[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 #54 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com 2010-10-06 02:21:55 EDT --- (In reply to comment #52) I tried building hslogger in f12 but the build did not go through. There was an error when haddock started to parse the source files. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2513743 For now, I would raise a package change request for f13. Sure that is just fine. Hmm maybe need an older hslogger for ghc-6.10.4 then, but maybe not worth worrying about until something needs it, which may well not happen before F12 goes EOL. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2010-10-06 04:21:38 EDT --- erlang-getopt-0.3-3.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/erlang-getopt-0.3-3.el5 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 --- Comment #1 from David Tardon dtar...@redhat.com 2010-10-06 04:23:30 EDT --- Created attachment 451828 -- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=451828 fix build breaker -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 226107] Merge Review: lslk
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226107 Karel Zak k...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED Fixed In Version||lslk-1.29-23.fc15 --- Comment #2 from Karel Zak k...@redhat.com 2010-10-06 04:28:22 EDT --- Committed, pushed to rawhide. THANKS! -- 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 639292] Review Request: erlang-etorrent - Erlang BitTorrent client and 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=639292 Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status Whiteboard||NotReady -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 639529] Review Request: apache-commons-pool - rename of jakarta-commons-pool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=639529 Stanislav Ochotnicky socho...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Stanislav Ochotnicky socho...@redhat.com 2010-10-06 04:32:59 EDT --- Package is good now. Please coordinate with tomcat maintainers so that rawhide won't be broken for too long after you create new packages. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 639272] Review Request: rubygem-rack-accept - HTTP Accept for Ruby/Rack
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=639272 Michal Fojtik mfoj...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Michal Fojtik mfoj...@redhat.com 2010-10-06 04:33:00 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: rubygem-rack-accept Short Description: HTTP Accept for Ruby/Rack Owners:mfojtik Branches: f12 f13 f14 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 --- Comment #2 from David Tardon dtar...@redhat.com 2010-10-06 04:35:19 EDT --- Created attachment 451830 -- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=451830 get rid of awk script -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 Michal Fojtik mfoj...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #20 from Michal Fojtik mfoj...@redhat.com 2010-10-06 04:40:50 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: rubygem-json_pure Short Description: JSON implementation in pure Ruby Owners:mfojtik Branches: f12 f13 f14 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 637378] Review Request: rubygem-aws - Ruby gem for all Amazon Web Services
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=637378 --- Comment #7 from Michal Fojtik mfoj...@redhat.com 2010-10-06 04:39:27 EDT --- (In reply to comment #6) (In reply to comment #5) Ah I forgot to include patch in spec, here is fixed spec: http://mifo.sk/RPMS/rubygem-aws-2.3.21-3.fc13.src.rpm http://mifo.sk/RPMS/rubygem-aws.spec It seems that the uploaded rpm is noarch.rpm, not src.rpm. Dammit, sorry for this. It should be SRPM 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 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 --- Comment #3 from David Tardon dtar...@redhat.com 2010-10-06 04:43:42 EDT --- Created attachment 451832 -- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=451832 validate .desktop files packaging guidelines say it shall be 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 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 dtar...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #451832|0 |1 is patch|| Attachment #451832|application/octet-stream|text/plain mime type|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 639263] Review Request: erlang-rebar - Erlang Build Tools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=639263 Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||638909 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 638909] Review Request: erlang-gproc - Extended process registry for Erlang
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=638909 Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||639263 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 226107] Merge Review: lslk
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226107 --- Comment #3 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com 2010-10-06 04:47:58 EDT --- oops! looks like my patch just added %doc but when I locally built this new package, missed to add them actually and thus rpmlint was clean. With the new build rpmlint is complaining lslk.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/lslk-1.29/Inventory 0555L A standard executable should have permission set to 0755. If you get this message, it means that you have a wrong executable permissions in some files included in your package. lslk.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/lslk-1.29/Inventory The file is installed with executable permissions, but was identified as one that probably should not be executable. Verify if the executable bits are desired, and remove if not. This can be fixed by adding following line in end of %prep section chmod 644 Inventory Can you please fix this? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 226097] Merge Review: linux-atm
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226097 --- Comment #6 from Jaroslav Škarvada jskar...@redhat.com 2010-10-06 04:49:38 EDT --- New version (linux-atm-2.5.1-1.fc15), some problems disappear, but some more rpmlint errors appear: linux-atm-libs-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation linux-atm-libs.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US userspace - user space, user-space, users pace linux-atm-libs.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libatm.so.1.0.0 e...@glibc_2.2.5 linux-atm-libs.x86_64: W: no-documentation linux-atm.x86_64: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/hosts.atm linux-atm.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/linux-atm-2.5.1/ANS/e164_cc linux-atm.x86_64: E: version-control-internal-file /usr/share/doc/linux-atm-2.5.1/ANS/CVS/Entries linux-atm.x86_64: E: version-control-internal-file /usr/share/doc/linux-atm-2.5.1/doc/CVS/Repository linux-atm.