[Bug 640455] Review Request: python-pyro - Pyro is short for PYthon Remote Objects.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=640455 --- Comment #4 from Martin Gieseking 2010-10-12 02:45:09 EDT --- Hi David, if you plan to maintain this package for Fedora >= 13 only, please also drop the BuildRoot field and "rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT" in %install. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 639594] Review Request: scout - A CLI interface to Tomboy notes and Gnote
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=639594 --- Comment #10 from Martin Gieseking 2010-10-12 02:30:27 EDT --- Thanks for the feedback, Gabriel. (In reply to comment #9) > yes, the license of the project is a 3-clause BSD, as found in the file > LICENSE. That's fine. Currently, it looks like a 4 clause license because of the additional asterisk before "this". Maybe you can drop it. But that's just cosmetic. > about the point: "Neither of source file contains any license notice". > Does this mean packaging requires that all source files contain a line that > mentions the license? No, it doesn't. Damian just pointed out that a note on your project website says there are short license notices present in the source files, but they aren't. It's an inconsistency but not a reason to block the review here. > for the name of the tar archive: this is indeed a bit of a problem. It's > probably due to the way GitHub names the archive files. > FWIW, for the .deb packages, I use a service [1] that generates stable URLs > from tagged archives on github. I hope it can be useful for RPM also. Is version 0.4-0-ga2ae61f the official release of version 0.4? In this case the additional hash is a bit confusing because it makes the tarball look like a snapshot release of an upcoming version 0.4 that may still change. If possible, please provide a tarball without additional tags in the filename when releasing a final version. Damian, sorry, I didn't intend to take over your review. Please continue reviewing this package submission. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 226100] Merge Review: lksctp-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=226100 Parag AN(पराग) changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jsafr...@redhat.com --- Comment #4 from Parag AN(पराग) 2010-10-12 02:22:44 EDT --- ping jsafrane -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 226030] Merge Review: libiec61883
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226030 --- Comment #5 from Parag AN(पराग) 2010-10-12 02:21:08 EDT --- ping -- 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 226343] Merge Review: python-ldap
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226343 Parag AN(पराग) changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ Last Closed||2010-10-12 01:55:18 --- Comment #4 from Parag AN(पराग) 2010-10-12 01:55:18 EDT --- Committed this patch now and built in python-ldap-2.3.12-1.fc15 -- 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 226349] Merge Review: pyxf86config
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226349 Parag AN(पराग) changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ Last Closed||2010-10-12 01:55:20 --- Comment #2 from Parag AN(पराग) 2010-10-12 01:55:20 EDT --- Fixed in pyxf86config-0.3.37-9.fc15 APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 225803] Merge Review: glade2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225803 Parag AN(पराग) changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ Last Closed||2010-10-12 01:55:23 --- Comment #2 from Parag AN(पराग) 2010-10-12 01:55:23 EDT --- Applied above patch and built in glade2-2.12.2-8.fc15 APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 591190] Review Request: debhelper - Helper programs for debian/rules
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=591190
--- Comment #7 from Ralf Corsepius 2010-10-12 01:48:04
EDT ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Fixed comment 3:
> > BuildRequires: dpkg-devel seems not needed,
> Removed (Also Debian does not list dpkg-dev as BR of debhelper)
BR: dpkg-devel is required to pull-in dpkg-parsechangelog
Without it, your package doesn't build correctly:
...
+ make build
/bin/sh: dpkg-parsechangelog: command not found
printf "package Debian::Debhelper::Dh_Version;\n\$version='';\n1" > \
Debian/Debhelper/Dh_Version.pm
/bin/sh: dpkg-parsechangelog: command not found
cat debhelper.pod | \
perl -e ' undef $/; foreach (@ARGV) { open (IN, $_) or die "$_: $!";
$file=; close IN; if ($file=~m/=head1 .*?\n\n(.*?) - (.*?)\n\n/s) { my
$item="=item $1(1)\n\n$2\n\n"; if ($2!~/deprecated/) { $list.=$item; } else {
$list_deprecated.=$item; } } } END { while () { s/#LIST#/$list/;
s/#LIST_DEPRECATED#/$list_deprecated/; print; }; }' `find . -maxdepth 1 -type f
-perm +100 -name "dh_*" | sort` | \
pod2man -c Debhelper -r "" --name="debhelper" --section=7 > debhelper.7
/bin/sh: dpkg-parsechangelog: command not found
/bin/sh: dpkg-parsechangelog: command not found
/bin/sh: dpkg-parsechangelog: command not found
..
It also fails to exercise its testsuite:
make test
...
t/buildsystems/buildsystem_tests .. 1/300 Can't exec "dpkg-architecture"
> * The examples/ directory contain "debian/rules" files which are, by
>definition executable "scripts" run by /usr/bin/make
>[10 out of 12 rpmlint warnings]
Please chmod -x them.
Inside of the Fedora package, these are meant to be mere informative
documentation and not supposed to be executable/to be run by anybody.
Furthermore:
* The package comes with a testsuite. Please add a %check section to your spec
executing "make test".
Doing so, triggers a couple of errors. AFAIS, some of them seem to be
originating from perl-5.10/5.12 incompatibilities in Fedora's dpkg (Could be an
indication of Fedora's dpkg packages to be outdated or broken) or of Fedora's
dpkg to be incompatibile to this debhelper package (I haven't investigated in
depth).
* Consider (Not a blocker) to make the Makefile/configury aware of rpm's
installation directories. AFAIS, upstream has hard-coded the installation
paths.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 225815] Merge Review: gnome-desktop
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225815 Parag AN(पराग) changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ Last Closed||2010-10-12 01:40:06 --- Comment #2 from Parag AN(पराग) 2010-10-12 01:40:06 EDT --- committed updated patch above as current spec got updated in between. Built in gnome-desktop-2.32.0-2.fc15 APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 225681] Merge Review: desktop-file-utils
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225681 Parag AN(पराग) changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED CC||panem...@gmail.com Resolution||NEXTRELEASE AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|panem...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review+ Last Closed||2010-10-12 00:34:52 --- Comment #18 from Parag AN(पराग) 2010-10-12 00:34:52 EDT --- Thanks. I have committed above patch and built new package desktop-file-utils-0.16-2.fc15 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 635788] Review Request: nautilus-terminal - Terminal embedded in Nautilus
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=635788 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||nautilus-terminal-0.7-1.fc1 ||4 Resolution||ERRATA Last Closed||2010-10-11 23:09:30 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 624471] Review Request: perl-Lingua-EN-Tagger - Part-of-speech tagger for English natural language processing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=624471 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version||perl-Lingua-EN-Tagger-0.16- ||2.fc14 Resolution|NEXTRELEASE |ERRATA -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 624471] Review Request: perl-Lingua-EN-Tagger - Part-of-speech tagger for English natural language processing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=624471 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System 2010-10-11 23:09:48 EDT --- perl-Lingua-EN-Tagger-0.16-2.fc14 has been pushed to the Fedora 14 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 635788] Review Request: nautilus-terminal - Terminal embedded in Nautilus
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=635788 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System 2010-10-11 23:09:25 EDT --- nautilus-terminal-0.7-1.fc14 has been pushed to the Fedora 14 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 591190] Review Request: debhelper - Helper programs for debian/rules
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=591190 --- Comment #6 from Oron Peled 2010-10-11 20:04:10 EDT --- Forgot to mention in comment 5: bumped version to 8.0.0 to match Squeeze version. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 591190] Review Request: debhelper - Helper programs for debian/rules
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=591190
Oron Peled changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||o...@actcom.co.il
--- Comment #5 from Oron Peled 2010-10-11 20:00:19 EDT ---
Fixed comment 3:
> debhelper.src:11: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line
11)
Done
> Requires: man is not needed.
