/removal -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 637402] Review Request: sqlninja - A tool for SQL server injection and takeover
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=637402 --- Comment #4 from Hicham HAOUARI 2010-10-04 05:21:23 EDT --- I would like to have Fedora Legal point of view on this before starting a review. Maybe we should cc 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 639945] New: Review Request: LibreOffice - Community developed Free Software Office Suite
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: LibreOffice - Community developed Free Software Office Suite https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=639945 Summary: Review Request: LibreOffice - Community developed Free Software Office Suite Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: caol...@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://people.redhat.com/caolanm/rpms/libreoffice.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/rpms/libreoffice-3.2.99.1-1.fc14.src.rpm Description: Community developed Free Software Office Suite -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 639369] Review Request: gfs2-utils - Fileysystem utilities for the GFS2 Filesystem
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=639369 Steve Whitehouse changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||505061 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 639346] Review Request: gudev-sharp - C# bindings for gudev
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=639346
--- Comment #4 from Peter Lemenkov 2010-10-04 07:10:59 EDT
---
REVIEW:
Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable
rpmlint is not silent:
work ~: rpmlint Desktop/gudev-sharp-*
gudev-sharp.i686: E: no-binary
gudev-sharp.i686: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
gudev-sharp-devel.i686: W: no-documentation
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings.
work ~:
However all these messages have the same origin as the similar messages in case
of pure erlang applications: we're installing (almost) arch-independent data
into arch-dependent directory. But this is the way how it is designed to work,
so we should disregard these messages.
+ The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
+ The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
+/- The package almost meets the Packaging Guidelines except the issue with
unowned directory (see below).
+ The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines.
+ The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Seems
to be strict LGPLv2 (w/o notice regarding possible relicensing under further
LGPLv2+ licenses).
+ The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included
in %doc.
+ The spec file is written in American English.
+ The spec file for the package is legible.
+ The sources used to build the package, match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
Sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: sha256sum
mono-gudev-sharp-GUDEV_SHARP_0_1-0-g2c53e2f.tar.gz*
37f41e617274a0ab714fb85b57da24ce0c29e24fcf373fec80eb99b6464ca2fb
mono-gudev-sharp-GUDEV_SHARP_0_1-0-g2c53e2f.tar.gz
37f41e617274a0ab714fb85b57da24ce0c29e24fcf373fec80eb99b6464ca2fb
mono-gudev-sharp-GUDEV_SHARP_0_1-0-g2c53e2f.tar.gz.1
Sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES:
+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
primary architecture.
+ All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
0 No need to handle locales.
0 No shared library files.
+ The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
+ The package is not designed to be relocatable.
- The package MUST own all directories that it creates. Unfortunately it
doesn't claim ownership on %{_libdir}/mono/%{name}-1.0. Please fix it (simply
listing %{_libdir}/mono/%{name}-1.0 instead of
%{_libdir}/mono/%{name}-1.0/%{name}.dll would be enough).
+ The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files
listings.
+ Permissions on files are set properly.
+ The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ The package consistently uses macros.
+ The package contains code, or permissible content.
0 No extremely large documentation files.
+ Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the
application.
0 No header files.
0 No static libraries.
+ The "devel" sub-package requires the base package using a fully versioned
dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}/
+ The pkgconfig(.pc) file is properly placed in *-devel sub-package and
necessary runtime dependency is added.
0 The package doesn't contain library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1).
0 No devel sub-package.
+ The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
0 Not a GUI application.
+ The package does not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
+ At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.
Almost done. Please fix the issue with unowned directory and I'll finish this
review.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 226155] Merge Review: mod_perl
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226155
Marcela Mašláňová changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mmasl...@redhat.com
Flag||needinfo?(emmanuel.sey...@c
||lub-internet.fr)
--- Comment #10 from Marcela Mašláňová 2010-10-04
08:40:08 EDT ---
Hello Emmanuel,
I can review it again.
rpmlint mod_perl-2.0.4-11.fc15.src.rpm
mod_perl.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US perl -> Perl, peel, perk
mod_perl.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US runtime -> run time,
run-time, runtish
mod_perl.src: W: strange-permission filter-provides.sh 0755L
mod_perl.src: W: strange-permission filter-requires.sh 0755L
mod_perl.src:59: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %build PREFIX=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr \
mod_perl.src:108: W: macro-in-comment %{_mandir}
mod_perl.src:109: W: macro-in-comment %{perl_vendorarch}
mod_perl.src:59: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 3, tab: line 59)
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings.
