[Bug 647076] Review Request: jackbeat - audio sequencer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=647076 --- Comment #10 from Brendan Jones 2010-10-31 04:11:22 EDT --- Thanks Xavier - but do I really need to bump the package number before it has hit bodhi? Isn't that a little misleading? I guess not if the changelog documents all the changes in the reveiw ... OK - will do. I'm going to move this to gitorius as sharing as a google document is tiresome. Appreciate the feedback nonetheless! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 591389] Review Request: po-debconf - Tool for managing templates file translations with gettext
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=591389 --- Comment #8 from Oron Peled 2010-10-31 04:56:01 EDT --- > I am a little confused. Who is submitting this package and who is reviewing > it? > It's nice that Oron helps out, but IMHO the reviewer should not work on the > package (and contrariwise). I'm not the reviewer, so no problem here. As someone who want to have Debian packaging toolchain on my Fedora box, I have no problem either just helping out, co-maintaining, or maintaining this package collection (po-debconf, dh-make, debhelper, dpkg, pbuilder, etc.) as kanarip/yourself would like -- whatever suites best. New SPEC: http://oron.fedorapeople.org/deb-package/po-debconf.spec New SRPM: http://oron.fedorapeople.org/deb-package/po-debconf-1.0.16-5.fc13.src.rpm 1. License: GPLv2 -> GPLv2+ 2. Added %find_lang logic 3. Makefile patch sent to Debain BTS (Though I don't see it yet...) http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?pkg=po-debconf 4. HTML docs add. Although they only include 'vi' translation right now (not even English). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 593800] Review Request: python-keyring - keyring module 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=593800 --- Comment #35 from Ratnadeep Debnath 2010-10-31 05:49:57 EDT --- SPEC Url : http://rtnpro.fedorapeople.org/Packages/SPECS/python-keyring.spec SRPM Url : http://rtnpro.fedorapeople.org/Packages/SRPMS/python-keyring-0.2-4.fc13.src.rpm I removed the kdelibs-devel from BR, and filtered gnome_keyring.so from the output of rpm -qp --provides python-keyring-gnome-0.2-4.fc14.i686.rpm. I still don't understand what you mean by comments in macros and to replace % by %%. Please explain. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 648175] New: Review Request: flterm - Firmware download program
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: flterm - Firmware download program https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=648175 Summary: Review Request: flterm - Firmware download program Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: shakthim...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://shakthimaan.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/flterm.spec SRPM URL: http://shakthimaan.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/flterm-0.9-1.fc15.src.rpm Description: flterm is a serial terminal and firmware download program. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 595697] Review Request: ghc-regex-tdfa - Haskell "tagged" DFA regex engine
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=595697 --- Comment #22 from Lakshmi Narasimhan 2010-10-31 06:32:12 EDT --- Built for rawhide http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2566806 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 641093] Review Request: keybinder - A library for registering global keyboard shortcuts
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=641093
--- Comment #6 from Dominic Hopf 2010-10-31 06:34:27
EDT ---
$ rpmlint keybinder.spec
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
$ rpmlint keybinder-0.2.2-3.fc14.src.rpm
keybinder.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lua -> la, luau, lea
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
This spelling error can safely be ignored.
$ rpmlint *keybinder*
keybinder.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lua -> la, luau, lea
keybinder-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
lua-keybinder.x86_64: W: no-documentation
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
[x] Specfile name matches %{name}.spec
[x] Package seems to meet Packaging Guidelines
[x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary RPMs on at least one
supported architecture.
Tested on: Fedora 14/x86_64
[x] Rpmlint output:
source RPM: see above
binary RPM: see above
[x] Package is not relocatable.
[!] License in specfile matches actual License and meets Licensing Guidelines
The tarball provides a file COPYING containing the GPLv2+, the README file
also points to GPLv2+.
The file ax_lua.m4 in the m4/ directory says GPLv3+.
This results in GPLv3+ for any file marked with a GPLv2+ or GPLv3+ hint
in it.
The file lua-keybinder/lkeybinder.c is MIT, thus the lua subpackage
should be tagged with "License: MIT".
Any file in libkeybinder/ is also MIT. Since there is no subpackage for
the library, this results in tagging the main package with MIT, yes.
But: as there are GPLv3+ files in the main package also (I'm referring
to m4/ax_lua.m4) - even if they are just part of the source RPM - which
were not moved to any subpackage, you will have to tag the main package
with "License: MIT and GPLv3+".
Of course, alternatively you can ask upstream if this is intended and if
they may fix the license of m4/ax_lua.m4.
Feel free to correct me if it seems I may understood something wrong.
[x] License file is included in %doc.
[x] Specfile is legible and written in AE
[x] Sourcefile in the Package is the same as provided in the mentioned Source
SHA1SUM of Source: 9e7e62727fd236f2d3c49cc9ff1eaadc78841987
[x] Package compiles successfully
[x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires
[-] Specfile handles locales properly
[x] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required
[x] Package owns directorys it creates
[-] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x] Package does not list a file more than once in the %files listing
[x] %files section includes %defattr and permissions are set properly
[x] %clean section is there and contains rm -rf %{buildroot}
[x] Macros are consistently used
[x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage
[x] Program runs properly without files listed in %doc
[x] Header files are in a -devel package
[-] Static libraries are in a -static package
[!] Package requires pkgconfig if .pc files are present
The "Requires: pkgconfig" should be added, at least for the -devel subpackage
[x] .so-files are put into a -devel subpackage
[!] Subpackages include fully versioned dependency for the base package
The python and lua subpackage lacks the %{release} dependency
[x] Any libtool archives (*.la) are removed
[-] contains desktop file (%{name}.desktop) if it is a GUI application
[x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x] %{buildroot} is removed at beginning of %install
[-] Filenames are encoded in UTF-8
=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
[x] Package contains latest upstream version
[x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-] non-English translations for description and summary
[x] Package builds in mock
Tested on: F14/x86_64
[x] Package should compile and build into binary RPMs on all supported
architectures.
tested build with koji
[?] Program runs
Keybinder is basically a library and can not be run directly.
[-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[x] pkgconfig (*.pc) files are placed in a -devel package
[-] require package providing a file instead of the file itself
no files outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin are required
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 595697] Review Request: ghc-regex-tdfa - Haskell "tagged" DFA regex engine
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=595697 --- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System 2010-10-31 06:39:13 EDT --- ghc-regex-tdfa-1.1.6-1.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ghc-regex-tdfa-1.1.6-1.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 648175] Review Request: flterm - Firmware download program
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=648175 --- Comment #1 from Shakthi Kannan 2010-10-31 06:39:07 EDT --- $ rpmlint flterm.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint flterm-0.9-1.fc15.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint flterm-0.9-1.fc15.i686.rpm flterm.i686: W: no-documentation flterm.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary flterm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Successful Koji builds for F-13, F-14, and F-15: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2566771 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2566757 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2566760 It fails on EL-6 due to non-availability of clang. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 595697] Review Request: ghc-regex-tdfa - Haskell "tagged" DFA regex engine
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=595697 --- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System 2010-10-31 06:48:05 EDT --- ghc-regex-tdfa-1.1.6-1.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ghc-regex-tdfa-1.1.6-1.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 641093] Review Request: keybinder - A library for registering global keyboard shortcuts
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=641093 --- Comment #7 from Martin Gieseking 2010-10-31 07:08:17 EDT --- (In reply to comment #6) > But: as there are GPLv3+ files in the main package also (I'm referring > to m4/ax_lua.m4) - even if they are just part of the source RPM - which > were not moved to any subpackage, you will have to tag the main package > with "License: MIT and GPLv3+". Sorry, but that's incorrect. The License fields must reflect the license of the *binary* rpm(s). Files that are not packaged (or compiled and linked into a packaged file) don't affect the License field. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License:_field The m4 files are only used in conjunction with the autotools during configuration. Thus, they can be ignored when determining the license. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 624023] Review Request: reprepro - Debian package repository producer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=624023
--- Comment #2 from Christoph Wickert 2010-10-31
08:10:28 EDT ---
Spec and srpm don't match, spec is at -4 while package is still -3. As there is
no -4 package in the repo I have taken -3 with the spec of -4.