Removed
> %doc examples/ doc/ could be changed to %doc examples/ doc/*.
Done
> BuildRequires: dpkg-devel seems not needed,
Removed (Also Debian does not list dpkg-dev as BR of debhelper)
> also po4a is not available in fedora.
po4a is in Fedora (comment 4), so it was added as a BuildRequires.
> For man page, lang(locale) should add before %{_mandir}/locale/
> or use gettext (%find_lang --with-man)
Done.
SPEC URL:
http://oron.fedorapeople.org/deb-package/debhelper.spec
SRPM URL:
http://oron.fedorapeople.org/deb-package/debhelper-8.0.0-1.fc13.src.rpm
rpmlint output:
$ rpmlint ./debhelper.spec
/usr/local/src/rpmbuilder/rpmbuild/SRPMS/debhelper-8.0.0-1.fc13.src.rpm
/usr/local/src/rpmbuilder/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/debhelper-8.0.0-1.fc13.noarch.rpm
debhelper.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US debconf -> deb conf,
deb-conf, debonair
debhelper.noarch: E: devel-dependency dpkg-devel
debhelper.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US debconf -> deb conf,
deb-conf, debonair
debhelper.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/share/doc/debhelper-8.0.0/examples/rules.multi2
debhelper.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/share/doc/debhelper-8.0.0/examples/rules.multi
debhelper.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/share/doc/debhelper-8.0.0/examples/rules.arch
debhelper.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/share/doc/debhelper-8.0.0/examples/rules.indep
debhelper.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/share/doc/debhelper-8.0.0/examples/rules.tiny
debhelper.noarch: W: doc-file-dependency
/usr/share/doc/debhelper-8.0.0/examples/rules.multi2 /usr/bin/make
debhelper.noarch: W: doc-file-dependency
/usr/share/doc/debhelper-8.0.0/examples/rules.multi /usr/bin/make
debhelper.noarch: W: doc-file-dependency
/usr/share/doc/debhelper-8.0.0/examples/rules.arch /usr/bin/make
debhelper.noarch: W: doc-file-dependency
/usr/share/doc/debhelper-8.0.0/examples/rules.indep /usr/bin/make
debhelper.noarch: W: doc-file-dependency
/usr/share/doc/debhelper-8.0.0/examples/rules.tiny /usr/bin/make
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 12 warnings.
Notes:
* The examples/ directory contain "debian/rules" files which are, by
definition executable "scripts" run by /usr/bin/make
[10 out of 12 rpmlint warnings]
* rpmlint spell warning about "debconf"
[2 out of 12 rpm warnings, one from SRPM, another from RPM]
* Dependency devel rpmlint error is unjustified, since debhelper
is a devel package itself.
My fixes are meant to help unblock bug 591192 and eventually, bug 591388.
I am willing to co-maintain these packages if needed.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 639594] Review Request: scout - A CLI interface to Tomboy notes and Gnote
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=639594 --- Comment #9 from Gabriel Filion 2010-10-11 19:42:49 EDT --- yes, the license of the project is a 3-clause BSD, as found in the file LICENSE. only the file format-subst.pl is under LGPL-v2 and this file is useful only when working in the git repository (it generates the file with the version tag). it shouldn't change anything in an exported archive and it is not installed with the python code. about the point: "Neither of source file contains any license notice". Does this mean packaging requires that all source files contain a line that mentions the license? for the name of the tar archive: this is indeed a bit of a problem. It's probably due to the way GitHub names the archive files. FWIW, for the .deb packages, I use a service [1] that generates stable URLs from tagged archives on github. I hope it can be useful for RPM also. about the name clash: argh! I made sure I searched around to see if other projects already used this name. if possible to package it without changing the name yet another time, I'd be grateful. [1]:http://githubredir.debian.net/ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 519521] Review Request: kompozer - Web Authoring System
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=519521
--- Comment #13 from Orion Poplawski 2010-10-11 19:18:25
EDT ---
Source0 should be:
Source0:
http://downloads.sourceforge.net/kompozer/current/0.8b3/%{name}-%{upstream_version}-src.tar.bz2
Also, langpacks appear to have moved:
Source2:
http://kompozer.sourceforge.net/l10n/langpacks/kompozer-0.8b3/kompozer-0.8b3.ca.xpi
Source3:
http://kompozer.sourceforge.net/l10n/langpacks/kompozer-0.8b3/kompozer-0.8b3.cs.xpi
Source4:
http://kompozer.sourceforge.net/l10n/langpacks/kompozer-0.8b3/kompozer-0.8b3.da.xpi
Source5:
http://kompozer.sourceforge.net/l10n/langpacks/kompozer-0.8b3/kompozer-0.8b3.de.xpi
Source6:
http://kompozer.sourceforge.net/l10n/langpacks/kompozer-0.8b3/kompozer-0.8b3.en-US.xpi
Source7:
http://kompozer.sourceforge.net/l10n/langpacks/kompozer-0.8b3/kompozer-0.8b3.eo.xpi
Source8:
http://kompozer.sourceforge.net/l10n/langpacks/kompozer-0.8b3/kompozer-0.8b3.es-ES.xpi
Source9:
http://kompozer.sourceforge.net/l10n/langpacks/kompozer-0.8b3/kompozer-0.8b3.fi.xpi
Source10:
http://kompozer.sourceforge.net/l10n/langpacks/kompozer-0.8b3/kompozer-0.8b3.fr.xpi
Source11:
http://kompozer.sourceforge.net/l10n/langpacks/kompozer-0.8b3/kompozer-0.8b3.hu.xpi
Source12:
http://kompozer.sourceforge.net/l10n/langpacks/kompozer-0.8b3/kompozer-0.8b3.hsb.xpi
Source13:
http://kompozer.sourceforge.net/l10n/langpacks/kompozer-0.8b3/kompozer-0.8b3.it.xpi
Source14:
http://kompozer.sourceforge.net/l10n/langpacks/kompozer-0.8b3/kompozer-0.8b3.ja.xpi
Source15:
http://kompozer.sourceforge.net/l10n/langpacks/kompozer-0.8b3/kompozer-0.8b3.ko.xpi
Source16:
http://kompozer.sourceforge.net/l10n/langpacks/kompozer-0.8b3/kompozer-0.8b3.nl.xpi
Source17:
http://kompozer.sourceforge.net/l10n/langpacks/kompozer-0.8b3/kompozer-0.8b3.pl.xpi
Source18:
http://kompozer.sourceforge.net/l10n/langpacks/kompozer-0.8b3/kompozer-0.8b3.pt-BR.xpi
Source19:
http://kompozer.sourceforge.net/l10n/langpacks/kompozer-0.8b3/kompozer-0.8b3.pt-PT.xpi
Source20:
http://kompozer.sourceforge.net/l10n/langpacks/kompozer-0.8b3/kompozer-0.8b3.ru.xpi
Source21:
http://kompozer.sourceforge.net/l10n/langpacks/kompozer-0.8b3/kompozer-0.8b3.sl.xpi
Source22:
http://kompozer.sourceforge.net/l10n/langpacks/kompozer-0.8b3/kompozer-0.8b3.uk.xpi
Source23:
http://kompozer.sourceforge.net/l10n/langpacks/kompozer-0.8b3/kompozer-0.8b3.zh-CN.xpi
Source24:
http://kompozer.sourceforge.net/l10n/langpacks/kompozer-0.8b3/kompozer-0.8b3.zh-TW.xpi
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 638402] Review Request: haildb - A relational database in shared library form
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=638402 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System 2010-10-11 18:53:05 EDT --- haildb-2.2.0-2.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update haildb'. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/haildb-2.2.0-2.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 638647] Review Request: mom - Dynamically manage system resources on virtualization hosts
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=638647 --- Comment #3 from Xavier Bachelot 2010-10-11 18:40:39 EDT --- oh and also, missing release tag in changelog. 0.2.1 should be 0.2.1-1 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 638647] Review Request: mom - Dynamically manage system resources on virtualization hosts
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=638647
Xavier Bachelot changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xav...@bachelot.org
--- Comment #2 from Xavier Bachelot 2010-10-11 18:37:44
EDT ---
A couple comments :
- in file section, %(_bindir)/usr/sbin/momd should be %{_sbindir}/momd
- files in /usr/share/doc/mom/examples should rather be installed in
%{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version} and thus you won't need to specify it as %doc