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/linux-atm-2.5.1/doc/atm-linux-howto.txt linux-atm.x86_64: E: version-control-internal-file /usr/share/doc/linux-atm-2.5.1/ANS/CVS/Tag linux-atm.x86_64: E: version-control-internal-file /usr/share/doc/linux-atm-2.5.1/init-redhat/CVS/Root linux-atm.x86_64: E: version-control-internal-file /usr/share/doc/linux-atm-2.5.1/init-redhat/.cvsignore linux-atm.x86_64: E: version-control-internal-file /usr/share/doc/linux-atm-2.5.1/doc/CVS/Tag linux-atm.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man8/mpcd.8.gz 31: warning: `SM(MPC)' not defined (probable missing space after `SM') linux-atm.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man8/mpcd.8.gz 46: warning: `SM(MPS).' not defined (probable missing space after `SM') linux-atm.x86_64: E: version-control-internal-file /usr/share/doc/linux-atm-2.5.1/doc/CVS/Root linux-atm.x86_64: E: version-control-internal-file /usr/share/doc/linux-atm-2.5.1/doc/.cvsignore linux-atm.x86_64: E: version-control-internal-file /usr/share/doc/linux-atm-2.5.1/init-redhat/CVS/Repository linux-atm.x86_64: E: version-control-internal-file /usr/share/doc/linux-atm-2.5.1/ANS/CVS/Root linux-atm.x86_64: E: version-control-internal-file /usr/share/doc/linux-atm-2.5.1/ANS/CVS/Repository linux-atm.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man4/atmsigd.conf.4.gz 128: warning: `COMPATIBILITY' not defined linux-atm.x86_64: E: version-control-internal-file /usr/share/doc/linux-atm-2.5.1/doc/CVS/Entries linux-atm.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/linux-atm-2.5.1/ANS/pdf2e164_cc.pl linux-atm.x86_64: E: version-control-internal-file /usr/share/doc/linux-atm-2.5.1/ANS/.cvsignore linux-atm.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/linux-atm-2.5.1/ANS/hosts2ans.pl linux-atm.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man8/zeppelin.8.gz 102: warning: numeric expression expected (got `n') linux-atm.x86_64: E: version-control-internal-file /usr/share/doc/linux-atm-2.5.1/init-redhat/CVS/Tag linux-atm.x86_64: E: version-control-internal-file /usr/share/doc/linux-atm-2.5.1/init-redhat/CVS/Entries linux-atm.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/linux-atm-2.5.1/init-redhat/atm linux-atm.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ilmidiag linux-atm.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary svc_recv linux-atm.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary awrite linux-atm.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary atmswitch linux-atm.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary hediag linux-atm.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sonetdiag linux-atm.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ttcp_atm linux-atm.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary aread linux-atm.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary saaldump linux-atm.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary zntune linux-atm.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary svc_send linux-atm.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary enitune linux-atm.x86_64: W: doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/linux-atm-2.5.1/ANS/pdf2e164_cc.pl /usr/bin/perl linux-atm.x86_64: W: doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/linux-atm-2.5.1/ANS/hosts2ans.pl /usr/bin/perl 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 15 errors, 28 warnings. Also, it refuses to build, small patch is needed: -BuildRequires: byacc automake libtool flex +BuildRequires: byacc automake libtool flex flex-static -- 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 640205] Review Request: visualvm - Lightweight profiler that integrates many command-line JDK tools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=640205 --- Comment #7 from Stanislav Ochotnicky socho...@redhat.com 2010-10-06 05:18:28 EDT --- Before even starting official review... visualvm.x86_64: W: invalid-license GPLv2 + Classpath Exception visualvm.x86_64: W: non-etc-or-var-file-marked-as-conffile /usr/lib64/visualvm/etc/visualvm.clusters visualvm.x86_64: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /usr/lib64/visualvm/etc/visualvm.clusters visualvm.x86_64: W: non-etc-or-var-file-marked-as-conffile /usr/lib64/visualvm/etc/visualvm.conf visualvm.x86_64: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /usr/lib64/visualvm/etc/visualvm.conf visualvm.x86_64: W: no-documentation visualvm.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/visualvm/visualvm/config/Modules/org-netbeans-modules-options-keymap.xml_hidden visualvm.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/visualvm/visualvm/config/Modules/org-netbeans-libs-osgi.xml_hidden visualvm.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/visualvm/visualvm/config/Modules/org-openide-compat.xml_hidden visualvm.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/visualvm/visualvm/config/Modules/org-netbeans-modules-spi-actions.xml_hidden visualvm.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/visualvm/visualvm/config/Modules/org-netbeans-core-output2.xml_hidden visualvm.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/visualvm/visualvm/config/Modules/org-netbeans-modules-core-kit.xml_hidden visualvm.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/visualvm/visualvm/config/Modules/org-netbeans-modules-favorites.xml_hidden visualvm.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/visualvm/visualvm/config/Modules/org-netbeans-api-visual.xml_hidden visualvm.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/visualvm/visualvm/config/Modules/org-netbeans-libs-junit4.xml_hidden visualvm.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/visualvm/visualvm/config/Modules/org-netbeans-core-netigso.xml_hidden visualvm.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/visualvm/visualvm/config/Modules/org-netbeans-libs-felix.xml_hidden visualvm.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/visualvm/visualvm/config/Modules/org-netbeans-core-execution.xml_hidden visualvm.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/visualvm/visualvm/config/Modules/org-jdesktop-layout.xml_hidden visualvm.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/visualvm/visualvm/config/Modules/org-openide-options.xml_hidden visualvm.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/visualvm/visualvm/config/Modules/org-openide-util-enumerations.xml_hidden visualvm.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/visualvm/visualvm/config/Modules/org-netbeans-libs-jsr223.xml_hidden visualvm.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/visualvm/visualvm/config/Modules/org-netbeans-core-osgi.xml_hidden visualvm.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib64/visualvm/profiler/.lastModified visualvm.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/visualvm/profiler/.lastModified visualvm.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib64/visualvm/platform /usr/share/netbeans/platform12 visualvm.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary jvisualvm visualvm.x86_64: W: non-standard-dir-in-usr jvm visualvm-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license GPLv2 + Classpath Exception visualvm-debuginfo.x86_64: E: debuginfo-without-sources visualvm.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) profiler - profile, profiles, profiled visualvm.src: W: invalid-license GPLv2 + Classpath Exception 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 19 errors, 13 warnings. Need I comment on this? Please run rpmlint before putting packages for review. If there are good reasons for some of these things, explain...otherwise please fix them before I 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 226107] Merge Review: lslk