REVIEW FOR f0df6898fc563cff1ef694fbc772842a reprepro-4.2.0-3.fc12.src.rpm
MUST Items:
FIX - MUST: $ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-14-x86_64/result/*.rpm
reprepro.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US udeb -> deb, u deb, udder
reprepro.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dsc -> dc, sc, desc
reprepro.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US indices -> induces,
indies, indicts
reprepro.src: W: non-standard-group Development/Utilities
reprepro.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US udeb -> deb, u deb,
udder
reprepro.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dsc -> dc, sc, desc
reprepro.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US indices -> induces,
indies, indicts
reprepro.x86_64: W: non-standard-group Development/Utilities
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings.
Can be ignored: spelling-error
Needs to be fixed: non-standard-group Development/Utilities ->
Development/Tools
OK - MUST: named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
OK - MUST: spec file name matches the base package %{name}
OK - MUST: package meets the Packaging Guidelines
OK - MUST: Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines (GPLv2
only)
OK - MUST: License field in spec file matches the actual license
FIX - MUST: license file included in %doc
OK - MUST: spec is in American English
OK - MUST: spec is legible
OK - MUST: sources match the upstream source by MD5
72605173cccdbc805f3037824064895d
OK - MUST: successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on x86_64
N/A - 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.
OK - MUST: all build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
N/A - MUST: handles locales properly with %find_lang
N/A - MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared
library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths,
must call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
OK - MUST: Package does not bundle copies of system libraries.
N/A - 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.
OK - MUST: owns all directories that it creates (none)
OK - MUST: no duplicate files in the %files listing
OK - MUST: Permissions on files are set properly, includes %defattr(...)
OK - MUST: consistently uses macros
OK - MUST: package contains code, or permissable content
N/A - MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage
TBD - MUST: Files included as %doc do not affect the runtime of the application
(no docs included!)
N/A - MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package
N/A - MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package
N/A - MUST: library files that end in .so are in the -devel package.
N/A - MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully
versioned dependency
OK - MUST: The package does not contain any .la libtool archives.
N/A - MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file.
OK - MUST: package does not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
OK - Should: at the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT.
OK - MUST: all filenames valid UTF-8
SHOULD Items:
FIX - SHOULD: Source package includes license text(s) as a separate file.
N/A - SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file
should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
OK - SHOULD: builds in mock.
OK - SHOULD: compiles and builds into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
OK - SHOULD: functions as described.
N/A - SHOULD: Scriptlets are sane (no scriptlets used).
N/A - SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency.
N/A - SHOULD: pkgconfig(.pc) files should be placed in a -devel pkg
OK - SHOULD: no file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or
/usr/sbin
OK - SHOULD: package contains man pages for binaries/scripts.
Other items:
OK - latest stable version
OK - SourceURL valid
OK - Compiler flags ok
OK - Debuginfo complete
OK - SHOULD: package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT.
N/A - SHOULD: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires:
pkgconfig'.
TODO items:
- Fix the items marked with FIX
- Use the full length of 80 characters for the description
- Requires db4 and gpgme are not needed, I doubt bzip2 is. Libraries should not
have explicit requires.
- Add AUTHORS, COPYIN
[Bug 630270] Review Request: ghc-transformers - Concrete functor and monad transformers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=630270 Lakshmi Narasimhan 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 630270] Review Request: ghc-transformers - Concrete functor and monad transformers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=630270
--- Comment #2 from Lakshmi Narasimhan 2010-10-31
08:14:03 EDT ---
[+]MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
the review.
rpmlint -i ghc-transformers-*.rpm
ghc-transformers.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) functor -> function,
perfunctory, perfunctorily
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ghc-transformers.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US liftings ->
lifting, listings, siftings
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ghc-transformers.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US fd -> FD, dd, ff
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ghc-transformers.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tf -> ft, t, f
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ghc-transformers.src: W: strange-permission ghc-transformers.spec 0640L
A file that you listed to include in your package has strange permissions.
Usually, a file should have 0644 permissions.
ghc-transformers.src: W: strange-permission transformers-0.2.2.0.tar.gz 0640L
A file that you listed to include in your package has strange permissions.
Usually, a file should have 0644 permissions.
ghc-transformers.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) functor -> function,
perfunctory, perfunctorily
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ghc-transformers.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US liftings ->
lifting, listings, siftings
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ghc-transformers.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US fd -> FD, dd,
ff
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ghc-transformers.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tf -> ft, t, f
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ghc-transformers-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) functor ->
function, perfunctory, perfunctorily
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ghc-transformers-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US liftings
-> lifting, listings, siftings
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ghc-transformers-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US fd ->
FD, dd, ff
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ghc-transformers-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tf ->
ft, t, f
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ghc-transformers-prof.x86_64: E: devel-dependency ghc-transformers-devel
Your package has a dependency on a devel package but it's not a devel package
itself.
ghc-transformers-prof.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) functor ->
function, perfunctory, perfunctorily
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ghc-transformers-prof.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US liftings
-> lifting, listings, siftings
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ghc-transformers-prof.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US fd -> FD,
dd, ff
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ghc-transformers-prof.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tf -> ft,
t, f
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ghc-transformers-prof.x86_64: W: no-documentation
The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include
documentation files.
ghc-transformers-prof.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/ghc-6.12.3/transformers-0.2.2.0/libHStransformers-0.2.2.0_p.a
A development file (usually source code) is located in a non-devel package. If
you want to include source code in your package, be sure to create a
development package.
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 20 warnings.
[+]MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+]MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec
[+]MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
Naming-Yes
Version-release - Matches
License - OK
No prebuilt external bits - OK
Spec legibity - OK
Package template - OK
Arch support - OK
Libexecdir - OK
rpmlint - yes
changelogs - OK
Source url tag - OK, validated.
Buildroot is ignored - present anyway. OK
%clean is ignored - present anyway. OK
Build Requires list - OK
Summary and description - OK
API documentation - OK, present in devel package
[+]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 m
[Bug 648007] Review Request: ghc-binary-shared - Haskell library for sharing binary elements
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=648007 Lakshmi Narasimhan 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 483730] Review Request: kde-plasma-translatoid - A Google Translation Plasmoid
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483730 --- Comment #76 from Fedora Update System 2010-10-31 09:50:12 EDT --- kde-plasma-translatoid-1.30-1.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/kde-plasma-translatoid-1.30-1.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 483730] Review Request: kde-plasma-translatoid - A Google Translation Plasmoid
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483730 --- Comment #75 from Fedora Update System 2010-10-31 09:50:01 EDT --- kde-plasma-translatoid-1.30-1.fc12 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 12. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/kde-plasma-translatoid-1.30-1.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 483730] Review Request: kde-plasma-translatoid - A Google Translation Plasmoid
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483730 --- Comment #77 from Fedora Update System 2010-10-31 09:50:20 EDT --- kde-plasma-translatoid-1.30-1.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/kde-plasma-translatoid-1.30-1.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 626175] Review Request: DeTex - is a filter program that removes the LaTeX control sequences from tex 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=626175
--- Comment #3 from Christoph Wickert 2010-10-31
10:24:40 EDT ---
I'm extremely sorry for the delay Didi!
REVIEW FOR 458b5603a1c21a383285e4aceeb4f6b7 detex-2.8-1.src.rpm
FIX - MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package.
$ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-14-x86_64/result/detex-*
detex.src:24: W: setup-not-quiet
Use %setup -q instead of %setup
detex.src:32: W: macro-in-comment %{__make}
detex.src:32: W: macro-in-comment %{buildroot}
This is the line that is commented out, remove it. Macros in comments confuse
rpm. Even though things are commented out, the macros get resolved. When you
have a macro like %setup, that consists of several lines (use 'rpm --eval
%setup' to check), the build will break.
detex.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/detex.1.gz 57: normal
or special character expected (got a space)
detex.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/detex.1.gz 57:
warning: numeric expression expected (got `,')
detex.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/detex.1.gz 57: normal
or special character expected (got a space)
detex.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/detex.1.gz 57: normal
or special character expected (got a space)
detex.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/detex.1.gz 57: cannot
use a space as a starting delimiter
detex.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/detex.1.gz 57: normal
or special character expected (got a space)
detex.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/detex.1.gz 57: normal
or special character expected (got a space)
detex.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/detex.1.gz 57: normal
or special character expected (got a space)
detex.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/detex.1.gz 57: normal
or special character expected (got a space)
detex.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/detex.1.gz 57: normal
or special character expected (got a space)
detex.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/detex.1.gz 57: normal
or special character expected (got a space)
detex.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/detex.1.gz 57: normal
or special character expected (got a space)
detex.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/detex.1.gz 57: normal
or special character expected (got a space)
detex.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/detex.1.gz 57: normal
or special character expected (got a space)
detex.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/detex.1.gz 57: normal
or special character expected (got a node)
Not sure about this one.
detex-debuginfo.x86_64: E: debuginfo-without-sources
Read http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Debuginfo
OK - MUST: named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
OK - MUST: spec file name matches the base package %{name}
OK - MUST: package meets the Packaging Guidelines
OK - MUST: Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines (NCSA)
FIX - MUST: License field in spec file matches the actual license: According to
its http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/trinkle/detex/ NCSA not BSD.
FIX - MUST: license file is not included in %doc: Include the COPYRIGHT file in
%doc.
OK - MUST: spec is in American English
FIX - MUST: spec is legible, but could be better if the tags in the header were
properly indented.
OK - MUST: sources match the upstream source by MD5
7a96b647f43bb077323cde92faa1e893
FIX - MUST: does not successfully compile and build into binary rpms:
error: %patch without corresponding "Patch:" tag
You are using Patch0:, therefor the patch needs to be applied with %patch0 too,
not only %patch.
N/A - 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.
OK - MUST: all build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
N/A - MUST: handles locales properly with %find_lang
N/A - MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared
library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths,
must call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
OK - MUST: Package does not bundle copies of system libraries.
N/A - 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.
OK - MUST: owns all directories that it creates (none)
OK - MUST: no duplicate files in the %files listing
OK - MUST: Permissions on files are set properly, includes %defattr(...)
OK - MUST: consistently uses macros
OK - MUST: package contains code, or permissable content
N/A - MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage
OK - MUST: Files included as %doc do not affect the runtime of the application
N/A - MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package
N/A - MUST: Static librar
[Bug 636654] Review Request: Gorm - The GNUstep graphical interface builder
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=636654 Michel Alexandre Salim changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo?(joc...@herr-schmi ||tt.de) --- Comment #2 from Michel Alexandre Salim 2010-10-31 10:44:29 EDT --- License field needs updating, a tiny spelling error, and the spec file needs to be untabified; after that this review can be approved * TODO Review [80%] ** DONE Names [2/2] *** DONE Package name *** DONE Spec name ** DONE Meets [[http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines][guidelines]] ** DONE source files match upstream - md5sum: 7b068a369051f83d450d2a0dd464e8ee ** TODO License [2/3] *** DONE License is Fedora-approved *** FAIL License field accurate - Should be GPLv3+ not GPLv2+ *** DONE License included iff packaged by upstream ** TODO rpmlint [0/2] *** FAIL on src.rpm - gorm.src:12: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 12) Minor problem, please untabify *** FAIL on x86_64.rpm - http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2567020 - gorm.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary Gorm - can be ignored - gorm-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation - can be ignored - gorm-doc.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Thsi -> Thai, Th si, Th-si - this should be changed to "This" ** DONE Language & locale [3/3] *** DONE Spec in US English *** DONE Spec legible *** N/A Use %find_lang to handle locale files ** DONE Build [3/3] *** DONE Koji results *** DONE BRs complete *** DONE Directory ownership ** DONE Spec inspection [10/10] *** DONE ldconfig for libraries *** DONE No duplicate files *** DONE File permissions *** DONE Filenames must be UTF-8 *** DONE Has %clean section (except F-13+: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#.25clean) *** DONE %buildroot cleaned on %install *** DONE Macro usage consistent *** DONE Documentation [2/2] DONE If large docs, separate -doc DONE %doc files are non-essential *** DONE Development [5/5] DONE Headers in -devel DONE If versioned .so's, unversioned in -devel N/A Static only if necessary, put in -static DONE -devel, -static requires main DONE No .la *** N/A Other subpackages ** N/A Desktop file validation ** N/A [[http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets][Scriptlets]] -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 637868] Rename request: meego-panel-pasteboard - MeeGo Panel for Paste Board
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=637868 Michel Alexandre Salim changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Michel Alexandre Salim 2010-10-31 10:58:56 EDT --- In which case the review is complete. On to the next component... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 630270] Review Request: ghc-transformers - Concrete functor and monad transformers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=630270 Ben Boeckel changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Ben Boeckel 2010-10-31 12:19:19 EDT --- Thanks. New Package CVS Request === Package Name: ghc-transformers Short Description: Concrete functor and monad transformers Owners: mathstuf Branches: F-13 F-14 InitialCC: haskell-sig -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 630204] Review Request: ghc-mtlparse - Haskell mtlparse 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=630204 --- Comment #5 from Ben Boeckel 2010-10-31 12:22:24 EDT --- Spec: http://benboeckel.net/packaging/ghc-mtlparse/ghc-mtlparse SRPM: http://benboeckel.net/packaging/ghc-mtlparse/ghc-mtlparse-0.1.1-1.fc14.src.rpm % lintmock fedora-14-x86_64-bb ghc-mtlparse.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Haskell -> Gaskell, Gaitskell, Skellum ghc-mtlparse.src: W: strange-permission mtlparse-0.1.1.tar.gz 0640L ghc-mtlparse.src: W: strange-permission ghc-mtlparse.spec 0640L ghc-mtlparse.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Haskell -> Gaskell, Gaitskell, Skellum ghc-mtlparse-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Haskell -> Gaskell, Gaitskell, Skellum ghc-mtlparse-prof.x86_64: E: devel-dependency ghc-mtlparse-devel ghc-mtlparse-prof.x86_64: W: no-documentation ghc-mtlparse-prof.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/ghc-6.12.3/mtlparse-0.1.1/libHSmtlparse-0.1.1_p.a 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 7 warnings. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 630205] Review Request: ghc-regexpr - Regular expression like Perl/Ruby in Haskell