- %doc is missing the COPYING file
trimmed rpmlint output :
mom.src:4: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 4, tab: line 4)
mom.x86_64: E: no-binary
mom.x86_64: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/mom/Collectors/GuestNetworkDaemon.py 0644L
/usr/bin/env
mom.x86_64: W: service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/momd
mom.x86_64: E: malformed-line-in-lsb-comment-block # system resources
mom.x86_64: W: incoherent-subsys /etc/rc.d/init.d/momd $prog
mom.x86_64: W: service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/momd
mom-debuginfo.x86_64: E: empty-debuginfo-package
- please fix space/tabs issue
- package should be noarch
- service shouldn't be enabled by default
- remove broken LSB line in initscript
Also, if this is your first package, you need to be sponsored and thus this bug
needs to block FE-NEEDSPONSOR.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 630339] Review Request: python-redis - A Python client for redis
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=630339 --- Comment #1 from Silas Sewell 2010-10-11 18:08:29 EDT --- Just noticed that I accidentally posted the wrong RPM type, here is the SRPM: http://github.com/downloads/silas/rpms/python-redis-2.0.0-1.fc13.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 638362] Review Request: python26-mod_python - An embedded Python interpreter for the Apache HTTP Server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=638362 BJ Dierkes 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 641471] Review Request: python26-mod_wsgi - A WSGI interface for Python web applications in Apache
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=641471 --- Comment #4 from BJ Dierkes 2010-10-11 17:54:41 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python26-mod_wsgi Short Description: A WSGI interface for Python web applications in Apache Owners: derks Branches: el5 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 641485] Review Request: python26-simplejson - Simple, fast, extensible JSON encoder/decoder for Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=641485 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System 2010-10-11 17:56:46 EDT --- python26-simplejson-2.1.1-1.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python26-simplejson-2.1.1-1.el5 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 638362] Review Request: python26-mod_python - An embedded Python interpreter for the Apache HTTP Server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=638362 --- Comment #10 from BJ Dierkes 2010-10-11 17:58:54 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python26-mod_python Short Description: An embedded Python interpreter for the Apache HTTP Server Owners: derks Branches: el5 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 641485] Review Request: python26-simplejson - Simple, fast, extensible JSON encoder/decoder for Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=641485 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |MODIFIED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 641471] Review Request: python26-mod_wsgi - A WSGI interface for Python web applications in Apache
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=641471 BJ Dierkes 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 562993] Review Request: rubygem-yard - Documentation tool for consistent and usable documentation in 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=562993 Michael Stahnke changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mastah...@gmail.com --- Comment #9 from Michael Stahnke 2010-10-11 17:49:31 EDT --- Would you like to branch this for EPEL? If you'd rather not maintain it, I'd be happy to. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 638402] Review Request: haildb - A relational database in shared library form
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=638402 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |MODIFIED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 638402] Review Request: haildb - A relational database in shared library form
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=638402 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System 2010-10-11 17:45:23 EDT --- haildb-2.2.0-2.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/haildb-2.2.0-2.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 638402] Review Request: haildb - A relational database in shared library form
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=638402 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System 2010-10-11 17:45:03 EDT --- haildb-2.2.0-2.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/haildb-2.2.0-2.fc14 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 638402] Review Request: haildb - A relational database in shared library form
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=638402 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System 2010-10-11 17:45:10 EDT --- haildb-2.2.0-2.fc12 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 12. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/haildb-2.2.0-2.fc12 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 638402] Review Request: haildb - A relational database in shared library form
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=638402 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System 2010-10-11 17:45:16 EDT --- haildb-2.2.0-2.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/haildb-2.2.0-2.fc13 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 640455] Review Request: python-pyro - Pyro is short for PYthon Remote Objects.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=640455 --- Comment #3 from David Hannequin 2010-10-11 16:19:08 EDT --- Hi, New spec file and srpm with your remark : Spec URL: http://hvad.fedorapeople.org/fedora/python-pyro/python-pyro.spec SRPM URL: http://hvad.fedorapeople.org/fedora/python-pyro/python-pyro-4.0-2.fc13.noarch.rpm Best regard -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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] Review Request: 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 changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #19 from Matthias Clasen 2010-10-11 15:47:26 EDT --- Looks ok now. 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 641485] Review Request: python26-simplejson - Simple, fast, extensible JSON encoder/decoder for Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=641485 --- Comment #7 from Kevin Fenzi 2010-10-11 15:45:43 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 638402] Review Request: haildb - A relational database in shared library form
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=638402 --- Comment #8 from Kevin Fenzi 2010-10-11 15:45:12 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 641485] Review Request: python26-simplejson - Simple, fast, extensible JSON encoder/decoder for Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=641485 --- Comment #6 from BJ Dierkes 2010-10-11 15:31:40 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python26-simplejson Short Description: Simple, fast, extensible JSON encoder/decoder for Python Owners: derks Branches: el5 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 641485] Review Request: python26-simplejson - Simple, fast, extensible JSON encoder/decoder for Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=641485 BJ Dierkes 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 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 #10 from Fedora Update System 2010-10-11 15:24:15 EDT --- rubygem-amazon-ec2-0.9.15-3.fc13 has been pushed to the Fedora 13 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 639617] Review Request: rubygem-cucumber-rails - Cucumber Generators and Runtime for Rails