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226107 Karel Zak k...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|lslk-1.29-23.fc15 |lslk-1.29-24.fc15 --- Comment #4 from Karel Zak k...@redhat.com 2010-10-06 05:42:55 EDT --- (In reply to comment #3) This can be fixed by adding following line in end of %prep section chmod 644 Inventory Can you please fix this? Fixed. -- 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 226107] Merge Review: lslk
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226107 Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ Last Closed||2010-10-06 05:50:16 --- Comment #5 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com 2010-10-06 05:50:16 EDT --- Thanks for quick fix. APPROVED this review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 640550] New: Review Request: libdigidoc - Library for handling digitally signed documents
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: libdigidoc - Library for handling digitally signed documents https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=640550 Summary: Review Request: libdigidoc - Library for handling digitally signed documents Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: ka...@smartlink.ee QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://kalev.fedorapeople.org/libdigidoc.spec SRPM URL: http://kalev.fedorapeople.org/libdigidoc-2.7.0-1.fc14.src.rpm Description: libDigiDoc is a library implementing a subset of the XAdES digital signature standard on top of Estonian specific .ddoc container format. It allows to create, sign, verify, and modify digidoc XML containers. Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2517283 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 630932] Review Request: ibus-table-others- Various tables for IBus-Table
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=630932 --- Comment #7 from Naveen Kumar nku...@redhat.com 2010-10-06 06:14:03 EDT --- Updated Spec URL: http://nkumar.fedorapeople.org/ibus-table-others/1.3.0.20100907-4/ibus-table-others.spec Updated SRPM URL: http://nkumar.fedorapeople.org/ibus-table-others/1.3.0.20100907-4/ibus-table-others-1.3.0.20100907-4.fc13.src.rpm Koji Scratch Build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2517280 * Wed Oct 6 2010 Naveen Kumar nku...@redhat.com - 1.3.0.20100907-4 - delete all Obsoletes fields in spec - removed BuildRoot as specified in new guidelines -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 640557] New: Review Request: smartcardpp - Library for accessing smart cards
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: smartcardpp - Library for accessing smart cards https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=640557 Summary: Review Request: smartcardpp - Library for accessing smart cards Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: ka...@smartlink.ee QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://kalev.fedorapeople.org/smartcardpp.spec SRPM URL: http://kalev.fedorapeople.org/smartcardpp-0.2.0-1.fc14.src.rpm Description: smartcardpp is a set of C++ classes to manage smart card communications and implement basic command primitives. Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2517334 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 639286] Review Request: rubygem-amazon-ec2 - A Ruby library for accessing the Amazon Web Services
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=639286
--- Comment #4 from Michal Fojtik mfoj...@redhat.com 2010-10-06 07:08:48 EDT
---
(In reply to comment #2)
Some notes
* Unused macros
- %ruby_sitelib macro seems used nowhere.
* License tag
- When the license text says under the same terms as Ruby,
this is GPLv2 or Ruby on Fedora.
Fixed.
* Explicit version dependencies
- As far as I checked for these explicit version dependencies.
it seems only = 0.9.8 for rubygem(mocha) is needed.
Version dependencies removed.
* (Build)Requires
- rubygem(mocha) is only for s.add_development_dependency in
gemspec file and not needed for runtime (Requires).
Mocha removed from runtime. Thanks for catching it.
* Document files
- Please consider to create -doc subpackage and move document
files (like test/ Rakefile %{gemdir}/doc/ %geminstdir/foo.gemspec
and perhaps deps.rip wsdl perftools) into -doc.
Sure, documentation and support files moved to -doc subpackage.
===
* Wed Oct 06 2010 Michal Fojtik mfoj...@redhat.com - 0.9.15-2
- Removed unused macros
- Fixed license and version dependencies
- Moved documentation files into -doc subpackage
SRPM: http://mifo.sk/RPMS/rubygem-amazon-ec2-0.9.15-2.fc13.src.rpm
Spec: http://mifo.sk/RPMS/rubygem-amazon-ec2.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 637904] Review Request: rubygem-atk - Ruby binding of ATK-1.0.x
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=637904 Michal Fojtik mfoj...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mfoj...@redhat.com QAContact|extras...@fedoraproject.org |mfoj...@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 637904] Review Request: rubygem-atk - Ruby binding of ATK-1.0.x
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=637904
Michal Fojtik mfoj...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Michal Fojtik mfoj...@redhat.com 2010-10-06 07:22:58 EDT
---
REVIEW:
[OK] Packages that contain Ruby Gems must be called rubygem-%{gemname}
[OK] The Source of the package must be the full URL to the released Gem
archive;
[OK] The package must have a Requires and a BuildRequires on rubygems
[OK] The Gem must be installed into %{gemdir} defined as
[OK] Architecture-specific content must not be installed into %{gemdir}
[OK] If the Gem contains binary content (e.g., for a database driver), it must
be marked as architecture specific, and all architecture specific content must
be moved from the %{gemdir} to the [#ruby_sitearch %{ruby_sitearch} directory]
during %install
[OK] First, %prep stage must contain %setup -q -c -T to create the directory
where C libraries are compiled.
[OK] Then at %build stage the Ruby Gem must be installed under the directory
created at %prep stage to get C libraries compiled under there.
[OK] Finally at %install stage the whole tree under the directory created at
%prep stage should be copied (not moved) to under %{buildroot}%{gemdir}.
All other review points are OK, macros are used consistently, GCC flags are set
correctly.
Koji build fails (http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2517406),
because there is no rubygem-glib2-devel package, but it should be here soon
(https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=637448).
Btw, just curious, but do you plan to package ruby-gtk bindings ?