rpmlint i386/* | grep -v private
mod_perl.i386: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US runtime -> run time,
run-time, runtish
mod_perl.i386: E: useless-provides perl(Apache2::Connection)
mod_perl.i386: E: useless-provides perl(Apache2::RequestRec)
mod_perl.i386: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/share/doc/mod_perl-2.0.4/docs/devel/debug/code/.debug-inline
mod_perl.i386: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/share/doc/mod_perl-2.0.4/docs/devel/debug/code/.debug-modperl-register
mod_perl.i386: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/share/doc/mod_perl-2.0.4/docs/devel/debug/code/.debug-modperl-xs
mod_perl.i386: E: wrong-script-interpreter
/usr/share/doc/mod_perl-2.0.4/docs/os/win32/mpinstall C:/Perl/bin
mod_perl.i386: W: file-not-utf8
/usr/share/doc/mod_perl-2.0.4/docs/devel/debug/c.pod
mod_perl.i386: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/mod_perl-2.0.4/Changes
mod_perl.i386: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/share/doc/mod_perl-2.0.4/docs/devel/debug/code/.debug-modperl-init
mod_perl.i386: W: file-not-utf8
/usr/share/doc/mod_perl-2.0.4/docs/user/Changes.pod
mod_perl.i386: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/mod_perl-2.0.4/SVN-MOVE
mod_perl.i386: W: file-not-utf8
/usr/share/doc/mod_perl-2.0.4/docs/devel/core/explained.pod
mod_perl.i386: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mp2bug
And there is also a lot of *.so in provides. This could be easily filtered by
perl_default_filter.
That's for start ;-)
--
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 583141] Review Request: nautilus-pastebin - Nautilus extension to send files to a pastebin
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=583141 Thomas Spura changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution||ERRATA Last Closed||2010-10-04 09:22:46 --- Comment #23 from Thomas Spura 2010-10-04 09:22:46 EDT --- A newer update is already pushed to stable: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/nautilus-pastebin-0.4.1-8.fc12 -> Closing -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 639816] Review Request: cmake-fedora - CMake helper modules for fedora developers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=639816 Peter Lemenkov changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||lemen...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|lemen...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Peter Lemenkov 2010-10-04 09:26:22 EDT --- Interesting application - I'll try it in one real-world application. But before - I'll review it. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 639348] Review Request: gkeyfile-sharp - C# bindings for glib2's keyfile implementation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=639348 --- Comment #7 from Nathaniel McCallum 2010-10-04 09:57:41 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: gkeyfile-sharp Short Description: C# bindings for glib2's keyfile implementation Owners: npmccallum chkr Branches: 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 639652] Review Request: python-pika - AMQP client library for Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=639652
--- Comment #2 from Peter Lemenkov 2010-10-04 10:06:51 EDT
---
Preliminary notes:
- this package should be marked as noarch instead of adding "%define
debug_package %{nil}". Just add "BuildArch: noarch" to the head og the spec.
See this spec-file for example: http://bit.ly/aN9QJ8
- there is one missing BuildRequires: python-devel
- Correct License tag is "MPLv1.1 or GPLv2"
Please fix these issues, and I'll continue.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 631763] Review Request: zif - Simple wrapper for rpm
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=631763 Richard Hughes changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Flag|needinfo? | Last Closed||2010-10-04 04:50:42 --- Comment #15 from Richard Hughes 2010-10-04 04:50:42 EDT --- Thanks guys, appreciated. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 #2 from Marcela Mašláňová 2010-10-04 08:19:31 EDT --- All problems fixed, upstream bug filed https://rt.cpan.org/Public/Bug/Display.html?id=61875 Modules buildrequired by tests are not blocker according to guidelines. http://mmaslano.fedorapeople.org/review/perl-Astro-FITS-Header.spec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 639348] Review Request: gkeyfile-sharp - C# bindings for glib2's keyfile implementation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=639348
--- Comment #4 from Peter Lemenkov 2010-10-04 07:39:32 EDT
---
REVIEW:
Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable
+ rpmlint is ALMOST silent
work ~/Desktop: rpmlint gkeyfile-sharp-*
gkeyfile-sharp.i686: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) keyfile -> key file,
key-file, keyhole
gkeyfile-sharp.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US keyfile -> key
file, key-file, keyhole
gkeyfile-sharp.i686: E: no-binary
gkeyfile-sharp.i686: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
gkeyfile-sharp-devel.i686: W: no-documentation
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings.
work ~/Desktop:
All these messages should be ignored (spelling-error as false positive and the
rest - due to the nature of C# applications)
+ The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
+ The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
+ The package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
+/- The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines, except the issue with unowned directory (see below).
+ The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license (
strict LGPLv2)
+ The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included
in %doc.
+ The spec file is written in American English.
+ The spec file for the package is legible.
+ The sources used to build the package, match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
Sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: sha256sum
mono-gkeyfile-sharp-GKEYFILE_SHARP_0_1-0-g07a401a.tar.gz*
21a8a7ebfd4cbc2495d2f917426768550fe9dc2dead0e570541dc6a33f181c3d
mono-gkeyfile-sharp-GKEYFILE_SHARP_0_1-0-g07a401a.tar.gz
21a8a7ebfd4cbc2495d2f917426768550fe9dc2dead0e570541dc6a33f181c3d
mono-gkeyfile-sharp-GKEYFILE_SHARP_0_1-0-g07a401a.tar.gz.1
Sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES:
+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
primary architecture.