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=639617 Mamoru Tasaka changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Mamoru Tasaka 2010-10-11 15:23:33 EDT --- (In reply to comment #4) > (In reply to comment #2) > > ! Note > > Building this rpm requires rubygem-cucumber-0.9.0-4.fc14 > > (now in testing) for gherkin dependency > > This update has been pushed to stable For F-14, it seems that this is still in -testing. For -4: - Please set %defattr(-,root,root,-) on -doc subpackage. - installed gemspec file says that the dependency for rubygem(cucumber) should be ">= 0.8.0", not ">= 0.9.0". Please fix the above when importing this package into Fedora SCM. This package (rubygem-cucumber-rails) 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 469931] Review Request: ipmiutil - IPMI Management 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=469931 --- Comment #54 from Dan Horák 2010-10-11 15:24:12 EDT --- (In reply to comment #52) > Hans, > > I have a new version 2.7.x with enhancements that I would like to update into > the CVS rawhide branch targeted for EL6. The wiki isn't very clear on this > procedure, and it seems to be in transition between cvs and git syntax also. > Since the cvs directory does not contain individual source files, should I > re-import a new src.rpm? What is the correct procedure? EPEL lives in the same git repo as Fedora branches, do "fedpkg switch-branch el6" and you have content the EL-6 branch. Because it's empty you can use "fedpkg import --branch el6 your.srpm" or just copy the ipmiutil.spec and sources from the master branch and continue with commit and push. And as Hans pointed out - #fedora-devel (or #epel) is the best place to get the answers quickly. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Fixed In Version||rubygem-amazon-ec2-0.9.15-3 ||.fc13 Resolution||ERRATA Last Closed||2010-10-11 15:24:20 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 638402] Review Request: haildb - A relational database in shared library form
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=638402 --- Comment #7 from BJ Dierkes 2010-10-11 15:26:29 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: haildb Short Description: A relational database in shared library form Owners: derks Branches: el5 el6 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 638402] Review Request: haildb - A relational database in shared library form
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=638402 BJ Dierkes 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 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 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System 2010-10-11 15:22:27 EDT --- rubygem-aws-2.3.21-4.fc13 has been pushed to the Fedora 13 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update rubygem-aws'. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rubygem-aws-2.3.21-4.fc13 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 639619] Review Request: rubygem-simple-navigation - Ruby library for creating navigation for your Rails2 or Sinatra application
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=639619 Mamoru Tasaka changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Mamoru Tasaka 2010-10-11 14:38:32 EDT --- Please set %defattr(-,root,root,-) on -doc subpackage. --- This package (rubygem-simple-navigation) is APPROVED by mtasaka --- By the way I would appreciate it if you would review my review request (bug 639098) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 637985] Review Request: rubygem-pango - Ruby binding of pango-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=637985 Mamoru Tasaka changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mfoj...@redhat.com QAContact|mfoj...@redhat.com |extras...@fedoraproject.org -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 Kevin Fenzi changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #5 from Kevin Fenzi 2010-10-11 14:36:34 EDT --- Git done (manually). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 632342] Review Request: eclipse-mpc - Eclipse Marketplace Client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=632342 --- Comment #22 from Kevin Fenzi 2010-10-11 14:27:45 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 637985] Review Request: rubygem-pango - Ruby binding of pango-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=637985 --- Comment #5 from Kevin Fenzi 2010-10-11 14:28:21 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 457543] Review Request: perl-IPTables-Parse - A Perl extension for parsing iptables firewall rulesets
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=457543 --- Comment #6 from Kevin Fenzi 2010-10-11 14:23:28 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 626462] Review Request: libmstun - A C++ library providing STUN client 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=626462 --- Comment #5 from Kevin Fenzi 2010-10-11 14:26:02 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 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 --- Comment #7 from Kevin Fenzi 2010-10-11 14:26:40 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 165407] Review Request: srecord - Manipulate EPROM load files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=165407 --- Comment #7 from Kevin Fenzi 2010-10-11 14:22:27 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 457543] Review Request: perl-IPTables-Parse - A Perl extension for parsing iptables firewall rulesets
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=457543 Mark Chappell changed: What|Removed |Added CC||trem...@tremble.org.uk Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Mark Chappell 2010-10-11 14:15:17 EDT --- Package Change Request == Package Name: perl-IPTables-Parse New Branches: EL-5 EL-6 Owners: tremble InitialCC: perl-sig Permission to branch from mitr on #fedora-devel (times in CEST) Oct 11 20:00:02mitr : Would you be willing to branch perl-IPTables-Parse for EPEL (EL5+), alternatively would you be happy for me to branch it? Oct 11 20:04:20 tremble: I don't use the package much - I'd be happy to let you maintain the EL5 branch, or even take over the package if you plan to do changes. I'd rather not maintain an EL5 branch myself. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 469931] Review Request: ipmiutil - IPMI Management 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=469931 Hans de Goede changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|needinfo? | --- Comment #53 from Hans de Goede 2010-10-11 13:45:36 EDT --- (In reply to comment #52) > Hans, > > I have a new version 2.7.x with enhancements that I would like to update into > the CVS rawhide branch targeted for EL6. The wiki isn't very clear on this > procedure, and it seems to be in transition between cvs and git syntax also. > Since the cvs directory does not contain individual source files, should I > re-import a new src.rpm? What is the correct procedure? > > Andy Hi, I'm not all that familiar with EPEL I'm afraid is EPEL still using CVS? If so then using cvs-import.sh on a new srpm is probably the easiest way to update. Regards, Hans p.s. You can always ask questions like these in the #fedora-devel channel on the freenode irc network. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 638647] Review Request: mom - Dynamically manage system resources on virtualization hosts
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=638647 --- Comment #1 from Adam Litke 2010-10-11 13:34:47 EDT --- It doesn't look like there has been any movement on this review request since I submitted it. Have I missed some required data or made some other mistake? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System 2010-10-11 13:30:22 EDT --- mawk-1.3.4-5.20100625.el4 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 4 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update mawk'. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mawk-1.3.4-5.20100625.el4 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 641727] Review Request: mingw32-libffi: portable foreign function interface library for Fedora MinGW