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=630205 --- Comment #1 from Ben Boeckel 2010-10-31 12:23:48 EDT --- Spec: http://benboeckel.net/packaging/ghc-regexpr/ghc-regexpr SRPM: http://benboeckel.net/packaging/ghc-regexpr/ghc-regexpr-0.5.3-1.fc14.src.rpm % lintmock fedora-14-x86_64-bb ghc-regexpr.src: W: strange-permission regexpr-0.5.3.tar.gz 0640L ghc-regexpr.src: W: strange-permission ghc-regexpr.spec 0640L ghc-regexpr-prof.x86_64: E: devel-dependency ghc-regexpr-devel ghc-regexpr-prof.x86_64: W: no-documentation ghc-regexpr-prof.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/ghc-6.12.3/regexpr-0.5.3/libHSregexpr-0.5.3_p.a 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 630215] Review Request: ghc-MemoTrie - Trie-based memo functions
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=630215 --- Comment #2 from Ben Boeckel 2010-10-31 12:27:47 EDT --- Spec URL: http://benboeckel.net/packaging/ghc-MemoTrie/ghc-MemoTrie.spec SRPM URL: http://benboeckel.net/packaging/ghc-MemoTrie/ghc-MemoTrie-0.4.9-1.fc14.src.rpm % lintmock fedora-14-x86_64-bb ghc-MemoTrie.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Trie -> Trier, Teri, Tree ghc-MemoTrie.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US memoized -> memorized, memorialized, memorize ghc-MemoTrie.src: W: strange-permission MemoTrie-0.4.9.tar.gz 0640L ghc-MemoTrie.src: W: strange-permission ghc-MemoTrie.spec 0640L ghc-MemoTrie.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Trie -> Trier, Teri, Tree ghc-MemoTrie.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US memoized -> memorized, memorialized, memorize ghc-MemoTrie-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Trie -> Trier, Teri, Tree ghc-MemoTrie-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US memoized -> memorized, memorialized, memorize ghc-MemoTrie-prof.x86_64: E: devel-dependency ghc-MemoTrie-devel ghc-MemoTrie-prof.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US memoized -> memorized, memorialized, memorize ghc-MemoTrie-prof.x86_64: W: no-documentation ghc-MemoTrie-prof.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/ghc-6.12.3/MemoTrie-0.4.9/libHSMemoTrie-0.4.9_p.a 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 11 warnings. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 648244] New: Review Request: ghc-base64-bytestring - Fast base64 encoding and deconding for ByteStrings
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: ghc-base64-bytestring - Fast base64 encoding and deconding for ByteStrings https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=648244 Summary: Review Request: ghc-base64-bytestring - Fast base64 encoding and deconding for ByteStrings Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: maths...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://benboeckel.net/packaging/ghc-base64-bytestring/ghc-base64-bytestring.spec SRPM URL: http://benboeckel.net/packaging/ghc-base64-bytestring/ghc-base64-bytestring-0.1.0.1-1.fc14.src.rpm Description: Fast base64 encoding and deconding for ByteStrings. % lintmock fedora-14-x86_64-bb ghc-base64-bytestring.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) deconding -> seconding, decoding ghc-base64-bytestring.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US deconding -> seconding, decoding ghc-base64-bytestring.src: W: strange-permission ghc-base64-bytestring.spec 0640L ghc-base64-bytestring.src: W: strange-permission base64-bytestring-0.1.0.1.tar.gz 0640L ghc-base64-bytestring.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) deconding -> seconding, decoding ghc-base64-bytestring.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US deconding -> seconding, decoding ghc-base64-bytestring-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) deconding -> seconding, decoding ghc-base64-bytestring-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US deconding -> seconding, decoding ghc-base64-bytestring-prof.x86_64: E: devel-dependency ghc-base64-bytestring-devel ghc-base64-bytestring-prof.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) deconding -> seconding, decoding ghc-base64-bytestring-prof.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US deconding -> seconding, decoding ghc-base64-bytestring-prof.x86_64: W: no-documentation ghc-base64-bytestring-prof.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/ghc-6.12.3/base64-bytestring-0.1.0.1/libHSbase64-bytestring-0.1.0.1_p.a 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 12 warnings. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 648246] Review Request: ghc-data-default - A class for types with a default value
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=648246 Ben Boeckel changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||648247 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 648247] Review Request: ghc-tagged - Newtype wrappers for phantom types
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=648247 Ben Boeckel changed: What|Removed |Added CC||fedora-haskell-l...@redhat. ||com Depends on||648246 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 648246] New: Review Request: ghc-data-default - A class for types with a default value
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: ghc-data-default - A class for types with a default value https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=648246 Summary: Review Request: ghc-data-default - A class for types with a default value Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: maths...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://benboeckel.net/packaging/ghc-data-default/ghc-data-default.spec SRPM URL: http://benboeckel.net/packaging/ghc-data-default/ghc-data-default-0.2-1.fc14.src.rpm Description: A class for types with a default value. % lintmock fedora-14-x86_64-bb ghc-data-default.src: W: strange-permission ghc-data-default.spec 0640L ghc-data-default.src: W: strange-permission data-default-0.2.tar.gz 0640L ghc-data-default.x86_64: W: no-documentation ghc-data-default-prof.x86_64: E: devel-dependency ghc-data-default-devel ghc-data-default-prof.x86_64: W: no-documentation ghc-data-default-prof.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/ghc-6.12.3/data-default-0.2/libHSdata-default-0.2_p.a 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 5 warnings. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 648247] New: Review Request: ghc-tagged - Newtype wrappers for phantom types
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: ghc-tagged - Newtype wrappers for phantom types https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=648247 Summary: Review Request: ghc-tagged - Newtype wrappers for phantom types Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: maths...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://benboeckel.net/packaging/ghc-tagged/ghc-tagged.spec SRPM URL: http://benboeckel.net/packaging/ghc-tagged/ghc-tagged-0.1.1-1.fc14.src.rpm Description: Provides newtype wrappers for phantom types to avoid unsafely passing dummy arguments. % lintmock fedora-14-x86_64-bb ghc-tagged.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Newtype -> New type, New-type, Neotype ghc-tagged.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US newtype -> neotype, new type, new-type ghc-tagged.src: W: strange-permission tagged-0.1.1.tar.gz 0640L ghc-tagged.src: W: strange-permission ghc-tagged.spec 0640L ghc-tagged.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Newtype -> New type, New-type, Neotype ghc-tagged.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US newtype -> neotype, new type, new-type ghc-tagged-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Newtype -> New type, New-type, Neotype ghc-tagged-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US newtype -> neotype, new type, new-type ghc-tagged-prof.x86_64: E: devel-dependency ghc-tagged-devel ghc-tagged-prof.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US newtype -> neotype, new type, new-type ghc-tagged-prof.x86_64: W: no-documentation ghc-tagged-prof.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/ghc-6.12.3/tagged-0.1.1/libHStagged-0.1.1_p.a 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 11 warnings. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 630275] Review Request: ghc-cereal - A binary serialization 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=630275 Ben Boeckel changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||648248 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 648248] Review Request: ghc-crypto-api - A generic interface for cryptographic operations
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=648248 Ben Boeckel changed: What|Removed |Added CC||fedora-haskell-l...@redhat. ||com Depends on||630275, 468246 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 226155] Merge Review: mod_perl
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226155 Emmanuel Seyman changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #362781|0 |1 is obsolete|| --- Comment #13 from Emmanuel Seyman 2010-10-31 12:57:10 EDT --- Created attachment 456737 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=456737 Patch to mod_perl.spec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 648248] New: Review Request: ghc-crypto-api - A generic interface for cryptographic operations