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 633194] Review Request: ghc-glade - Haskell binding to libglade2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=633194 Lakshmi Narasimhan lakshminaras2...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||lakshminaras2...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|lakshminaras2...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 633194] Review Request: ghc-glade - Haskell binding to libglade2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=633194 --- Comment #1 from Lakshmi Narasimhan lakshminaras2...@gmail.com 2010-10-06 07:55:40 EDT --- I tried to build ghc-glade using the spec file, the build failed because gtk2hs-buildtools was not installed. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2517428 Can gtk2hs-buildtools be added to BuildRequires? I don't have a Fedora 14 setup, hence I wouldn't have access to the rpms. If you could correct the spec file, I would be able to run rpmlint on the generated rpms and complete the review. 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 626068] Review Request: mot-adms - An electrical compact device models converter
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=626068
Thibault North thibault.no...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Thibault North thibault.no...@gmail.com 2010-10-06
08:28:31 EDT ---
- MUST: The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. OK
- MUST: The spec file name matches the base package %{name} OK
- MUST: The package meets the Packaging Guidelines. OK
- MUST: The package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and
meet other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines. OK
- MUST: The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
OK
- MUST: the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file,
then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is
included in %doc. OK
- MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. OK
- MUST: The spec file for the package is be legible. OK
- MUST: The sources used to build the package must matches the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. CHECK
- MUST: The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least i386. OK
- MUST: All build dependencies is listed in BuildRequires. OK
- MUST: The spec file handles locales properly. N/A
- MUST: If the package does not contain shared library files located in the
dynamic linker's default paths OK
- MUST: the package is not designed to be relocatable OK
- MUST: the package owns all directories that it creates. OK
- MUST: the package does not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
OK
- MUST: Permissions on files are set properly. CHECK
- MUST: The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}
(or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). OK
- MUST: The package consistently uses macros, as described in the macros
section of Packaging Guidelines. OK
- MUST: The package contains code, or permissable content. This is described in
detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines. OK
- MUST: There are no Large documentation files OK
- MUST: %doc does not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If
it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present. OK
- MUST: There are no Header files or static libraries OK
- MUST: The package does not contain library files with a suffix OK
- MUST: Package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives OK
- MUST: Package containing GUI applications includes a %{name}.desktop file,
and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the
%install section. N/A
- MUST: Package does not own files or directories already owned by other
packages. OK
SHOULD Items:
- SHOULD: The source package does include license text(s) as COPYING OK
- SHOULD: mock builds succcessfully in i386. OK
- SHOULD: The reviewer tested that the package functions as described. A
package should not segfault instead of running, for example. OK
- SHOULD: No scriptlets were used, those scriptlets must be sane. OK
- SHOULD: No subpackages present. OK
For next build, just fix the source URL (got a 404), and fix the permissions
for mot-adms-download.tcl 0775 (see rpmlint)
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 637904] Review Request: rubygem-atk - Ruby binding of ATK-1.0.x
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=637904 Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #6 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2010-10-06 08:59:52 EDT --- Thank you! Now only commenting for this: (In reply to comment #5) Btw, just curious, but do you plan to package ruby-gtk bindings ? Please check bug 639098 and the bugs blocking the bug. I will explain what I am trying to do now. Currently ruby-gnome2 is already in Fedora: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=3765 and ruby-gtk2 binary rpm is currently created from ruby-gnome2 srpm. Now ruby-gnome2 upstream also released gems for ruby-gtk2 part from 0.90.0, so for ruby-gtk2 part (i.e. rsvg2 gtk2 pango gdk_pixbuf2 atk) I am going to make rpms based on released gem files, and make rpms generated from ruby-gnome2 srpm obsoleted by gem-based rpm. The rest part (i.e. bonobo2, gconf2, ...) still have to be rebuilt from ruby-gnome2 srpm. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 226352] Merge Review: quagga
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226352 Vojtech Vitek vvi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||vvi...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|vvi...@redhat.com -- 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 637923] Review Request: firmware-extract - A firmware-tools plugin to add firmware extraction from vendor binaries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=637923
--- Comment #3 from Praveen K Paladugu praveen_palad...@dell.com 2010-10-06
09:27:02 EDT ---
1) Please remove the suse related macros from the spec file.
2) Please update the pythong_sitelib definition with conditionals as shown at:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Macros
3) I don't see a need for the following lines in the spec file:
touch configure
find . -type f -newer configure -print0 | xargs -r0 touch
4) Please update the spec file to use either $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{buildroot}
instead of both.
5) Please add a changelog comment to be in consistent with the current
versioning.
Nothing stands out in the rpmlint errors :).
Praveen
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 640627] New: Review Request: rubygem-factory_girl - Framework and DSL for defining and using model instance factories
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-factory_girl - Framework and DSL for defining and using model instance factories https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=640627 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-factory_girl - Framework and DSL for defining and using model instance factories 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-factory_girl.spec SRPM URL: http://mifo.sk/RPMS/rubygem-factory_girl-1.3.2-1.fc13.src.rpm Description: Framework and DSL for defining and using factories - less error-prone, more explicit, and all-around easier to work with than fixtures. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jussi.leht...@iki.fi --- Comment #4 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi 2010-10-06 09:58:03 EDT --- This is going to replace OpenOffice, so we can as well close the OpenOffice.org merge review (bug #226216) as a duplicate of this 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 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 Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi changed: What|Removed |Added CC||nob...@fedoraproject.org --- Comment #5 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi 2010-10-06 09:59:02 EDT --- *** Bug 226216 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 226216] Merge Review: openoffice.org
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226216 Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED CC||jussi.leht...@iki.fi Resolution||DUPLICATE Last Closed||2010-10-06 09:59:02 --- Comment #3 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi 2010-10-06 09:59:02 EDT --- OpenOffice.org is going to be replaced by LibreOffice which is reviewed in bug #639945, closing as duplicate. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 639945 *** -- 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 640356] clutter-gtk3
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=640356 Matthias Clasen mcla...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mcla...@redhat.com --- Comment #3 from Matthias Clasen mcla...@redhat.com 2010-10-06 10:36:05 EDT --- Can you provide a clutter-gtk3 spec file / srpm ? then we can get the package review done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 640337] Review Request: perl-MooseX-NonMoose - Easy subclassing of non-Moose classes
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=640337 --- Comment #5 from Ralph Bean ralph.b...@gmail.com 2010-10-06 11:01:55 EDT --- (Just to be clear: I do not have creds to officially review or approve packages; just trying to learn) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 640356] clutter-gtk3
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=640356 --- Comment #4 from Colin Walters walt...@redhat.com 2010-10-06 10:59:27 EDT --- (In reply to comment #3) Can you provide a clutter-gtk3 spec file / srpm ? then we can get the package review done. The files are exactly identical to what's there in Fedora git right 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 640337] Review Request: perl-MooseX-NonMoose - Easy subclassing of non-Moose classes