+ All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
0 No need to handle locales.
0 No shared library files.
+ The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
+ The package is not designed to be relocatable.
- The package MUST own all directories that it creates. Unfortunately, the
package doesn;t claim ownership over %{_libdir}/mono/%{name}/ directory. Please
fix it.
+ The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files
listings.
+ Permissions on files are set properly.
+ The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ The package consistently uses macros.
+ The package contains code, or permissible content.
0 No extremely large documentation files.
+ Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the
application.
0 No header files.
0 No static libraries.
+ The "devel" sub-package requires the base package using a fully versioned
dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}/
+ The pkgconfig(.pc) file is properly placed in *-devel sub-package and
necessary runtime dependency is added.
0 The package doesn't contain library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1).
+ The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
0 Not a GUI application.
+ The package does not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
+ At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.
Almost done. Please fix the issue with unowned directory and I'll finish this
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 626666] Review Request: groonga - An Embeddable Fulltext Search 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=62 --- Comment #3 from Daiki Ueno 2010-10-04 04:10:17 EDT --- Thanks. Updated: Spec URL: http://ueno.fedorapeople.org/groonga/groonga.spec SRPM URL: http://ueno.fedorapeople.org/groonga/groonga-1.0.2-3.fc13.src.rpm Mostly fixed the issues except: (In reply to comment #2) > Some notes (checked 1.0.2-2) > > * BR > - Looking into bindings/ directory, it seems that some languages bindings > are available for this package (python, php, and also perhaps ruby?). > Would you try to enable these bindings? This seems not that easy. Since currently those bindings are not under groonga build infrastructure, building those bindings requires groonga-devel already installed on the system (or a patch to do that). Any ideas? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 631763] Review Request: zif - Simple wrapper for rpm
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=631763 --- Comment #16 from Parag AN(पराग) 2010-10-04 05:09:01 EDT --- 1) If I look into https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets#Shared_libraries and considered /etc/rpmdevtools/spectemplate-lib.spec as a reference for library packaging specfile then I don't see following Requires(post): /sbin/ldconfig Requires(postun): /sbin/ldconfig 2) Following is no longer mandatory by review guidelines since long time Requires: pkgconfig So you can remove this safely. Reference see this guidelines update diff https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Packaging%3AGuidelines&diff=145230&oldid=144537 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 639346] Review Request: gudev-sharp - C# bindings for gudev
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=639346 Nathaniel McCallum changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Nathaniel McCallum 2010-10-04 09:57:15 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: gudev-sharp Short Description: C# bindings for gudev Owners: npmccallum chkr Branches: 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 612581] Review Request: spacewalk-backend - Common programs needed to be installed on the Spacewalk servers/proxies
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=612581 --- Comment #12 from Miroslav Suchý 2010-10-04 04:40:40 EDT --- I'm still working on this. My ETA is one month. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 637489] Review Request: perl-KinoSearch1 - Search engine 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=637489 Marcela Mašláňová changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Marcela Mašláňová 2010-10-04 04:34:50 EDT --- Rpmlint: only pre F-12 warnings License: ApacheLicense2.0.txt is mentioned in %doc, but license is set to GPL+ or Artistic. That's strange. Please verify correct license. Macros: we'd like to have vendor path only for 3rd party RPMs in future. Could you think about moving them into core? BR: I suggest adding perl(Time::HiRes) as BR, because it's sub-package in perl core. No review blockers -> ACCEPT -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 632051] Review Request: libmeegotouch - MeeGo Touch 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=632051 --- Comment #4 from Jaroslav Reznik 2010-10-04 08:55:16 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2) > (In reply to comment #1) > > Patches: do we really need all patches? at least missing-Epoch-function is > > not > > needed anymore as we have Qt 4.7, please update > > I removed patch5 from spec. All other patches are remained, they are all > extracted from upstream SRPM, I think it'll be easier to track upstream RPM > and > bugzilla system closely. Agreed. > Currently, I track F14 with Meego 1.1 which will be released on 2010-10-27. It's getting closer! > > Build: not ok > > > > + ./configure -prefix /usr -libdir /usr/lib64 -release > > > > QTDIR variable was set but could not find /usr/lib64/qt-3.3/bin/qmake\n > > If your Qt is in a nonstandard location, try: > > QTDIR= ./configure > > error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.bm6HwK (%build) > > > It's weird, I can build the package in rawhide koji. Maybe this issue is > trigger once the system has both qt3-devel and qt-devel installed. I'll check it - it should call qmake-qt4. > > > > PS; could you add me as co-maintainer to MeeGo packages once reviewed? I'm > > Qt > > co-maintainer and Fedora Mobility guy from Qt/Plasma Netbook side of evil. > > Thanks. > > OK, please also apply co-maintainer for exsited meego packages in pkgdb(e.g. > libaccounts-glib libaccounts-qt contextkit libqttracker). Great, applied. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 639346] Review Request: gudev-sharp - C# bindings for gudev
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=639346 Peter Lemenkov changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|lemen...@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 639816] New: Review Request: cmake-fedora - CMake helper modules for fedora developers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: cmake-fedora - CMake helper modules for fedora developers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=639816 Summary: Review Request: cmake-fedora - CMake helper modules for fedora developers Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: dc...@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://dchen.fedorapeople.org/files/rpms/cmake-fedora.spec SRPM URL: http://dchen.fedorapeople.org/files/rpms/cmake-fedora-0.1.2-1.el6.src.rpm Description: cmake-fedora consist a set of cmake modules that provides helper macros and targets for fedora developers. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 639290] Review Request: perl-threads - Perl interpreter-based 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=639290 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Fixed In Version||perl-threads-1.79-1.fc15 Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2010-10-04 05:42:47 --- Comment #4 from Petr Pisar 2010-10-04 05:42:47 EDT --- Thank you for review and repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 586473] Review Request: mg - Tiny Emacs-like editor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=586473 Martin Gieseking changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|martin.giesek...@uos.de Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #12 from Martin Gieseking 2010-10-04 04:55:17 EDT --- OK, thank you for the feedback, Jussi. Mark, I will sponsor you. Since you already submitted a couple of packages, and did some informal reviews as well, you're ready to get approved. So there's currently no further action required on your side. I'm going to have a look at your packages later today, and will add you to the packager group afterwards. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 638582] Review Request: jpanoramamaker -