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: ghc-crypto-api - A generic interface for cryptographic operations https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=648248 Summary: Review Request: ghc-crypto-api - A generic interface for cryptographic operations Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: maths...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://benboeckel.net/packaging/ghc-crypto-api/ghc-crypto-api.spec SRPM URL: http://benboeckel.net/packaging/ghc-crypto-api/ghc-crypto-api-0.1.2.4-1.fc14.src.rpm Description: A generic interface for cryptographic operations, platform independent quality RNG, property tests and known-answer tests (KATs) for common algorithms, and a basic benchmark infrastructure. Maintainers of hash and cipher implementations are encouraged to add instances for the classes defined in Crypto.Classes. Crypto users are similarly encouraged to use the interfaces defined in the Classes module. Any concepts or functions of general use to more than one cryptographic algorithm (ex: padding) is within scope of this package. % lintmock fedora-14-x86_64-bb ghc-crypto-api.src: W: strange-permission ghc-crypto-api-0.1.2.4-data-files.patch 0640L ghc-crypto-api.src: W: strange-permission ghc-crypto-api.spec 0640L ghc-crypto-api.src: W: strange-permission crypto-api-0.1.2.4.tar.gz 0640L ghc-crypto-api-prof.x86_64: E: devel-dependency ghc-crypto-api-devel ghc-crypto-api-prof.x86_64: W: no-documentation ghc-crypto-api-prof.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/ghc-6.12.3/crypto-api-0.1.2.4/libHScrypto-api-0.1.2.4_p.a 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 5 warnings. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 226155] Merge Review: mod_perl
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226155 --- Comment #14 from Emmanuel Seyman 2010-10-31 12:58:12 EDT --- Created attachment 456738 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=456738 The new spec file -- 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 648247] Review Request: ghc-tagged - Newtype wrappers for phantom types
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=648247 Ben Boeckel changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||648248 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 648246] Review Request: ghc-data-default - A class for types with a default value
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=648246 Ben Boeckel changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||648248 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 648248] Review Request: ghc-crypto-api - A generic interface for cryptographic operations
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=648248 Ben Boeckel changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||630302 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 648246] Review Request: ghc-data-default - A class for types with a default value
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=648246 Ben Boeckel changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|648248 | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 648248] Review Request: ghc-crypto-api - A generic interface for cryptographic operations
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=648248 Ben Boeckel changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on|468246 |648246 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 648248] Review Request: ghc-crypto-api - A generic interface for cryptographic operations
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=648248 Ben Boeckel changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on|648246 |648247 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 630302] Review Request: ghc-pureMD5 - MD5 implementations
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=630302 Ben Boeckel changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||648248 --- Comment #1 from Ben Boeckel 2010-10-31 12:58:43 EDT --- Spec URL: http://benboeckel.net/packaging/ghc-pureMD5/ghc-pureMD5.spec SRPM URL: http://benboeckel.net/packaging/ghc-pureMD5/ghc-pureMD5-2.1.0.2-1.fc14.src.rpm % lintmock fedora-14-x86_64-bb ghc-pureMD5.src: W: strange-permission ghc-pureMD5.spec 0640L ghc-pureMD5.src: W: strange-permission pureMD5-2.1.0.2.tar.gz 0640L ghc-pureMD5-prof.x86_64: E: devel-dependency ghc-pureMD5-devel ghc-pureMD5-prof.x86_64: W: no-documentation ghc-pureMD5-prof.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/ghc-6.12.3/pureMD5-2.1.0.2/libHSpureMD5-2.1.0.2_p.a 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 630272] Review Request: ghc-tagsoup - Parsing HTML/XML documents library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=630272 Ben Boeckel changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||648250 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 648250] Review Request: ghc-xss-sanitize - Sanitize untrusted HTML to prevent XSS attacks
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=648250 Ben Boeckel changed: What|Removed |Added CC||fedora-haskell-l...@redhat. ||com Depends on||630272(ghc-tagsoup) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 648249] New: Review Request: ghc-web-routes - Maintain correctness and composability of URLs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: ghc-web-routes - Maintain correctness and composability of URLs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=648249 Summary: Review Request: ghc-web-routes - Maintain correctness and composability of URLs Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: maths...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://benboeckel.net/packaging/ghc-web-routes/ghc-web-routes.spec SRPM URL: http://benboeckel.net/packaging/ghc-web-routes/ghc-web-routes-0.23.0-1.fc14.src.rpm Description: A collection of types and functions that ensure that URLs generated by an application are valid. Need more properties here. % lintmock fedora-14-x86_64-bb ghc-web-routes.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) composability -> compos ability, compos-ability, opposability ghc-web-routes.src: W: strange-permission web-routes-0.23.0.tar.gz 0640L ghc-web-routes.src: W: strange-permission ghc-web-routes.spec 0640L ghc-web-routes.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) composability -> compos ability, compos-ability, opposability ghc-web-routes.x86_64: W: no-documentation ghc-web-routes-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) composability -> compos ability, compos-ability, opposability ghc-web-routes-prof.x86_64: E: devel-dependency ghc-web-routes-devel ghc-web-routes-prof.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) composability -> compos ability, compos-ability, opposability ghc-web-routes-prof.x86_64: W: no-documentation ghc-web-routes-prof.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/ghc-6.12.3/web-routes-0.23.0/libHSweb-routes-0.23.0_p.a 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 9 warnings. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 226155] Merge Review: mod_perl
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226155
--- Comment #15 from Emmanuel Seyman
2010-10-31 13:04:57 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #12)
>
> Yup, I've just been busy these last two weeks and haven't had time to spare to
> reviews. I'll make time by the end of the week.
Well, make that next week. :-)
(In reply to comment #10)
>
> mod_perl.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US perl -> Perl, peel, perk
False positive.
> mod_perl.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US runtime -> run time,
> run-time, runtish
Fixed.
> mod_perl.src: W: strange-permission filter-provides.sh 0755L
> mod_perl.src: W: strange-permission filter-requires.sh 0755L
Removed (see below).
> mod_perl.src:59: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %build PREFIX=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr \
Not fixed (and harmless, imho).
> mod_perl.src:108: W: macro-in-comment %{_mandir}
> mod_perl.src:109: W: macro-in-comment %{perl_vendorarch}
Removed.
> mod_perl.src:59: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 3, tab: line
> 59)
Ugh. Fixed.
> mod_perl.i386: E: useless-provides perl(Apache2::Connection)
> mod_perl.i386: E: useless-provides perl(Apache2::RequestRec)
Filtered. I also moved the filtering inline.
> mod_perl.i386: W: hidden-file-or-dir
> /usr/share/doc/mod_perl-2.0.4/docs/devel/debug/code/.debug-inline
> mod_perl.i386: W: hidden-file-or-dir
> /usr/share/doc/mod_perl-2.0.4/docs/devel/debug/code/.debug-modperl-register
> mod_perl.i386: W: hidden-file-or-dir
> /usr/share/doc/mod_perl-2.0.4/docs/devel/debug/code/.debug-modperl-xs
> mod_perl.i386: E: wrong-script-interpreter
False postives.
> /usr/share/doc/mod_perl-2.0.4/docs/os/win32/mpinstall C:/Perl/bin
False positive.
> mod_perl.i386: W: file-not-utf8
> /usr/share/doc/mod_perl-2.0.4/docs/devel/debug/c.pod
> mod_perl.i386: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/mod_perl-2.0.4/Changes
> mod_perl.i386: W: hidden-file-or-dir
> /usr/share/doc/mod_perl-2.0.4/docs/devel/debug/code/.debug-modperl-init
> mod_perl.i386: W: file-not-utf8
> /usr/share/doc/mod_perl-2.0.4/docs/user/Changes.pod
> mod_perl.i386: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/mod_perl-2.0.4/SVN-MOVE
> mod_perl.i386: W: file-not-utf8
> /usr/share/doc/mod_perl-2.0.4/docs/devel/core/explained.pod
All fixed.
> mod_perl.i386: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mp2bug
Probably something to report to upstream.