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=641727
Erik van Pienbroek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||erik-fed...@vanpienbroek.nl
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Erik van Pienbroek 2010-10-11
12:58:37 EDT ---
$ rpmlint mingw32-libffi.spec
mingw32-libffi.spec:18: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 18, tab:
line 7)
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
$ rpmlint mingw32-libffi-3.0.9-1.fc14.src.rpm
mingw32-libffi.src:18: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 18, tab:
line 7)
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
$ rpmlint mingw32-libffi-3.0.9-1.fc14.noarch.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
$ rpmquery --requires mingw32-libffi
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
mingw32-filesystem >= 56
mingw32-runtime
mingw32(kernel32.dll)
mingw32(msvcrt.dll)
rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1
$ rpmquery --provides mingw32-libffi
mingw32(libffi-5.dll)
mingw32-libffi = 3.0.9-1.fc14
$ rpmquery --fileprovide mingw32-libffi
/usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/bin/libffi-5.dll
/usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libffi-3.0.9
/usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libffi-3.0.9/include
/usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libffi-3.0.9/include/ffi.h
/usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libffi-3.0.9/include/ffitarget.h
/usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libffi.dll.a
/usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libffi.la
/usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/pkgconfig/libffi.pc
/usr/share/doc/mingw32-libffi-3.0.9
/usr/share/doc/mingw32-libffi-3.0.9/LICENSE
/usr/share/doc/mingw32-libffi-3.0.9/README
$ curl ftp://sourceware.org/pub/libffi/libffi-3.0.9.tar.gz | md5sum
% Total% Received % Xferd Average Speed TimeTime Time Current
Dload Upload Total SpentLeft Speed
100 714k 100 714k0 0 144k 0 0:00:04 0:00:04 --:--:-- 169k
1f300a7a7f975d4046f51c3022fa5ff1 -
$ md5sum libffi-3.0.9.tar.gz
1f300a7a7f975d4046f51c3022fa5ff1 libffi-3.0.9.tar.gz
+ OK
! Needs to be looked into
/ Not applicable
* Overridden by MinGW guidelines
[+] Files are installed in /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw
[+] BuildRequires: mingw32-filesystem >= xx is in the .spec file
[+] Requires are OK
[+] BuildArch: noarch
[+] No man pages or info files
[+] default strip and objdump commands are overridden with mingw32 specific
ones
[+] rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the
review
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption on Package Naming Guidelines
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines .
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[+] MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package must be included in %doc.
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL.
[+] MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one supported architecture.
[/] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch.
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for
any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional.
[/] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
[/] MUST: Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files (not just
symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in
%post and %postun.
[/] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package.
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates.
[+] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
[+] MUST: Permissions on files mus
[Bug 639991] Review Request: rubygem-rb-inotify - A Ruby wrapper for Linux's inotify, using FFI
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=639991 Mamoru Tasaka changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Mamoru Tasaka 2010-10-11 12:56:04 EDT --- Please fix (revert) the URL (not rb-notify but rb-inotify) This package (rubygem-rb-inotify) 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 641726] Review Request: mingw32-libsigsegv: user mode page fault handling library for Fedora MinGW
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=641726
Erik van Pienbroek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Erik van Pienbroek 2010-10-11
12:45:04 EDT ---
$ rpmlint mingw32-libsigsegv.spec
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
$ rpmlint mingw32-libsigsegv-2.6-1.fc14.src.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
$ rpmlint mingw32-libsigsegv-2.6-1.fc14.noarch.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
$ rpmquery --requires mingw32-libsigsegv
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
mingw32-filesystem >= 56
mingw32-runtime
mingw32(kernel32.dll)
mingw32(msvcrt.dll)
rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1
$ rpmquery --provides mingw32-libsigsegv
mingw32(libsigsegv-0.dll)
mingw32-libsigsegv = 2.6-1.fc14
$ rpmquery --fileprovide mingw32-libsigsegv
/usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/bin/libsigsegv-0.dll
/usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/sigsegv.h
/usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libsigsegv.dll.a
/usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libsigsegv.la
/usr/share/doc/mingw32-libsigsegv-2.6
/usr/share/doc/mingw32-libsigsegv-2.6/AUTHORS
/usr/share/doc/mingw32-libsigsegv-2.6/COPYING
/usr/share/doc/mingw32-libsigsegv-2.6/NEWS
/usr/share/doc/mingw32-libsigsegv-2.6/README
$ curl http://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/libsigsegv/libsigsegv-2.6.tar.gz | md5sum
% Total% Received % Xferd Average Speed TimeTime Time Current
Dload Upload Total SpentLeft Speed
100 340k 100 340k0 0 168k 0 0:00:02 0:00:02 --:--:-- 181k
7e24993730649d13c6eabc28bd24de35 -
$ md5sum libsigsegv-2.6.tar.gz
7e24993730649d13c6eabc28bd24de35 libsigsegv-2.6.tar.gz
+ OK
! Needs to be looked into
/ Not applicable
* Overridden by MinGW guidelines
[+] Files are installed in /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw
[+] BuildRequires: mingw32-filesystem >= xx is in the .spec file
[+] Requires are OK
[+] BuildArch: noarch
[+] No man pages or info files
[+] default strip and objdump commands are overridden with mingw32 specific
ones
[+] rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the
review
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption on Package Naming Guidelines
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines .
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[+] MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package must be included in %doc.
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL.
[+] MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one supported architecture.
[/] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch.
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for
any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional.
[/] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
[/] MUST: Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files (not just
symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in
%post and %postun.
[/] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package.
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates.
[+] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros
section of Packaging Guidelines .
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[/] MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage.
[+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application.