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=640337 --- Comment #4 from Ralph Bean ralph.b...@gmail.com 2010-10-06 11:00:40 EDT --- Ok, then I believe the name of the spec and srpm should be changed from *.fc13.* to *.fc14.* Besides that, here's my stab: OK: * The name/version match http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines * License: OK * No inclusion of pre-built binaries * Spec is legible * RPMLINT: * perl-MooseX-NonMoose.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %clean * but this is okay = fc10 * perl-MooseX-NonMoose.src: W: no-buildroot-tag * but this is okay = fc10 * perl-MooseX-NonMoose.src: W: no-%clean-section * but this is okay = fc13 * Description is good * BuildRequires and Requires are all good * Documentation from upstream is good * Good default file permissions * The source is the same as upstream * Perl specific stuff looks in-line with * http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Perl * mock runs fine for fc14 Needs Work: Only the .fc13. - .fc14. name change. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 640139] vte3 - A terminal emulator for GTK+ 3
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=640139 --- Comment #3 from Matthias Clasen mcla...@redhat.com 2010-10-06 11:06:55 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: vte3 Short Description: A terminal emulator for GTK+ 3 Owners: mclasen Branches: InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 --- Comment #6 from Caolan McNamara caol...@redhat.com 2010-10-06 11:07:13 EDT --- Now updated to take into account comments to date: Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/rpms/libreoffice.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/rpms/libreoffice-3.2.99.1-2.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 640139] vte3 - A terminal emulator for GTK+ 3
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=640139 Matthias Clasen mcla...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 640557] Review Request: smartcardpp - Library for accessing smart cards
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=640557 Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com 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 lemen...@gmail.com 2010-10-06 12:10:47 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 640550] Review Request: libdigidoc - Library for handling digitally signed documents
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=640550 Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com 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 lemen...@gmail.com 2010-10-06 12:09:27 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 478531] Review Request: tuxmeteor - Tux Meteor is a meteor counting program
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478531 Vinay Bharadwaj vind.1...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||vind.1...@gmail.com --- Comment #4 from Vinay Bharadwaj vind.1...@gmail.com 2010-10-06 12:17:20 EDT --- Does not work -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 637904] Review Request: rubygem-atk - Ruby binding of ATK-1.x
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=637904 Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: rubygem-atk |Review Request: rubygem-atk |- Ruby binding of ATK-1.0.x |- Ruby binding of ATK-1.x -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 637904] Review Request: rubygem-atk - Ruby binding of ATK-1.x
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=637904 Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||kcs-design-review? --- Comment #7 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2010-10-06 12:24:01 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: rubygem-atk Short Description: Ruby binding of ATK-1.x Owners:mtasaka Branches: f13 f14 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 637378] Review Request: rubygem-aws - Ruby gem for all Amazon Web Services
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=637378 Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #8 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2010-10-06 12:53:40 EDT --- One misc comment /usr/bin/patch - Please use %_bindir macro (or /usr/bin is not needed) -- This package (rubygem-aws) is APPROVED by mtasaka -- -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 637923] Review Request: firmware-extract - A firmware-tools plugin to add firmware extraction from vendor binaries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=637923 --- Comment #5 from Matt Domsch matt_dom...@dell.com 2010-10-06 13:12:10 EDT --- http://domsch.com/linux/fedora/firmware-extract/ now has the updated spec and SRPM. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 640356] clutter-gtk3
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=640356 --- Comment #5 from Matthias Clasen mcla...@redhat.com 2010-10-06 12:35:48 EDT --- No, they aren't. For one, the name is different. If you want to get a package review, play by the package review rules. Package review is all about following rules... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 530747] Review Request: iodine - Solution to tunnel IPv4 data through a DNS 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=530747 --- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2010-10-06 13:33:52 EDT --- iodine-0.6.0-0.rc1.4.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 martin.giesek...@uos.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #15 from Martin Gieseking martin.giesek...@uos.de 2010-10-06
13:40:55 EDT ---
Mark, the package is ready now. As a minor improvement, I recommend to use
macro %{version} in Source0 to simplify updating the package to future
versions.
The next step is to request a Git repository with the distro branches you're
planning to maintain. For further details see
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/CVS_admin_requests
Package 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 640356] clutter-gtk3
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=640356 --- Comment #6 from Colin Walters walt...@redhat.com 2010-10-06 13:48:01 EDT --- Created attachment 451938 -- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=451938 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 640356] clutter-gtk3
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=640356 --- Comment #7 from Colin Walters walt...@redhat.com 2010-10-06 13:48:23 EDT --- Created attachment 451939 -- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=451939 srpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 639286] Review Request: rubygem-amazon-ec2 - A Ruby library for accessing the Amazon Web Services
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=639286
Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2010-10-06
13:51:23 EDT ---
For -2:
* %defattr on -doc subpackage
- Please set %defattr on -doc subpackage
* Document files
- license files or so should be in main package. Please
move the following files to main package, and mark them
as %doc (in main package)
--
%{geminstdir}/ChangeLog
%{geminstdir}/LICENSE
%{geminstdir}/VERSION
%{geminstdir}/README.rdoc
--
Please fix the above when importing this package
into Fedora.
--
This package (rubygem-amazon-ec2) is APPROVED
by mtasaka
--
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 640356] clutter-gtk3
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=640356 --- Comment #8 from Colin Walters walt...@redhat.com 2010-10-06 13:49:19 EDT --- (In reply to comment #5) No, they aren't. For one, the name is different. If you want to get a package review, play by the package review rules. Package review is all about following rules... Well, identical modulo all the duplicative goop that spec files require I guess. There's certainly no actually interesting changes here. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 637904] Review Request: rubygem-atk - Ruby binding of ATK-1.x
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=637904 Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|kcs-design-review? |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 640550] Review Request: libdigidoc - Library for handling digitally signed documents
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=640550
Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com 2010-10-06 14:09:39 EDT
---
REVIEW:
Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable
+ rpmlint almost is silent (the following messages should be safely ignored):
Sulaco ~: rpmlint ~/Desktop/libdigidoc-*
libdigidoc.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ddoc - doc, d doc,
Doctor
libdigidoc.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US digidoc - digitoxin,
digital, digitate
libdigidoc.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cdigidoc
libdigidoc-devel.i686: W: no-documentation
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 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 (LGPLv2
or higher).
+ 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 libdigidoc-2.7.0.tar.bz2*
0a1ae1f1ef88e4fc26a83529a7d4ea5b9eda5df137fd6ff72e6da63308926aff
libdigidoc-2.7.0.tar.bz2
0a1ae1f1ef88e4fc26a83529a7d4ea5b9eda5df137fd6ff72e6da63308926aff
libdigidoc-2.7.0.tar.bz2.1
Sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES:
+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
primary architecture. See koji link above.
+ All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
0 No need to handle locales.
+ The package stores shared library files in some of the dynamic linker's
default paths, and it calls ldconfig in %post and %postun.
+ The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
0 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.
+ Header files are stored in a -devel package.