--
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 648250] New: Review Request: ghc-xss-sanitize - Sanitize untrusted HTML to prevent XSS attacks
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: ghc-xss-sanitize - Sanitize untrusted HTML to prevent XSS attacks https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=648250 Summary: Review Request: ghc-xss-sanitize - Sanitize untrusted HTML to prevent XSS attacks Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: maths...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://benboeckel.net/packaging/ghc-xss-sanitize/ghc-xss-sanitize.spec SRPM URL: http://benboeckel.net/packaging/ghc-xss-sanitize/ghc-xss-sanitize-0.2.2-1.fc14.src.rpm Description: Run untrusted HTML through Text.HTML.SanitizeXSS.sanitizeXSS to prevent XSS attacks. see README.md for more details. % lintmock fedora-14-x86_64-bb ghc-xss-sanitize.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) untrusted -> entrusted, untrustful, mistrusted ghc-xss-sanitize.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US untrusted -> entrusted, untrustful, mistrusted ghc-xss-sanitize.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US SanitizeXSS -> Sanitizes, Sanitize, Sanitarians ghc-xss-sanitize.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sanitizeXSS -> sanitizes, sanitize, sanitarians ghc-xss-sanitize.src: W: strange-permission xss-sanitize-0.2.2.tar.gz 0640L ghc-xss-sanitize.src: W: strange-permission ghc-xss-sanitize.spec 0640L ghc-xss-sanitize.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) untrusted -> entrusted, untrustful, mistrusted ghc-xss-sanitize.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US untrusted -> entrusted, untrustful, mistrusted ghc-xss-sanitize.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US SanitizeXSS -> Sanitizes, Sanitize, Sanitarians ghc-xss-sanitize.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sanitizeXSS -> sanitizes, sanitize, sanitarians ghc-xss-sanitize-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) untrusted -> entrusted, untrustful, mistrusted ghc-xss-sanitize-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US untrusted -> entrusted, untrustful, mistrusted ghc-xss-sanitize-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US SanitizeXSS -> Sanitizes, Sanitize, Sanitarians ghc-xss-sanitize-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sanitizeXSS -> sanitizes, sanitize, sanitarians ghc-xss-sanitize-prof.x86_64: E: devel-dependency ghc-xss-sanitize-devel ghc-xss-sanitize-prof.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) untrusted -> entrusted, untrustful, mistrusted ghc-xss-sanitize-prof.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US untrusted -> entrusted, untrustful, mistrusted ghc-xss-sanitize-prof.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US SanitizeXSS -> Sanitizes, Sanitize, Sanitarians ghc-xss-sanitize-prof.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sanitizeXSS -> sanitizes, sanitize, sanitarians ghc-xss-sanitize-prof.x86_64: W: no-documentation ghc-xss-sanitize-prof.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/ghc-6.12.3/xss-sanitize-0.2.2/libHSxss-sanitize-0.2.2_p.a 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 20 warnings. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 648249] Review Request: ghc-web-routes - Maintain correctness and composability of URLs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=648249 Ben Boeckel changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||630303(yesod) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 648244] Review Request: ghc-base64-bytestring - Fast base64 encoding and deconding for ByteStrings
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=648244 Ben Boeckel changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||630303(yesod) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 648250] Review Request: ghc-xss-sanitize - Sanitize untrusted HTML to prevent XSS attacks
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=648250 Ben Boeckel changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||630303(yesod) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 630303] Review Request: yesod - Creation of type-safe, RESTful web applications
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=630303 Ben Boeckel changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||648244, 648249, 648250 --- Comment #2 from Ben Boeckel 2010-10-31 13:11:40 EDT --- Spec URL: http://benboeckel.net/packaging/yesod/yesod.spec SRPM URL: http://benboeckel.net/packaging/yesod/yesod-0.6.0.2-1.fc14.src.rpm % lintmock fedora-14-x86_64-bb ghc-yesod.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US backends -> backbends, back ends, back-ends ghc-yesod-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US backends -> backbends, back ends, back-ends ghc-yesod-prof.x86_64: E: devel-dependency ghc-yesod-devel ghc-yesod-prof.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US backends -> backbends, back ends, back-ends ghc-yesod-prof.x86_64: W: no-documentation ghc-yesod-prof.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/ghc-6.12.3/yesod-0.6.0.2/libHSyesod-0.6.0.2_p.a yesod.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Haskell -> Gaskell, Gaitskell, Skellum yesod.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary C yesod yesod.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US backends -> backbends, back ends, back-ends yesod.src: W: strange-permission yesod.spec 0640L yesod.src: W: strange-permission yesod-0.6.0.2.tar.gz 0640L yesod.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Haskell -> Gaskell, Gaitskell, Skellum yesod.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary C yesod yesod.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US backends -> backbends, back ends, back-ends yesod.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary yesod 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 14 warnings. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 630221] Review Request: ghc-vty - A simple terminal access 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=630221 Bug 630221 depends on bug 620046, which changed state. Bug 620046 Summary: Review Request: ghc-terminfo - Haskell terminfo binding https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=620046 What|Old Value |New Value Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA Resolution||ERRATA Status|ON_QA |CLOSED --- Comment #2 from Ben Boeckel 2010-10-31 12:30:06 EDT --- Spec URL: http://benboeckel.net/packaging/ghc-vty/ghc-vty.spec SRPM URL: http://benboeckel.net/packaging/ghc-vty/ghc-vty-4.4.0.0.1-1.fc14.src.rpm % lintmock fedora-14-x86_64-bb ghc-vty.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ncurses -> nurses, curses, n curses ghc-vty.src: W: strange-permission ghc-vty.spec 0640L ghc-vty.src: W: strange-permission vty-4.4.0.0.1.tar.gz 0640L ghc-vty.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ncurses -> nurses, curses, n curses ghc-vty-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ncurses -> nurses, curses, n curses ghc-vty-prof.x86_64: E: devel-dependency ghc-vty-devel ghc-vty-prof.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ncurses -> nurses, curses, n curses ghc-vty-prof.x86_64: W: no-documentation ghc-vty-prof.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/ghc-6.12.3/vty-4.4.0.0.1/libHSvty-4.4.0.0.1_p.a 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 8 warnings. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 630297] Review Request: ghc-persistent - Type-safe, non-relational, multi-backend persistence
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=630297 --- Comment #1 from Ben Boeckel 2010-10-31 12:42:14 EDT --- Spec URL: http://benboeckel.net/packaging/ghc-persistent/ghc-persistent.spec SRPM URL: http://benboeckel.net/packaging/ghc-persistent/ghc-persistent-0.3.0.1-1.fc14.src.rpm % lintmock fedora-14-x86_64-bb ghc-persistent.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) multi -> mulch, mufti ghc-persistent.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) backend -> backed, backbend, back end ghc-persistent.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US backend -> backed, backbend, back end ghc-persistent.src: W: strange-permission ghc-persistent.spec 0640L ghc-persistent.src: W: strange-permission persistent-0.3.0.1.tar.gz 0640L ghc-persistent.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) multi -> mulch, mufti ghc-persistent.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) backend -> backed, backbend, back end ghc-persistent.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US backend -> backed, backbend, back end ghc-persistent-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) multi -> mulch, mufti ghc-persistent-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) backend -> backed, backbend, back end ghc-persistent-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US backend -> backed, backbend, back end ghc-persistent-prof.x86_64: E: devel-dependency ghc-persistent-devel ghc-persistent-prof.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) multi -> mulch, mufti ghc-persistent-prof.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) backend -> backed, backbend, back end ghc-persistent-prof.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US backend -> backed, backbend, back end ghc-persistent-prof.x86_64: W: no-documentation ghc-persistent-prof.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/ghc-6.12.3/persistent-0.3.0.1/libHSpersistent-0.3.0.1_p.a 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 16 warnings. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 645863] Review Request: python-oauth2 - Python support for improved oauth
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=645863
Arun SAG changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||saga...@gmail.com
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Arun SAG 2010-10-31 13:20:55 EDT ---
[+] OK
[X] NOT OKAY
[-] NA
[+] Package meets naming and packaging guidelines
[+] Spec file matches base package name.
[+] Spec has consistant macro usage.
[+] Meets Packaging Guidelines.
[+] License
[+] License field in spec matches
[+] License file included in package
[+] Spec in American English
[+] Spec is legible.
[+] Sources match upstream md5sum:
[zer0c...@gnubox SOURCES]$ md5sum oauth2-1.1.3.tar.gz
79ab3c0af3a6295a699f37d0c25239db oauth2-1.1.3.tar.gz
[-] Package needs ExcludeArch
[+] BuildRequires correct
[-] Spec handles locales/find_lang
[-] Package is relocatable and has a reason to be.
[+] Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good.
[-] Package has a correct %clean section.
[+] Package has correct buildroot
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
[+] Package is code or permissible content.