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=638582 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System 2010-10-04 04:00:52 EDT --- jpanoramamaker-5-2.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/jpanoramamaker-5-2.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 637489] Review Request: perl-KinoSearch1 - Search engine 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=637489 Marcela Mašláňová changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mmasl...@redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 639348] Review Request: gkeyfile-sharp - C# bindings for glib2's keyfile implementation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=639348 Peter Lemenkov changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||lemen...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|lemen...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Peter Lemenkov 2010-10-04 04:09:33 EDT --- I'll review it -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 624471] Review Request: perl-Lingua-EN-Tagger - Part-of-speech tagger for English natural language processing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=624471 Iain Arnell changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2010-10-04 01:20:00 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 639351] Review Request: gtk-sharp-beans - C# bindings for GTK+ API not included in GTK#
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=639351 Peter Lemenkov changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||lemen...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|lemen...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #3 from Peter Lemenkov 2010-10-04 04:10:14 EDT --- I'll review it -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 624471] Review Request: perl-Lingua-EN-Tagger - Part-of-speech tagger for English natural language processing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=624471 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System 2010-10-04 01:18:24 EDT --- perl-Lingua-EN-Tagger-0.16-2.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Lingua-EN-Tagger-0.16-2.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 624471] Review Request: perl-Lingua-EN-Tagger - Part-of-speech tagger for English natural language processing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=624471 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System 2010-10-04 01:18:30 EDT --- perl-Lingua-EN-Tagger-0.16-2.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Lingua-EN-Tagger-0.16-2.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 639991] Review Request: rubygem-rb-inotify - A Ruby wrapper for Linux's inotify, using FFI
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=639991 --- Comment #1 from Michal Fojtik 2010-10-04 09:57:26 EDT --- Additional info: Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2510775 rpmlint: $ rpmlint rubygem-rb-inotify-0.8.1-1.fc13.noarch.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 638906] Review Request: erlang-gen_leader - A leader election behavior modeled after gen_server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=638906 --- Comment #2 from Peter Lemenkov 2010-10-04 10:23:15 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1) > [ ?? ] owns the directories it creates. > What owns /usr/lib64/erlang and /usr/lib64/erlang/lib? Is this package in the > requires? ... > Add the license text as a doc and clarify my understanding of the directories > and then we will be good to go. * both /usr/lib64/erlang/lib and /usr/lib64/erlang/ are owned by erlang-erts (listed in runtime Requires) * I'm afraid I can't add license text to %docs because according to guidelines I can (and I must) do it only *if* upstream explicitly adds it to the sources. However I added README file. I also ensured that beam-file is generated with debug_info (it doesn't hurt runtime performance but allows users to provide some static analysis in runtime). New package and spec-file: http://peter.fedorapeople.org/erlang-gen_leader.spec http://peter.fedorapeople.org/erlang-gen_leader-0-0.2.fc12.src.rpm rpmlint output is much better now: Sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SPECS: rpmlint ../RPMS/ppc/erlang-gen_leader-0-0.2.fc12.ppc.rpm erlang-gen_leader.ppc: E: no-binary erlang-gen_leader.ppc: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings. Sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SPECS: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 226500] Merge Review: totem
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226500 --- Comment #6 from Parag AN(पराग) 2010-10-04 05:10:04 EDT --- Will build this tommorrow -- 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 639369] Review Request: gfs2-utils - Fileysystem utilities for the GFS2 Filesystem
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=639369 --- Comment #3 from Steve Whitehouse 2010-10-04 05:30:24 EDT --- Also a reminder to myself, we'll need to add a conflicts line for cman prior to when gfs_controld is removed from cman, but I need to wait to do that, until I know exactly which version of cman that will be. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 638906] Review Request: erlang-gen_leader - A leader election behavior modeled after gen_server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=638906 Nathaniel McCallum 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 639348] Review Request: gkeyfile-sharp - C# bindings for glib2's keyfile implementation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=639348 --- Comment #3 from Peter Lemenkov 2010-10-04 06:26:03 EDT --- Koji scratch build for F-14 (currently wip): http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2510250 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 639346] Review Request: gudev-sharp - C# bindings for gudev
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=639346 Peter Lemenkov changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||lemen...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Peter Lemenkov 2010-10-04 04:09:07 EDT --- I'll review it -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 638906] Review Request: erlang-gen_leader - A leader election behavior modeled after gen_server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=638906 Nathaniel McCallum changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Nathaniel McCallum 2010-10-04 10:38:48 EDT --- APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 639816] Review Request: cmake-fedora - CMake helper modules for fedora developers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=639816
Peter Lemenkov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Peter Lemenkov 2010-10-04 10:40:32 EDT
---
REVIEW:
Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable
+ rpmlint is silent
Sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SPECS: rpmlint
../RPMS/noarch/cmake-fedora-0.1.2-1.fc12.noarch.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SPECS:
+ The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
+ The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
+ The package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
+ The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines.