[*] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[/] MUST:
[Bug 640356] Review Request: 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 Parag AN(पराग) changed: What|Removed |Added CC||panem...@gmail.com Summary|clutter-gtk3|Review Request: ||clutter-gtk3 --- Comment #18 from Parag AN(पराग) 2010-10-11 12:23:29 EDT --- we have http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process for how to report new package and template https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/enter_bug.cgi?product=Fedora&format=fedora-review for reporting new package 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 637985] Review Request: rubygem-pango - Ruby binding of pango-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=637985 Mamoru Tasaka changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Mamoru Tasaka 2010-10-11 12:18:15 EDT --- Thank you! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: rubygem-pango Short Description: Ruby binding of pango-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 641967] New: Review Request: aether - Sonatype library to resolve, install and deploy artifacts the Maven way
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: aether - Sonatype library to resolve, install and deploy artifacts the Maven way https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=641967 Summary: Review Request: aether - Sonatype library to resolve, install and deploy artifacts the Maven way Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: socho...@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://sochotni.fedorapeople.org/packages/aether.spec SRPM URL: http://sochotni.fedorapeople.org/packages/aether-1.7-1.fc13.src.rpm Description: Aether is standalone library to resolve, install and deploy artifacts the Maven way developed by Sonatype -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 543154] Review Request: mingw32-SDL_mixer - Simple DirectMedia Layer's Sample Mixer 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=543154 Erik van Pienbroek changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo?(fgfs.ste...@gmail ||.com) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 543147] Review Request: mingw32-SDL_image - MinGW Windows port of the Image loading library for SDL
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=543147 Erik van Pienbroek changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 633058] Review Request: mingw32-gdk-pixbuf - MinGW Windows GDK Pixbuf library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=633058 Erik van Pienbroek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE Last Closed||2010-10-11 12:11:09 --- Comment #6 from Erik van Pienbroek 2010-10-11 12:11:09 EDT --- Package has been imported and build successfully for rawhide and 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 543147] Review Request: mingw32-SDL_image - MinGW Windows port of the Image loading library for SDL
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=543147 Erik van Pienbroek changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|needinfo? |needinfo?(fgfs.ste...@gmail ||.com) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 469931] Review Request: ipmiutil - IPMI Management 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=469931 Andy Cress changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo? --- Comment #52 from Andy Cress 2010-10-11 12:06:05 EDT --- Hans, I have a new version 2.7.x with enhancements that I would like to update into the CVS rawhide branch targeted for EL6. The wiki isn't very clear on this procedure, and it seems to be in transition between cvs and git syntax also. Since the cvs directory does not contain individual source files, should I re-import a new src.rpm? What is the correct procedure? Andy -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 641962] New: Review Request: rubygem-couch_potato - Ruby persistence layer for CouchDB
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-couch_potato - Ruby persistence layer for CouchDB https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=641962 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-couch_potato - Ruby persistence layer for CouchDB Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: jzigm...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://st.fri.uniza.sk/~zigmundj/fedorapkg/rubygem-couch_potato.spec SRPM URL: http://st.fri.uniza.sk/~zigmundj/fedorapkg/rubygem-couch_potato-0.3.1-1.fc13.src.rpm Description: The goal of Couch Potato is to create a minimal framework in order to store and retrieve Ruby objects to/from CouchDB and create and query views -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 226110] Merge Review: lucene
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226110
Stanislav Ochotnicky changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||socho...@redhat.com
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|socho...@redhat.com
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Stanislav Ochotnicky 2010-10-11
11:52:55 EDT ---
I'll be doing the merge review
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[!] Rpmlint output:
lucene.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided lucene-devel
Explained in spec
lucene.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/lucene-2.4.1/CHANGES.txt
lucene.src:40: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 31, tab:line 40)
convert respecitve files to UTF-8 and spaces
lucene-contrib.noarch: W: no-documentation
lucene-contrib.noarch: W: class-path-in-manifest
/usr/share/java/lucene-contrib/lucene-lucli-2.4.1.jar
needs to be fixed
lucene-demo.noarch: W: no-documentation
lucene-javadoc.noarch: W: dangerous-command-in-%post rm
lucene-javadoc.noarch: W: dangerous-command-in-%postun rm
javadoc subpackage symlinks should be created during install
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings.
[x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines[1].
[x] Spec file name must match the base package name, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines[2].
[x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms.
[!] Buildroot is correct
(%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n))
[x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines[3,4].
[x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type: ASL 2.0
[x] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package is included in %doc.
[!] All independent sub-packages have license of their own
subpackages should have LICENSE.txt of their own
[x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
MD5SUM this package: ad46595439240e10387fcbf7647705db
MD5SUM upstream package: ad46595439240e10387fcbf7647705db
[x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines[5].
[x] Package must own all directories that it creates.
[!] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Package is missing Requires on Java/jpackage-utils
[x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[!] Permissions on files are set properly.
use defattr(-,root,root,-) in files section
[x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
[x] Package consistently uses macros.
[x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[x] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
[x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x] Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
subpackage
[!] Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
[!] Javadoc subpackages have Require: jpackage-utils
[-] Package uses %global not %define
[-] If package uses tarball from VCS include comment how to re-create that
tarball (svn export URL, git clone URL, ...)
[x] If source tarball includes bundled jar/class files these need to be
removed prior to building
[x] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
=== Other suggestions ===
[x] If possible use upstream build method (maven/ant/javac)
[x] Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} with
%{_javadocdir}/%{name}-%{version} symlink
[-] If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even when
building with ant
[x] Avoid having BuildRequires on exact NVR unless necessary
[x] Package has BuildArch: noarch (if possible)
[!] Latest version is packaged.
Latest version is 3.0.2 (2.9.3 in 2.x line)
[x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
Tested on: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
=== Issues ===
1. rpmlint issues
2. buildroot
3. license in independent sub-packages
4. proper Requires
5. if possible package latest version (if compatibility permits)
=== Other ===
1. it might be good idea to try if tests work now (if not add comment
with date when it was last tried)
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/user
[Bug 641957] New: Review Request: rubygem-database_cleaner - Strategies for cleaning databases
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-database_cleaner - Strategies for cleaning databases https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=641957 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-database_cleaner - Strategies for cleaning databases Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: jzigm...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://st.fri.uniza.sk/~zigmundj/fedorapkg/rubygem-database_cleaner.spec SRPM URL: http://st.fri.uniza.sk/~zigmundj/fedorapkg/rubygem-database_cleaner-0.5.2-1.fc13.src.rpm Description: The original use case was to ensure a clean state during tests. Each strategy is a small amount of code but is code that is usually needed in any ruby app that is testing with a database -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 226317] Merge Review: procinfo
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226317
--- Comment #7 from Vojtech Vitek 2010-10-11 11:45:26 EDT
---
Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable
+ MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
the review
$ rpmlint -v *.spec *.rpm x86_64/*.rpm
procinfo.spec: I: checking-url
ftp://ftp.cistron.nl/pub/people/00-OLD/svm/procinfo-18.tar.gz (timeout 10
seconds)
procinfo.src: I: checking
procinfo.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot C A tool for gathering and displaying
system information.
procinfo.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US filesystem -> file
system, file-system, systematic
procinfo.src: W: no-url-tag
procinfo.src: I: checking-url
ftp://ftp.cistron.nl/pub/people/00-OLD/svm/procinfo-18.tar.gz (timeout 10
seconds)
procinfo.x86_64: I: checking
procinfo.x86_64: W: summary-ended-with-dot C A tool for gathering and
displaying system information.
procinfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US filesystem -> file
system, file-system, systematic
procinfo.x86_64: W: no-url-tag
procinfo.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man8/procinfo.8.gz 181:
warning: `"' not defined
procinfo-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking
procinfo-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-url-tag
3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings.