[-] Doc subpackage needed/used.
[-] Packages %doc files don't affect runtime.
[-] Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage.
[-] Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun
[-] .pc files in -devel subpackage/requires pkgconfig
[-] .so files in -devel subpackage.
[-] -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
[-] .la files are removed.
[-] Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file
[+] Package compiles and builds on at least one arch.
[+] Package has no duplicate files in %files.
[+] Package doesn't own any directories other packages own.
[+] Package owns all the directories it creates.
[+] No rpmlint output : ignorable
[zer0c...@gnubox oauth2-1.1.3]$ rpmlint
~/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/python-oauth2-1.2.1-1.fc13.noarch.rpm
python-oauth2.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) oauth -> oath, auth, o
auth
python-oauth2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US oauth -> oath,
auth, o auth
python-oauth2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US py -> pt, p, y
[+] Should build in mock.
[+] Should build on all supported archs
[+] Should function as described.
[-] Should have sane scriptlets.
[-] Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend.
[+] Should have dist tag
[+] Should package latest version
[+] check for outstanding bugs on package. (For core merge reviews)
XXX NOTE XXX
Getting deprecation warning from python-httplib2 when importing oauth2 module
In [1]: import oauth2
/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/httplib2/__init__.py:44: DeprecationWarning:
the sha module is deprecated; use the hashlib module instead
import sha
Everything seems fine except deprecation warning.
Approved XX
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 647721] Review Request: perl-Reaper - Support for reaping child processes via $SIG{CHLD}
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=647721 Emmanuel Seyman changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||emmanuel.sey...@club-intern ||et.fr AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|emmanuel.sey...@club-intern ||et.fr Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Emmanuel Seyman 2010-10-31 13:23:22 EDT --- Taking. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 630276] Review Request: ghc-clientsession - Store session data in a cookie
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=630276 --- Comment #1 from Ben Boeckel 2010-10-31 12:31:49 EDT --- Spec URL: http://benboeckel.net/packaging/ghc-clientsession/ghc-clientsession.spec SRPM URL: http://benboeckel.net/packaging/ghc-clientsession/ghc-clientsession-0.4.0.3-1.fc14.src.rpm % lintmock fedora-14-x86_64-bb ghc-clientsession.src: W: strange-permission ghc-clientsession.spec 0640L ghc-clientsession.src: W: strange-permission clientsession-0.4.0.3.tar.gz 0640L ghc-clientsession-prof.x86_64: E: devel-dependency ghc-clientsession-devel ghc-clientsession-prof.x86_64: W: no-documentation ghc-clientsession-prof.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/ghc-6.12.3/clientsession-0.4.0.3/libHSclientsession-0.4.0.3_p.a 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 630292] Review Request: ghc-hamlet - Haml-like template files that are compile-time checked
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=630292 --- Comment #1 from Ben Boeckel 2010-10-31 12:36:44 EDT --- Spec URL: http://benboeckel.net/packaging/ghc-hamlet/ghc-hamlet.spec SRPM URL: http://benboeckel.net/packaging/ghc-hamlet/ghc-hamlet-0.6.0-1.fc14.src.rpm % lintmock fedora-14-x86_64-bb ghc-hamlet.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Haml -> Ham, Hal, Hamal ghc-hamlet.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US http -> HTTP ghc-hamlet.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US yesodweb -> mesoderm, yesterday, yessed ghc-hamlet.src: W: strange-permission ghc-hamlet.spec 0640L ghc-hamlet.src: W: strange-permission hamlet-0.6.0.tar.gz 0640L ghc-hamlet.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Haml -> Ham, Hal, Hamal ghc-hamlet.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US http -> HTTP ghc-hamlet.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US yesodweb -> mesoderm, yesterday, yessed ghc-hamlet-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Haml -> Ham, Hal, Hamal ghc-hamlet-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US http -> HTTP ghc-hamlet-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US yesodweb -> mesoderm, yesterday, yessed ghc-hamlet-prof.x86_64: E: devel-dependency ghc-hamlet-devel ghc-hamlet-prof.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US http -> HTTP ghc-hamlet-prof.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US yesodweb -> mesoderm, yesterday, yessed ghc-hamlet-prof.x86_64: W: no-documentation ghc-hamlet-prof.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/ghc-6.12.3/hamlet-0.6.0/libHShamlet-0.6.0_p.a 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 15 warnings. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 630206] Review Request: ghc-hledger-lib - Core types and utilities for working with hledger data
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=630206 --- Comment #3 from Ben Boeckel 2010-10-31 12:26:20 EDT --- Spec: http://benboeckel.net/packaging/ghc-hledger-lib/ghc-hledger-lib.spec SRPM: http://benboeckel.net/packaging/ghc-hledger-lib/ghc-hledger-lib-0.12.1-1.fc14.src.rpm % lintmock fedora-14-x86_64-bb ghc-hledger-lib.src: W: strange-permission hledger-lib-0.12.1.tar.gz 0640L ghc-hledger-lib.src: W: strange-permission ghc-hledger-lib.spec 0640L ghc-hledger-lib-prof.x86_64: E: devel-dependency ghc-hledger-lib-devel ghc-hledger-lib-prof.x86_64: W: no-documentation ghc-hledger-lib-prof.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/ghc-6.12.3/hledger-lib-0.12.1/libHShledger-lib-0.12.1_p.a 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 630295] Review Request: ghc-web-routes-quasi - Data types and functions for web-routes
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=630295 --- Comment #1 from Ben Boeckel 2010-10-31 12:38:47 EDT --- Spec URL: http://benboeckel.net/packaging/ghc-web-routes-quasi/ghc-web-routes-quasi.spec SRPM URL: http://benboeckel.net/packaging/ghc-web-routes-quasi/ghc-web-routes-quasi-0.6.1-1.fc14.src.rpm % lintmock fedora-14-x86_64-bb ghc-web-routes-quasi.src: W: strange-permission ghc-web-routes-quasi.spec 0640L ghc-web-routes-quasi.src: W: strange-permission web-routes-quasi-0.6.1.tar.gz 0640L ghc-web-routes-quasi-prof.x86_64: E: devel-dependency ghc-web-routes-quasi-devel ghc-web-routes-quasi-prof.x86_64: W: no-documentation ghc-web-routes-quasi-prof.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/ghc-6.12.3/web-routes-quasi-0.6.1/libHSweb-routes-quasi-0.6.1_p.a 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 647721] Review Request: perl-Reaper - Support for reaping child processes via $SIG{CHLD}
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=647721
Emmanuel Seyman changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Emmanuel Seyman
2010-10-31 13:38:52 EDT ---
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines including the Perl specific items
[x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture.
Tested on: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2567385
[x] Rpmlint output:
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[x] Package is not relocatable.
[x] Buildroot is correct
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
[x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type: GPL+ or Artistic
[-] 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.
[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.
d9cb7741a8939859f52f177938ae7bea Reaper-1.00.tar.gz
[x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch
[x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[-] The spec file handles locales properly.
[-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x] Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x] Permissions on files are set properly.
[x] Package consistently uses macros.
[x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[-] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present.
[-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[-] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
[-] 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.
=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
[x] Latest version is packaged.
[x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
Tested on: rawhide.x86_64
[x] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
Tested on: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2567385
[x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -fR $RPM_BUILD_ROOT.
[?] Package functions as described.
[-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct.
[-] File based requires are sane.
[x] %check is present and the tests pass
No tests defined for Reaper extension.