+ The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
+ The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included
in %doc.
+ The spec file is written in American English.
+ The spec file for the package is legible.
+ The sources used to build the package, match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
Sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: sha256sum cmake-fedora-0.1.2-Source.tar.gz*
e42ce5634ad34ff0c2e84bfdae1e52d22d3d3f826bb406f373a0b6f748967220
cmake-fedora-0.1.2-Source.tar.gz
e42ce5634ad34ff0c2e84bfdae1e52d22d3d3f826bb406f373a0b6f748967220
cmake-fedora-0.1.2-Source.tar.gz.1
Sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES:
+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
primary architecture (my F-12 ppc).
+ All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
0 No need to handle locales.
0 No shared library files.
+ The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
+ The package is not designed to be relocatable.
+ The package owns all directories that it creates (except those, owned by
cmake)
+ The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files
listings.
+ Permissions on files are set properly.
+ The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ The package consistently uses macros.
+ The package contains code, or permissible content.
0 No extremely large documentation files.
+ Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the
application.
0 No header files.
0 No static libraries.
0 No pkgconfig(.pc) files.
0 The package doesn't contain library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1).
0 No devel sub-package.
+ The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
0 Not a GUI application.
+ The package does not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
+ At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.
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 639348] Review Request: gkeyfile-sharp - C# bindings for glib2's keyfile implementation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=639348 Nathaniel McCallum changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 638906] Review Request: erlang-gen_leader - A leader election behavior modeled after gen_server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=638906 Peter Lemenkov changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Peter Lemenkov 2010-10-04 10:43:24 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: erlang-gen_leader Short Description: A leader election behavior modeled after gen_server Owners: peter Branches: f12 f13 f14 el6 el5 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 632051] Review Request: libmeegotouch - MeeGo Touch 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=632051 --- Comment #6 from Jaroslav Reznik 2010-10-04 10:54:00 EDT --- Created attachment 451421 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=451421 widgetsgallery demo dso - librt This patch fixes librt DSO. Still there's an issue with fdupes probably. + %fdupes /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/libmeegotouch-0.20.25-3.12.x86_64/usr/share /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.nTKNCU: line 44: fg: no job control RPM build errors: error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.nTKNCU (%install) Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.nTKNCU (%install) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 638666] Review Request: whois - Improved WHOIS 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=638666 --- Comment #3 from Bill Nottingham 2010-10-04 11:24:56 EDT --- Then either fix jwhois, or ship whois. Forcing people to compare and pick which sets of bugs they would prefer to deal with is just silly. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 637489] Review Request: perl-KinoSearch1 - Search engine 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=637489 --- Comment #3 from Iain Arnell 2010-10-04 11:38:32 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: perl-KinoSearch1 Short Description: Search engine library Owners: iarnell Branches: f13 f14 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 624474] Review Request: perl-Lingua-EN-Inflect-Phrase - Inflect short English Phrases
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=624474 Iain Arnell changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 637489] Review Request: perl-KinoSearch1 - Search engine 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=637489 --- Comment #2 from Iain Arnell 2010-10-04 11:37:39 EDT --- It looks like Ian Burrell had similar concerns about the license for KinoSearch (from which KinoSearch1 has been forked). The perl KinoSearch distribution is all original code under "the same terms as perl itself", but is loosely based on Lucene (which is ASL 2.0). I'll copy the relevant clarification from perl-KinoSearch spec. As for vendor/core, I think that could use some discussion on the mailing list. I know it's just a matter of labelling at the minute, but if we do need to split core and vendor again for some reason, it will be a lot easier if we still have the vendor macros in the specs. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 624474] Review Request: perl-Lingua-EN-Inflect-Phrase - Inflect short English Phrases
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=624474 --- Comment #2 from Iain Arnell 2010-10-04 11:38:21 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: perl-Lingua-EN-Inflect-Phrase Short Description: Inflect short English Phrases Owners: iarnell Branches: f13 f14 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 637489] Review Request: perl-KinoSearch1 - Search engine 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=637489 Iain Arnell changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 638666] Review Request: whois - Improved WHOIS 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=638666 --- Comment #4 from Petr Pisar 2010-10-04 11:52:15 EDT --- Yeah, one foo suits to all of them. Where did I heard it :) Have you compared the two sets? Is jwhois with last release in year 2007 with 5 patches on top superior to Marco's whois released on August, 2010? (And I did not compare list of TLD whois servers which must be really out-dated.) Poor user could be confused by selecting between two whois clients. Have you considered removing all web clients in favour to one implementation from Fedora? That would be great idea! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 638666] Review Request: whois - Improved WHOIS 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=638666 --- Comment #5 from Bill Nottingham 2010-10-04 12:07:48 EDT --- I'm saying if this new one is clearly better, we should just switch to it, and leave jwhois as jwhois if someone really wants to maintain it (no alternatives). It's a whois client, it's not a web browser. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 639652] Review Request: python-pika - AMQP client library for Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=639652 --- Comment #3 from Ilia Cheishvili 2010-10-04 12:10:41 EDT --- The build arch thing was pretty obvious, I'm surprised I missed that. Everything you mentioned is now updated in the SPEC and SRPM files. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 586473] Review Request: mg - Tiny Emacs-like editor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=586473
--- Comment #13 from Martin Gieseking 2010-10-04
12:43:26 EDT ---
Hi Mark,
here's the formal review of mg. The package looks almost fine. Just three minor
things:
- The license field should contain the license of the binary package. In mixed
licensing scenarios like here, you have to try to extract something like the
least common multiple of the involved licenses. Since "Public Domain"
isn't a real license, you can usually omit it if it's involved in a mixed
licensing scenario. I would condense everything to "BSD and ISC and MirOS".
I'm not sure if this expression can be simplified further.
- Makefile.in defines variable "libdir" which is currently unused. However, in
order to prevent unwanted surprises in future versions, I suggest to assign
a proper value, e.g. by adding libdir='%{_libdir}' to the first "make"
statement.
- add blank lines between the %changelog entries
$ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-13-x86_64/result/*.rpm
mg.src:25: W: configure-without-libdir-spec
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
The warning can be ignored since "configure" isn't generated by autoconf but a
manually written shell script that doesn't work with %configure. "libdir"
should be assigned in the make statement.
-
key:
[+] OK
[.] OK, not applicable
[X] needs work
-
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}.
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license.
- mixed licensing scenario
- licenses involved: BSD, ISC, MirOS
[X] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
- drop "Public Domain" and the parentheses:
BSD and ISC and MirOS
[.] MUST: The file containing the text of the license(s) for the package must
be included in %doc.
- tarball doesn't contain license texts
- file README contains some copyright information (README present 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.
$ md5sum mg-20090107.tar.gz*
f25a139da44c3a2f760ffec531bd996e mg-20090107.tar.gz
f25a139da44c3a2f760ffec531bd996e mg-20090107.tar.gz.1
[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
Koji scratch build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2511059
[.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, ...
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.
[.] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly.
- no locales present
[.] MUST: Packages storing shared library files (not just symlinks) must call
ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[+] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[.] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, ...
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates.
[+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in %files.
[+] 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: Files in %doc must not affect the runtime of the application.
[.] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[.] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[.] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix ...
[.] MUST: devel packages must require the base package.
[+] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
[.] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file.
[+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
[+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
[X] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[+] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all
supported architectures.
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described.
- seems to work as expected, but I'm not an Emacs guy, though. :)
[.] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane.
[.] SHOULD: subpackages other than devel should require the base package.
[.] SHOULD: pkgconfig(.pc) files should be placed in a -devel pkg.
[.] SHOULD: If the package has file dependen
[Bug 639652] Review Request: python-pika - AMQP client library for Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=639652
Peter Lemenkov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Peter Lemenkov 2010-10-04 12:49:04 EDT
---
Koji scratch build for F-14:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2511242
REVIEW:
Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable
+ rpmlint is silent
Sulaco ~: rpmlint ~/Desktop/python-pika-0.5.2-1.fc14.noarch.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Sulaco ~:
+ The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
+ The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
+ The package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
+ The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines.
+ The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
+ The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included
in %doc.
+ The spec file is written in American English.
+ The spec file for the package is legible.
+ The sources used to build the package, match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
Sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: sha256sum tonyg-pika-v0.5.2-0-gba01f9e.tar.gz*
c5382e45c0093c2396f3d2f58b1aaddc386dc3e7ed44510e83f81fb8e51247f1
tonyg-pika-v0.5.2-0-gba01f9e.tar.gz
c5382e45c0093c2396f3d2f58b1aaddc386dc3e7ed44510e83f81fb8e51247f1
tonyg-pika-v0.5.2-0-gba01f9e.tar.gz.1
Sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES:
+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
primary architecture.