Ignored, but could be cleaned.
+ MUST: package 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 licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines
+ MUST: The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license
0 MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package must be included in %doc.
+ MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
+ MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
+ MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream
source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task
>From sources:
$ cat sources
27658d0a69040aca05a65b9888599d50 procinfo-18.tar.gz
>From upstream (ftp://ftp.cistron.nl/pub/people/00-OLD/svm/procinfo-18.tar.gz):
$ md5sum procinfo-18.tar.gz
27658d0a69040aca05a65b9888599d50 procinfo-18.tar.gz
= MATCHES
+ MUST: The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture
- tested on x86_64, no problems
0 MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch
+ MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines
0 MUST: The spec file handles locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro
0 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.
0 MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries
0 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
+ MUST: Package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create
a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create
that directory
+ MUST: Package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files
listings
+ MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Every %files section must
include a %defattr(...) line.
+ MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ MUST: Each package must consistently use macros
+ MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content
0 MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage
0 MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime
of the application
0 MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package
0 MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package
0 MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'
0 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
0 MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned
dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
+ MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be
removed in the spec if they are built
0 MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file, and that file must be properly installed w
[Bug 631558] Review Request: arduino - An IDE for Arduino-compatible electronics prototyping platforms
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=631558 --- Comment #21 from Peter Oliver 2010-10-11 11:21:22 EDT --- (In reply to comment #20) > Peter, I'll email you several times about rebuilding this package for EL-6. > Can > you please tell me at least if you are interested ? This is my first package, of an application that is yet to reach an API-stable 1.0 release. I think I'd like to wait a little while to see how things go before committing to support anything for seven years. You're welcome to become co-maintainer if you'd like to take this on yourself. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 Colin Walters changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 532590] Review Request: yaws - Web server for dynamic content written in 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=532590 --- Comment #15 from Peter Lemenkov 2010-10-11 11:10:48 EDT --- (In reply to comment #14) > Peter, thank you. I'm wondering, what's blocking this review? Would it make > sense for me to post an updated package now, or should I wait for the rest of > review? Right now I'm only waiting for 1.89 src.rpm. Just provide it, and I'll finish this review (if no new issues will be discovered). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 532590] Review Request: yaws - Web server for dynamic content written in 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=532590 --- Comment #14 from Lubomir Rintel 2010-10-11 11:04:36 EDT --- Peter, thank you. I'm wondering, what's blocking this review? Would it make sense for me to post an updated package now, or should I wait for the rest of 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 639594] Review Request: scout - A CLI interface to Tomboy notes and Gnote
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=639594 --- Comment #8 from Ankur Sinha 2010-10-11 11:02:16 EDT --- Hello, I've emailed upstream (already ccd to the bug) requesting fixes. I'll provide an updated spec once the tar is fixed up. Thank you. regards, Ankur -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 632342] Review Request: eclipse-mpc - Eclipse Marketplace Client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=632342 Chris Aniszczyk changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #21 from Chris Aniszczyk 2010-10-11 10:19:39 EDT --- Ah sigh, we do it a bit differently at Eclipse and it's so ingrained in my mind. Thanks for the catch. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 226317] Merge Review: procinfo
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226317 Vojtech Vitek 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 637985] Review Request: rubygem-pango - Ruby binding of pango-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=637985 Michal Fojtik changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 637985] Review Request: rubygem-pango - Ruby binding of pango-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=637985
Michal Fojtik changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mfoj...@redhat.com
QAContact|extras...@fedoraproject.org |mfoj...@redhat.com
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Comment #3 from Michal Fojtik 2010-10-11 09:47:30 EDT
---
Review:
[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] When gem install is used to install Gem file, using -V option is recommend
to check if CFLAGS is correctly honored.
[OK] Finally at %install stage the whole tree under the directory created at
%prep stage should be copied (not moved) to under %{buildroot}%{gemdir}.
[OK] When all tree under the directory created at %prep stage is moved to under
%{buildroot}, find_debuginfo.sh will complain that the corresponding source
files are missing.
[OK] Installed C codes (usually under %{geminstdir}/etc) may be removed even if
gem contents %{gemname} reports that installed C codes should be found there.
Unfortunately, I can't build this package because of missing
rubygem-cairo-devel (which is already packaged and waiting in testing I
suppose):
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2527617
Anyway, spec file looks good enough to me. 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 165407] Review Request: srecord - Manipulate EPROM load files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=165407 Tom "spot" Callaway changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Tom "spot" Callaway 2010-10-11 09:44:25 EDT --- Package Change Request == Package Name: srecord New Branches: el6 Owners: spot -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 626462] Review Request: libmstun - A C++ library providing STUN client 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=626462 Peter Lemenkov changed: What|Removed |Added Status Whiteboard|NotReady| Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Peter Lemenkov 2010-10-11 08:40:41 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: libmstun Short Description: A C++ library providing STUN client utilities Owners: peter Branches: f12 f13 f14 el6 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 624660] Review Request: rakudo-star - Rakudo, Perl6-modules, Blizkost and documentation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=624660 --- Comment #30 from Fedora Update System 2010-10-11 08:34:10 EDT --- rakudo-star-0.0.2010.09_2.8.0-1.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rakudo-star-0.0.2010.09_2.8.0-1.fc13 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 624660] Review Request: rakudo-star - Rakudo, Perl6-modules, Blizkost and documentation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=624660 --- Comment #29 from Fedora Update System 2010-10-11 08:32:53 EDT --- rakudo-star-0.0.2010.09_2.8.0-1.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rakudo-star-0.0.2010.09_2.8.0-1.fc14 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 626462] Review Request: libmstun - A C++ library providing STUN client 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=626462
Kalev Lember changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Kalev Lember 2010-10-11 08:28:25 EDT
---
Fedora review libmstun-0.8.0-0.1.20091007svn3734.fc12.src.rpm 2010-10-11
+ OK
! needs attention
rpmlint output:
$ rpmlint libmstun \
libmstun-devel \
libmstun-0.8.0-0.1.20091007svn3734.fc15.src.rpm \
libmstun-debuginfo-0.8.0-0.1.20091007svn3734.fc15.i686.rpm
libmstun.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US minisip -> mini sip,
mini-sip, minister
libmstun.i686: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib/libmstun.so.0.0.0
/lib/libm.so.6
libmstun.i686: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib/libmstun.so.0.0.0
e...@glibc_2.0
libmstun-devel.i686: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libmnstun -> libertinism,
libidinous, libertine
libmstun-devel.i686: W: no-documentation
libmstun.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US minisip -> mini sip,
mini-sip, minister
libmstun.src: W: invalid-url Source0: libmstun-0.8.0.tar.bz2
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings.