0 No static libraries.
+ The pkgconfig(.pc) files are stored in a -devel package (necessary runtime
requirement added automatically - it's ok, but, please, keep in mind that this
could be a problem on systems with old rpm).
+ The library file(s) that ends in .so (without suffix) is(are) stored in a
-devel package.
+ The -devel package requires the base package using a fully versioned
dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
+ 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.
Ok, I didn't find any 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 635875] Review Request: mawk - An interpreter for the AWK programming language
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=635875
--- Comment #3 from Martin Gieseking martin.giesek...@uos.de 2010-10-06
14:11:14 EDT ---
Hi Mark,
the package looks fine now. I suggest to add the examples folder to the package
(as %doc). Some users might be interested in the sample scripts.
$ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-13-x86_64/result/*.rpm
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
-
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.
GPLv2 according to source file headers
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[+] MUST: The file containing the text of the license(s) for the package must
be included in %doc.
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source.
$ md5sum mawk-1.3.4-20100625.tgz*
447e7c322fa1e58141f5085bae87351f mawk-1.3.4-20100625.tgz
447e7c322fa1e58141f5085bae87351f mawk-1.3.4-20100625.tgz.1
[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
[.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, ...
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.
[.] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly.
[.] 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 using a fully versioned
dependency
[+] 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.
[.] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) ...
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[+] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all
supported architectures.
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described.
[.] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane.
[.] SHOULD: 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 dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin,
/usr/bin, or /usr/sbin ...
[+] SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 640740] New: Review Request: ckeditor - WYSIWYG text editor to be used inside web pages
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: ckeditor - WYSIWYG text editor to be used inside web pages https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=640740 Summary: Review Request: ckeditor - WYSIWYG text editor to be used inside web pages Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: or...@cora.nwra.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/ckeditor.spec SRPM URL: http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/ckeditor-3.4.1-1.fc13.src.rpm Description: CKEditor is a text editor to be used inside web pages. It's a WYSIWYG editor, which means that the text being edited on it looks as similar as possible to the results users have when publishing it. It brings to the web common editing features found on desktop editing applications like Microsoft Word and OpenOffice. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 640740] Review Request: ckeditor - WYSIWYG text editor to be used inside web pages
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=640740 Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||640742 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 640742] New: Review Request: drupal-ckeditor - Replace textarea fields with the CKEditor - a visual HTML editor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: drupal-ckeditor - Replace textarea fields with the CKEditor - a visual HTML editor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=640742 Summary: Review Request: drupal-ckeditor - Replace textarea fields with the CKEditor - a visual HTML editor Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: or...@cora.nwra.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Blocks: 640740 Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/drupal-ckeditor.spec SRPM URL: http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/drupal-ckeditor-6.x.1.2-1.fc13.src.rpm Description: This module will allow Drupal to replace textarea fields with the CKEditor - a visual HTML editor, sometimes called WYSIWYG editor. This HTML text editor brings many of the powerful WYSIWYG editing functions of known desktop editors like Word to the web. It's very fast and doesn't require any kind of installation on the client computer. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 640557] Review Request: smartcardpp - Library for accessing smart cards
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=640557
Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com 2010-10-06 14:19:37 EDT
---
REVIEW:
Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable
+ rpmlint is silent
Sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SPECS: rpmlint ~/Desktop/smartcardpp-*
smartcardpp.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary card-test
smartcardpp-devel.i686: W: no-documentation
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 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 (BSD).
+ 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 smartcardpp-0.2.0.tar.bz2*
d3b0fee245adf5a24a0ff6d78077c26b991fdef083972dc1f245f6e7b4ea2d29
smartcardpp-0.2.0.tar.bz2
d3b0fee245adf5a24a0ff6d78077c26b991fdef083972dc1f245f6e7b4ea2d29
smartcardpp-0.2.0.tar.bz2.1
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.
+ The package stores shared library files in some of the dynamic linker's
default paths, and it calls ldconfig in %post and %postun.
+ The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
0 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.
+ Header files are stored in a -devel package.
0 No static libraries.
0 No pkgconfig(.pc) files.
+ The library file(s) that end in .so (without suffix) is(are) stored in a
-devel package.
+ The -devel package requires the base package using a fully versioned
dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
+ 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.
Ok, I didn't find any 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 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 mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #11 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2010-10-06
14:30:53 EDT ---
Okay. For -6:
* %files
- %install says:
---
mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_localstatedir}/lib/groonga/db
---
Maybe it is better that also %dir %{_localstatedir}/lib/groonga/db
is added to %files list for main package.
* Macros
/usr/sbin/munin-node-configure --shell --remove-also | grep -e 'groonga_' | sh
- Please use %{_sbindir} for /usr/sbin
This directory (groonga) is APPROVED by mtasaka
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 638425] Review Request: nawk - The one true awk descended from UNIX V7
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=638425 --- Comment #9 from Martin Gieseking martin.giesek...@uos.de 2010-10-06 14:43:17 EDT --- (In reply to comment #6) Done. I used sed to delete the line. OK, but now the preceding CC line takes effect and adds profiler flags to the call of gcc. :) Better use something like sed -i 's/ -O4//' makefile Or even better, patch the makefile, as sed doesn't make rpmbuild fail if the substitution doesn't lead to the intended change. Thus, the unwanted options could unnoticeably appear again in a future upstream release with modified makefile (e.g. if -O4 is replaced with -O3 for whatever reason). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 640550] Review Request: libdigidoc - Library for handling digitally signed documents
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=640550 Kalev Lember ka...@smartlink.ee changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Kalev Lember ka...@smartlink.ee 2010-10-06 14:56:14 EDT --- Thanks a lot for the very quick review! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: libdigidoc Short Description: Library for handling digitally signed documents Owners: kalev anttix tuju Branches: f12 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 637923] Review Request: firmware-extract - A firmware-tools plugin to add firmware extraction from vendor binaries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=637923
--- Comment #6 from Praveen K Paladugu praveen_palad...@dell.com 2010-10-06
14:55:24 EDT ---
1))) It certainly doesn't violate any rules. Just wanted to clean up the spec
file of dead code/commands. Let it be for now.
2))) Got it. Thanks
4))) I still see both $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and %{buildroot} being used in the
updated spec file.