+ All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
0 No need to handle locales.
0 No shared library files.
+ The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
+ The package is not designed to be relocatable.
+ The package owns all directories that it creates.
+ The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files
listings.
+ Permissions on files are set properly.
+ The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ The package consistently uses macros.
+ The package contains code, or permissible content.
0 No extremely large documentation files.
+ Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the
application.
0 No header files.
0 No static libraries.
0 No pkgconfig(.pc) files.
0 The package doesn't contain library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1).
0 No devel sub-package.
+ The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
0 Not a GUI application.
+ The package does not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
+ At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.
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 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 #15 from Fedora Update System 2010-10-04 12:56:26 EDT --- bti-028-1.el5, liboauth-0.9.0-2.el5.1 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 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 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|bti-028-1.fc14 |bti-028-1.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 606557] Review Request: python26-sqlalchemy - Modular and flexible ORM library for python26
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=606557 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System 2010-10-04 13:06:20 EDT --- python26-sqlalchemy-0.6.4-1.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python26-sqlalchemy-0.6.4-1.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 606557] Review Request: python26-sqlalchemy - Modular and flexible ORM library for python26
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=606557 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 626666] Review Request: groonga - An Embeddable Fulltext Search 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=62 Mamoru Tasaka changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #6 from Mamoru Tasaka 2010-10-04 13:46:08 EDT --- Assigning. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |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 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 #30 from Fedora Update System 2010-10-04 14:09:03 EDT --- mysql-workbench-5.2.28-3.fc14,mysql-connector-c++-1.1.0-0.3.bzr895.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mysql-workbench-5.2.28-3.fc14,mysql-connector-c++-1.1.0-0.3.bzr895.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 638906] Review Request: erlang-gen_leader - A leader election behavior modeled after gen_server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=638906 --- Comment #5 from Nathaniel McCallum 2010-10-04 14:08:00 EDT --- One last note which is certainly not a blocker, the spec lists version as 0, but the file itself has a version of 1.4 in it. This looks to be a CVS generated version, but nonetheless you may want to consider following upstream's 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 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 #31 from Fedora Update System 2010-10-04 14:10:00 EDT --- mysql-workbench-5.2.28-3.fc13,mysql-connector-c++-1.1.0-0.3.bzr895.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mysql-workbench-5.2.28-3.fc13,mysql-connector-c++-1.1.0-0.3.bzr895.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 607405] Review Request: poppler-sharp - C Sharp Bindings for Poppler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=607405 --- Comment #2 from Claudio Rodrigo Pereyra DIaz 2010-10-04 14:21:05 EDT --- I just update .spec and .srpm files Spec URL: http://elsupergomez.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/poppler-sharp.spec SRPM URL: http://elsupergomez.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/poppler-sharp-0.0.1-2.fc13.src.rpm and create a bug report in upstream for fix "libdir" in x86_64 problem http://github.com/jacintos/poppler-sharp/issues#issue/1 Christian thanks for your comments -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 638948] Review Request: erlang-getopt - Erlang module to parse command line arguments using the GNU getopt syntax
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=638948 Nathaniel McCallum changed: What|Removed |Added CC||nathan...@natemccallum.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|nathan...@natemccallum.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Nathaniel McCallum 2010-10-04 14:21:34 EDT --- [ OK ] specfiles match: 5d0348a502988cf7922a9a83a6d2f3cf [ OK ] source files match upstream: 1657e6c5d68889befcbae30cd8df805d [ OK ] package meets naming and versioning guidelines. [ OK ] spec is properly named, cleanly written, and uses macros consistently. [ OK ] dist tag is present. [ OK ] build root is correct. [ FAIL ] license field matches the actual license. Listed license is MIT, actual is 3-clause BSD. [ OK ] license is open source-compatible. [ OK ] license text included in package. [ OK ] latest version is being packaged. [ OK ] BuildRequires are proper. [ OK ] compiler flags are appropriate. [ OK ] %clean is present. [ OK ] package builds in mock. [ OK ] package installs properly. [ OK ] debuginfo package looks complete. [ FAIL ] rpmlint is silent. Example scripts should be 644, they are a form of documentation. The should also be installed as %doc. Does chmod'ing the scripts 644 make the doc-file-dependency go away? [ OK ] final provides and requires are sane [ OK ] %check is present and all tests pass: [ OK ] no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. [ OK ] owns the directories it creates. [ OK ] doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. [ OK ] no duplicates in %files. [ FAIL ] file permissions are appropriate. %doc scripts should be 644 [ OK ] scriptlets match those on ScriptletSnippets page. [ OK ] code, not content. [ OK ] documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. [ OK ] %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. [ OK ] no headers. [ OK ] no pkgconfig files. [ OK ] no libtool .la droppings. [ OK ] desktop files valid and installed 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 638974] Review Request: erlang-protobuffs - A set of Protocol Buffers tools and modules for Erlang 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=638974 Nathaniel McCallum changed: What|Removed |Added CC||nathan...