+ Rpmlint warnings are mostly harmless and can be ignored.
shared-lib-calls-exit is something to talk about with upstream as it might
result in application crashes if a library unexpectedly calls exit().
+ 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.
8bcc8a0dddc84d3a7e87484c3dda5974 libmstun-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.
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 639617] Review Request: rubygem-cucumber-rails - Cucumber Generators and Runtime for Rails
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=639617 --- Comment #4 from Michal Fojtik 2010-10-11 08:28:16 EDT --- * Mon Oct 11 2010 Michal Fojtik - 0.3.2-4 - Moved tests and documentation to doc subpackage - Fixed licence tag - Removed unused macros - Fixed version dependencies Spec URL: http://mifo.sk/RPMS/rubygem-cucumber-rails.spec SRPM URL: http://mifo.sk/RPMS/rubygem-cucumber-rails-0.3.2-4.fc13.src.rpm (In reply to comment #3) > By the way I would appreciate it if you would review my > review request (bug 637939) Sure. (In reply to comment #2) > ! Note > Building this rpm requires rubygem-cucumber-0.9.0-4.fc14 > (now in testing) for gherkin dependency This update has been pushed to stable -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 593559] Review Request: protobuf-c - C bindings for Google's Protocol Buffers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=593559 --- Comment #15 from Martin Gieseking 2010-10-11 08:30:09 EDT --- OK, thanks. This was a good start. Please choose another uncommented package and do a further informal review to practice a bit more. :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 640455] Review Request: python-pyro - Pyro is short for PYthon Remote Objects.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=640455
Martin Gieseking changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||martin.giesek...@uos.de
--- Comment #2 from Martin Gieseking 2010-10-11
08:26:12 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> %clean is not required for F-13 and above.
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#.25clean
Right, but it's still required for EPEL <= 5. The same is true for the
BuildRoot field and the initial cleaning of the buildroot in %install (both are
optional in Fedora but not in EPEL).
So it doesn't hurt to add the additional lines but simplifies maintaining a
package for Fedora and EPEL.
> NA: 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.[4]
Nope. :)
The tarball contains file LICENSE with the MIT license text. This file is
missing in the %doc list.
Since this is a Python package, a couple of further requirements apply:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python
- The initial macro definition(s) should be wrapped as described in
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Macros
- remove the "packaging comments" like "Remove CFLAGS=" and adapt the SPEC
accordingly
- I suggest to replace the multiple sed statements with
sed -i 's/\r//' README.txt
find examples -type f -exec sed -i 's/\r//' {} \;
- please be a bit more specific in %files:
%{python_sitelib}/Pyro-*.egg-info
%{python_sitelib}/Pyro/
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 626462] Review Request: libmstun - A C++ library providing STUN client 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=626462 --- Comment #2 from Kalev Lember 2010-10-11 08:11:28 EDT --- Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2527514 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 626462] Review Request: libmstun - A C++ library providing STUN client 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=626462 Kalev Lember changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||ka...@smartlink.ee AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ka...@smartlink.ee Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Kalev Lember 2010-10-11 08:10:08 EDT --- Taking for review and removing the Whiteboard: NotReady as all deps are now in rawhide. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 639619] Review Request: rubygem-simple-navigation - Ruby library for creating navigation for your Rails2 or Sinatra application
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=639619 --- Comment #3 from Michal Fojtik 2010-10-11 08:06:32 EDT --- * Mon Oct 11 2010 Michal Fojtik - 3.0.0-3 - Created -doc subpackage - Fixed version dependencies - Removed unused macros Spec URL: http://mifo.sk/RPMS/rubygem-simple-navigation.spec SRPM URL: http://mifo.sk/RPMS/rubygem-simple-navigation-3.0.0-3.fc13.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 639991] Review Request: rubygem-rb-inotify - A Ruby wrapper for Linux's inotify, using FFI
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=639991
--- Comment #3 from Michal Fojtik 2010-10-11 08:02:52 EDT
---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Some notes:
>
> * Unused macro
> - Please remove unused macro defined in the spec file
>
> * Explicit dependency
> - ">= 0.5.0" part on "Requires: rubygem(ffi)" is not needed
> because rubygem-ffi packages on currently supported branches
> on Fedora all satisfy this version dependency.
>
> * %files
> - The directory %geminstdir itself is not owned by any
> packages.
>
> - The following files should also be %doc
> ---
> %{geminstdir}/Rakefile
> %{geminstdir}/rb-inotify.gemspec
> ---
* Mon Oct 11 2010 Michal Fojtik - 0.8.1-2
- Removed unused macros
- Moved Rakefile into doc
Spec URL: http://mifo.sk/RPMS/rubygem-rb-inotify.spec
SRPM URL: http://mifo.sk/RPMS/rubygem-rb-inotify-0.8.1-2.fc13.src.rpm
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 626726] Review Request: libmsip - A C++ library implementing the SIP protocol
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=626726 Bug 626726 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 Bug 626726 depends on bug 626458, which changed state. Bug 626458 Summary: Review Request: libmnetutil - A C++ library providing various network utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=626458 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 626462] Review Request: libmstun - A C++ library providing STUN client 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=626462 Bug 626462 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 Bug 626462 depends on bug 626458, which changed state. Bug 626458 Summary: Review Request: libmnetutil - A C++ library providing various network utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=626458 What|Old Value |New Value Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 626701] Review Request: libmikey - A C++ library implementing the Multimedia Internet KEYing protocol
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=626701 Bug 626701 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 Bug 626701 depends on bug 626458, which changed state. Bug 626458 Summary: Review Request: libmnetutil - A C++ library providing various network utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=626458 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2010-10-11 07:52:28 --- Comment #12 from Kalev Lember 2010-10-11 07:52:28 EDT --- Closing the ticket as the packages are built and updates submitted; furthermore it's also easier to check bugzilla dependencies if this ticket is closed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