Praveen
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 640557] Review Request: smartcardpp - Library for accessing smart cards
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=640557 Kalev Lember ka...@smartlink.ee changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Kalev Lember ka...@smartlink.ee 2010-10-06 14:57:33 EDT --- Thanks a lot for the very quick review! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: smartcardpp Short Description: Library for accessing smart cards Owners: kalev anttix tuju Branches: f12 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 637923] Review Request: firmware-extract - A firmware-tools plugin to add firmware extraction from vendor binaries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=637923 --- Comment #7 from Michael E Brown michael_e_br...@dell.com 2010-10-06 15:18:38 EDT --- 4) indeed. oops. Fixed, good spot! Fixes pushed to git master. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 226026] Merge Review: libgtop2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226026 --- Comment #5 from Marcin Zajaczkowski msz...@wp.pl 2010-10-06 15:31:12 EDT --- I've already lost all hope to see anything in that issue (3,5+ years :) ). Thanks for interest. -- 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 637923] Review Request: firmware-extract - A firmware-tools plugin to add firmware extraction from vendor binaries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=637923 --- Comment #8 from Praveen K Paladugu praveen_palad...@dell.com 2010-10-06 15:37:30 EDT --- The latest update in git looks good. Please go ahead and request Fedora GIT access. Praveen -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 637923] Review Request: firmware-extract - A firmware-tools plugin to add firmware extraction from vendor binaries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=637923 Praveen K Paladugu praveen_palad...@dell.com changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|praveen_palad...@dell.com |nob...@fedoraproject.org Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 626458] Review Request: libmnetutil - A C++ library providing various network utilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=626458 Kalev Lember ka...@smartlink.ee changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||ka...@smartlink.ee AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ka...@smartlink.ee Flag||fedora-review? Bug 626458 depends on bug 626446, which changed state. Bug 626446 Summary: Review Request: libmutil - A C++ library providing various utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=626446 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||ERRATA Status|ON_QA |CLOSED --- Comment #2 from Kalev Lember ka...@smartlink.ee 2010-10-06 15:54:38 EDT --- Taking for review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 637923] Review Request: firmware-extract - A firmware-tools plugin to add firmware extraction from vendor binaries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=637923 --- Comment #9 from Praveen K Paladugu praveen_palad...@dell.com 2010-10-06 15:57:52 EDT --- Forgot to mention, please upload the final version to a publicly accessible location for future reference. Praveen -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 --- Comment #8 from David Tardon dtar...@redhat.com 2010-10-06 16:05:55 EDT --- Created attachment 451977 -- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=451977 rpmlint results -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 dtar...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+, 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 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
--- Comment #7 from David Tardon dtar...@redhat.com 2010-10-06 16:04:51 EDT
---
Review results:
MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the
review.
PASS
MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
PASS
MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
PASS
MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
PASS
MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines .
PASS
MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
PASS
MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package must be included in %doc.
PASS
MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
PASS
MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
PASS
MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no
upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL
Guidelines for how to deal with this.
PASS
MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture.
PASS
MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line.
PASS
MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
PASS
MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
N/A
MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library
files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must
call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
N/A
MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
PASS
MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker.
N/A
MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create
a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create
that directory.
PASS
MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific situations)
PASS
MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with
executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
%defattr(...) line.
PASS
MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
PASS
MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
PASS
MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition
of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to
size. Large can refer to either size or quantity).
PASS
MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime
of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run
properly if it is not present.
PASS
MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
N/A
MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
N/A
MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1),
then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel
package.
N/A
MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release}
N/A
MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed
in the spec if they are built.
N/A
MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file,
and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the
%install section. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need
a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation.
PASS
MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed
should own
[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 --- Comment #9 from David Tardon dtar...@redhat.com 2010-10-06 16:08:46 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: libreoffice Short Description: Community developed Free Software Office Suite Owners: caolanm, dtardon Branches: devel 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 626458] Review Request: libmnetutil - A C++ library providing various network utilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=626458
--- Comment #3 from Kalev Lember ka...@smartlink.ee 2010-10-06 16:33:04 EDT
---
Scratch build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2518427
I have a few initial comments, but none of them is a review blocker. Just some
small things you might want to change before importing the package into git.
How did upstream react to the libmnetutil-0001-Remove-bundled-udns.patch? Looks
like the patch removes all of the udns source files. If upstream doesn't want
to take the patch like this, another option would be to rework it so that the
configure script gets an option to choose between bundled or system copy of
udns.
%package devel
...
Requires: pkgconfig
In Fedora 12+ rpmbuild generates the pkgconfig dependency automatically for
subpackages which ship .pc files. It is however needed for EL5 and older. So if
you only intend to package it in Fedora, you might want to remove that line.
%package devel
...
Requires: automake
...
%files devel
...
%{_datadir}/aclocal/*.m4
A recent change in packaging guidelines suggests to use multiple directory
ownership to avoid dragging in other packages which wouldn't be otherwise
needed for normal functioning. I guess automake would fall under that category
too.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#The_directory_is_owned_by_a_package_which_is_not_required_for_your_package_to_function.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 626458] Review Request: libmnetutil - A C++ library providing various network utilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=626458
Kalev Lember ka...@smartlink.ee changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Kalev Lember ka...@smartlink.ee 2010-10-06 16:46:47 EDT
---
Fedora review libmnetutil-0.8.0-0.2.20100629svn3775.fc12.src.rpm 2010-10-06
+ OK
! needs attention
rpmlint output:
$ rpmlint libmnetutil \
libmnetutil-devel \
libmnetutil-0.8.0-0.2.20100629svn3775.fc15.src.rpm \
libmnetutil-debuginfo-0.8.0-0.2.20100629svn3775.fc15.i686.rpm
libmnetutil.i686: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Minisip - Mini sip,
Mini-sip, Minister
libmnetutil.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US minisip - mini sip,
mini-sip, minister
libmnetutil.i686: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib/libmnetutil.so.0.0.0 /lib/libm.so.6
libmnetutil.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Minisip - Mini sip,
Mini-sip, Minister
libmnetutil.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US minisip - mini sip,
mini-sip, minister
libmnetutil.src: W: invalid-url Source0: libmnetutil-0.8.0.tar.bz2
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings.