@natemccallum.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|nathan...@natemccallum.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Nathaniel McCallum 2010-10-04 14:38:06 EDT --- [ OK ] specfiles match: 05114befc722dc9d5160b22246bba92c [ OK ] source files match upstream: ef08e31d3b08548d820e9508de57a31d [ OK ] package meets naming and versioning guidelines. [ OK ] spec is properly named, cleanly written, and uses macros consistently. [ OK ] dist tag is present. [ OK ] build root is correct. [ FAIL ] license field matches the actual license. License is MIT, not BSD. [ OK ] license is open source-compatible. [ NA ] license text included in package. [ OK ] latest version is being packaged. [ OK ] BuildRequires are proper. [ OK ] compiler flags are appropriate. [ OK ] %clean is present. [ OK ] package builds in mock. [ OK ] package installs properly. [ OK ] debuginfo package looks complete. [ OK ] rpmlint is silent. erlang-protobuffs.ppc: E: explicit-lib-dependency erlang-stdlib erlang-protobuffs.ppc: E: no-binary erlang-protobuffs.ppc: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib These are all false positives. [ OK ] final provides and requires are sane [ OK ] %check is present and all tests pass: [ OK ] no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. [ OK ] owns the directories it creates. [ OK ] doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. [ OK ] no duplicates in %files. [ OK ] file permissions are appropriate. [ OK ] scriptlets match those on ScriptletSnippets page. [ OK ] code, not content. [ OK ] documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. [ OK ] %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. [ OK ] no headers. [ OK ] no pkgconfig files. [ OK ] no libtool .la droppings. [ OK ] desktop files valid and installed properly. Fix the license and we are good to go. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 622314] Review request: 3Depict- Valued point cloud visualisation and 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=622314 --- Comment #11 from D Haley 2010-10-04 14:49:34 EDT --- I have added the PDF, as built from the latex sources. SPEC: http://mycae.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/3Depict.spec SRPM: http://mycae.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/3Depict-0.0.2-2.fc13.src.rpm Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2511559 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 626666] Review Request: groonga - An Embeddable Fulltext Search 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=62
--- Comment #7 from Mamoru Tasaka 2010-10-04
14:58:06 EDT ---
For -4:
* More directory ownership / %files issue
- For -munin-plugins subpackage:
- The directory %_sysconfdir/munin/plugin-conf.d is already owned by
munin-node, -munin-plugins Requires munin-node, so -munin-plugins
subpackage should not own this directory itself.
- Same for %_datadir/munin. This directory is already owned by
munin.
- For -doc subpackage
- Installing -doc subpackage creates the directory %{_datadir}/groonga/
and %{_datadir}/groonga/. While %_datadir/groonga is owned by -libs
subpackage, currently -doc subpackage does not have Requires: -libs.
So technically -doc subpackage can be installed without -libs subpackage
being installed, and it leaves the directory %_datadir/groonga
directory unowned by any packages.
- For main package
- Main package has scriptlets:
-
getent passwd groonga >/dev/null || \
useradd -r -g groonga -d %{_localstatedir}/lib/groonga -s /sbin/nologin
\
-
It seems that the directory %_localstatedir/lib/groonga should be owned
by main package.
! By the way, looking at groonga sysv script, it seems
the following directories also needs creating beforehand?
-
/var/lib/groonga/db
/var/log/groonga
-
* SysV initscript issue
-
groonga.i686: W: service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/groonga
-
- Please modify the sysv script to be installed so that the service
is not enabled by default (modify # chkconfig: line and # Default-Start:
line)
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SysVInitScript#.23_chkconfig:_line
* build issue
- Please move "build process" to %build section (i.e. invoke "gcc"
or so in %build) and only do "install process" or so in %install
section _if possible_.
* Python subpackage
- F-14 uses python 2.7, not python 2.6.x. So %files list in python-%{name}
needs fixing.
- F-13+ also ships python3. So please write "python2-devel" for
BuildRequires:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Python#BuildRequires
* Naming
- Well, I am not sure if we should name python binding as python-%{name}
or %{name}-python. Actually there are many packages which are named as
%{name}-python,
and python-%{name}...
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Addon_Packages_.28python_modules.29
says:
--
Packages of python modules (thus *they rely on python as a parent*) use a
slightly
different naming scheme
--
I think python binding package does not rely on python as a parent, it is a
binding package of groonga for python. So usually I think for binding
packages
like this case, we should name as %{name}-python (same for php).
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 590305] Review Request: vile - VI Like Emacs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=590305 Martin Gieseking changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||martin.giesek...@uos.de AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|martin.giesek...@uos.de 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 555638] Review Request: ghc-html - Haskell HTML combinator 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=555638 --- Comment #7 from Kevin Fenzi 2010-10-04 15:03:40 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 537979] Review Request: ghc-hashed-storage - Hashed file storage 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=537979 --- Comment #23 from Kevin Fenzi 2010-10-04 15:03:23 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