+ Rpmlint warnings are harmless and can be ignored
+ The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
+ Spec file name matches the base package name
+ The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines.
+ The license field in the spec file matches the actual license
+ The package contains license file (COPYING.LIB)
+ Spec file is written in American English
+ Spec file is legible
+ Following instructions in the spec file to check out sources
from upstream svn repo produce matching tarball.
0e0de89d8c816f7cc287816d95769230 libmnetutil-0.8.0.tar.bz2
+ The package builds in koji
n/a ExcludeArch bugs filed
+ BuildRequires look sane
n/a The spec file MUST handle locales properly
+ ldconfig is properly called in %post and %postun
+ Package does not bundle copies of system libraries
n/a Package isn't relocatable
+ Package owns all directories it creates
+ No duplicate files in %files
+ Permissions are properly set and %files has %defattr
+ Consistent use of macros
+ The package must contain code, or permissable content.
n/a Large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage
+ Files marked %doc don't affect the package
+ Header files are in -devel
n/a Static libraries should be in -static
+ Library files that end in .so are in -devel package
+ -devel requires the fully versioned base
+ Package doesn't contain any libtool .la files
n/a Packages containing GUI apps must include %{name}.desktop file
+ Directory ownership sane
+ Filenames are valid UTF-8
Looks good, but take a look at comment #3 before importing into Fedora.
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 640830] New: Review Request: drupal-multisite_manager - Allows creation of new drupal sites from a central drupal site
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: drupal-multisite_manager - Allows creation of new drupal sites from a central drupal site https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=640830 Summary: Review Request: drupal-multisite_manager - Allows creation of new drupal sites from a central drupal site Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: or...@cora.nwra.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/drupal-multisite_manager.spec SRPM URL: http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/drupal-multisite_manager-6.x.1.0-1.fc13.src.rpm Description:Allows creation of new drupal sites from a central drupal site without the creator having access to database info. The new site is installed either in the same database with a different prefix or if the drupal db_user has access to create a database and grant privileges, then possibly there. If you are looking for inter-related sites, this module will not achieve this alone (see Organic Group modules). This simply makes it possible for users to skip the typical drupal installation process (entering the db user/password), making it possible for non-admins to do this step. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 626699] Review Request: libmcrypto - A C++ library providing various cryptography related utilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=626699 Kalev Lember ka...@smartlink.ee changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ka...@smartlink.ee Bug 626699 depends on bug 626446, which changed state. Bug 626446 Summary: Review Request: libmutil - A C++ library providing various utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=626446 What|Old Value |New Value Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA Resolution||ERRATA Status|ON_QA |CLOSED --- Comment #1 from Kalev Lember ka...@smartlink.ee 2010-10-06 17:13:43 EDT --- I'd be happy to review this one. Is the Whiteboard: NotReady only because all of the deps were not yet built in Fedora? Patch1: libmcrypto-0001-Fix-building-with-gnutls-and-new-GCC.patch Patch2: libmcrypto-0002-Compile-OpenSSL-module-with-newest-GCC.patch Patch3: libmcrypto-0003-Compile-with-OpenSSL-1.0.patch These patches (at least 1 and 3, I don't really understand how 2 works) look like nice upstreamable fixes. If upstream uses a public bug tracker it would be nice to add a comment with a link to the ticket which tracks upstream inclusion for these patches. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 #16 from Mark McKinstry mmcki...@nexcess.net 2010-10-06 17:19:36 EDT --- Thank you for the review and sponsorship Martin. I'll use the version macro in the Source0 line too, I always try to use macros wherever possible but somehow missed it on this 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 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 Mark McKinstry mmcki...@nexcess.net changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #17 from Mark McKinstry mmcki...@nexcess.net 2010-10-06 17:22:44 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: mg Short Description: Tiny Emacs-like editor Owners: mmckinst Branches: f12 f13 f14 el4 el5 el6 InitialCC: mmckinst -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 567094] Review Request: mumble - Voice chat suite aimed at gamers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=567094 --- Comment #46 from Thomas Kowaliczek linuxdon...@linuxdonald.de 2010-10-06 17:27:41 EDT --- Is that here done? Can it anyone close 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 640356] clutter-gtk3
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=640356 --- Comment #9 from Matthias Clasen mcla...@redhat.com 2010-10-06 18:26:50 EDT --- Doesn't build in mock: + /usr/bin/bzip2 -dc /builddir/build/SOURCES/clutter-gtk-0.90.2.tar.bz2 + /bin/tar -xf - + STATUS=0 + '[' 0 -ne 0 ']' + cd clutter-gtk3-0.90.2 /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.IX6xGD: line 38: cd: clutter-gtk3-0.90.2: No such file or directory I think you probably typoed, and wanted to package version 0.91.2 ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 #18 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2010-10-06 19:19:54 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 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 #55 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2010-10-06 19:21:18 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 637904] Review Request: rubygem-atk - Ruby binding of ATK-1.x
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=637904 --- Comment #8 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2010-10-06 19:26:42 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 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 #21 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2010-10-06 19:22:52 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 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 --- Comment #7 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2010-10-06 19:25:21 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 639272] Review Request: rubygem-rack-accept - HTTP Accept for Ruby/Rack
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=639272 --- Comment #7 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2010-10-06 19:27:01 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 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 #16 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2010-10-06 19:24:06 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 637448] Review Request: rubygem-glib2 - Ruby binding of GLib-2.x
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=637448 --- Comment #8 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2010-10-06 19:25:47 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 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 --- Comment #5 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2010-10-06 19:28:05 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 633215] Review Request: SimplyHTML - Application and a java component for rich text 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=633215 --- Comment #13 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2010-10-06 19:24:49 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 639727] Review Request: dia-optics - Dia Optics shapes
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=639727 --- Comment #3 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2010-10-06 19:27:23 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
[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 --- Comment #10 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2010-10-06 19:29:18 EDT --- Our processing script says: WARNING: Requested package name libreoffice doesn't match bug summary LibreOffice Should this be libreoffice or LibreOffice? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 640139] vte3 - A terminal emulator for GTK+ 3
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=640139 --- Comment #4 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2010-10-06 19:30:03 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 640557] Review Request: smartcardpp - Library for accessing smart cards
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=640557 --- Comment #4 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2010-10-06 19:31:35 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