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 607584] Review Request: wordgroupz - A vocabulary building 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=607584 --- Comment #28 from Mamoru Tasaka 2010-10-31 13:43:35 EDT --- Please don't use the same EVR (Epoch-Version-Release) even in review request to avoid confusion. Would you change to -4 and resubmit? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 630283] Review Request: ghc-neither - Either with monad and applicative instances
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=630283 --- Comment #2 from Ben Boeckel 2010-10-31 12:34:13 EDT --- Spec URL: http://benboeckel.net/packaging/ghc-neither/ghc-neither.spec SRPM URL: http://benboeckel.net/packaging/ghc-neither/ghc-neither-0.1.0-1.fc14.src.rpm % lintmock fedora-14-x86_64-bb ghc-neither.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US datatype -> data type, data-type, database ghc-neither.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mtl -> mt, ml, mel ghc-neither.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US datatypes -> data types, data-types, databases ghc-neither.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US AEither -> A Either, Aether, Either ghc-neither.src: W: strange-permission ghc-neither.spec 0640L ghc-neither.src: W: strange-permission neither-0.1.0.tar.gz 0640L ghc-neither.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US datatype -> data type, data-type, database ghc-neither.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mtl -> mt, ml, mel ghc-neither.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US datatypes -> data types, data-types, databases ghc-neither.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US AEither -> A Either, Aether, Either ghc-neither-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US datatype -> data type, data-type, database ghc-neither-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mtl -> mt, ml, mel ghc-neither-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US datatypes -> data types, data-types, databases ghc-neither-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US AEither -> A Either, Aether, Either ghc-neither-prof.x86_64: E: devel-dependency ghc-neither-devel ghc-neither-prof.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US datatype -> data type, data-type, database ghc-neither-prof.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mtl -> mt, ml, mel ghc-neither-prof.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US datatypes -> data types, data-types, databases ghc-neither-prof.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US AEither -> A Either, Aether, Either ghc-neither-prof.x86_64: W: no-documentation ghc-neither-prof.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/ghc-6.12.3/neither-0.1.0/libHSneither-0.1.0_p.a 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 20 warnings. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 648254] New: Review Request: Fawkes - Robot Software Framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: Fawkes - Robot Software Framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=648254 Summary: Review Request: Fawkes - Robot Software Framework Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: t...@niemueller.de QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~timn/robotics/fawkes.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~timn/robotics/fawkes-0.4-2.fc13.src.rpm Description: Fawkes is a component-based software framework for robotic real-time applications for various platforms and domains. It was developed for cognitive robotics real-time applications like soccer and service robotics and supports fast information exchange and efficient combination and coordination of different components to suit the needs of mobile robots operating in uncertain environments. URL: http://www.fawkesrobotics.org Scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2567389 rpmlint: Produces many warnings and one error, which I'm going to explain now. fawkes.x86_64: E: no-binary The base package is a meta package pulling the required libraries and a useful subset of plugins. I'm not aware of an option to have the base package noarch and sub-packages arch dependent. Therefore the base package is arch dependent and causes this false error. 21x W: no-documentation Many sub-packages involve only packaging a plugin without own documentation. We consider improving this upstream by having a README per plugin. 31x W: no-manual-page-for-binary We are aware of lacking documentation and have started improving on this (cf. http://git.fawkesrobotics.org/fawkes.git/shortlog/refs/heads/timn/man-pages). A patch is included to include work on this branch and until approval we will have more man pages already. 25x W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package This is a false positive. The mentioned libraries are interface files loaded at run-time, not linked libraries. They are not devel files, they are required for normal run-time. They are marked as warning because they do not reside in a path that contains a "plugins" directory, which would be spared by rpmlint. The shared objects are required to support run-time introspection. W: spelling-error %description -l en_US refbox -> ref box, ref-box, reflex refbox is indeed the correct spelling, it is a custom word from RoboCup terminology. It is mentioned in addition to the full word, referee box. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 593800] Review Request: python-keyring - keyring module 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=593800
--- Comment #36 from Mamoru Tasaka 2010-10-31
14:28:20 EDT ---
Ah, it seems 0.4 is already released. Would you update to the
latest version first?
By the way these 3 lines
%global _use_internal_dependency_generator 0
%global __find_provides%%{_rpmconfigdir}/find-provides | grep -v
'gnome_keyring\|kde_kwallet'
%global __find_requires%%{_rpmconfigdir}/find-requires | grep -v
'gnome_keyring\|kde_kwallet'
are no longer needed. %filter_setup and so on actually do these
trick internally.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 648266] New: Review Request: perl-CGI-Application-Plugin-JSON - Easy manipulation of JSON headers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: perl-CGI-Application-Plugin-JSON - Easy manipulation of JSON headers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=648266 Summary: Review Request: perl-CGI-Application-Plugin-JSON - Easy manipulation of JSON headers Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: Unspecified OS/Version: Unspecified Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: emmanuel.sey...@club-internet.fr QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora SPEC: http://people.parinux.org/~seyman/fedora/perl-CGI-Application-Plugin-JSON/perl-CGI-Application-Plugin-JSON.spec SRPM: http://people.parinux.org/~seyman/fedora/perl-CGI-Application-Plugin-JSON/perl-CGI-Application-Plugin-JSON-1.02-1.fc13.src.rpm Description: When communicating with client-side JavaScript, it is common to send data in X-JSON HTTP headers or through the document body as content-type application/json. This CGI::Application plugin adds a couple of convenience methods to make that just a little bit easier. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 648267] New: Review Request: perl-CGI-Application-Plugin-LinkIntegrity -
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: perl-CGI-Application-Plugin-LinkIntegrity - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=648267 Summary: Review Request: perl-CGI-Application-Plugin-LinkIntegrity - Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: Unspecified OS/Version: Unspecified Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: emmanuel.sey...@club-internet.fr QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora SPEC: http://people.parinux.org/~seyman/fedora/perl-CGI-Application-Plugin-LinkIntegrity/perl-CGI-Application-Plugin-LinkIntegrity.spec SRPM: http://people.parinux.org/~seyman/fedora/perl-CGI-Application-Plugin-LinkIntegrity/perl-CGI-Application-Plugin-LinkIntegrity-0.06-1.fc13.src.rpm Description: CGI::Application::Plugin::LinkIntegrity lets you create tamper-resistant links within your CGI::Application project. When you create an URL with link, a check-sum is added to the URL. The check-sum is a (cryptographic) hash of the URL, plus a secret string known only to the server. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 648267] Review Request: perl-CGI-Application-Plugin-LinkIntegrity - Make tamper-resistant links in CGI::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=648267 Emmanuel Seyman changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |perl-CGI-Application-Plugin |perl-CGI-Application-Plugin |-LinkIntegrity -|-LinkIntegrity - Make ||tamper-resistant links in ||CGI::Application -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 639098] Review Request: rubygem-gtk2 - Ruby binding of GTK+-2.x
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=639098 --- Comment #4 from Mamoru Tasaka 2010-10-31 14:54:37 EDT --- http://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/Review_request/rubygem-gtk2/rubygem-gtk2.spec http://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/Review_request/rubygem-gtk2/rubygem-gtk2-0.90.5-2.fc.src.rpm * Sun Oct 31 2010 Mamoru Taska - 0.90.5-2 - 0.90.5 - Move C extension so that "require %%gemname" works correctly -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 637939] Review Request: rubygem-gdk_pixbuf2 - Ruby binding of GdkPixbuf-2.x
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=637939 --- Comment #4 from Mamoru Tasaka 2010-10-31 14:51:18 EDT --- http://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/Review_request/rubygem-gdk_pixbuf2/rubygem-gdk_pixbuf2.spec http://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/Review_request/rubygem-gdk_pixbuf2/rubygem-gdk_pixbuf2-0.90.5-2.fc.src.rpm * Sun Oct 31 2010 Mamoru Taska - 0.90.5-2 - 0.90.5 - Move C extension so that "require %%gemname" works correctly -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 639636] Review Request: rubygem-poppler - Ruby binding of poppler-glib
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=639636 --- Comment #3 from Mamoru Tasaka 2010-10-31 14:55:43 EDT --- http://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/Review_request/rubygem-poppler/rubygem-poppler.spec http://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/Review_request/rubygem-poppler/rubygem-poppler-0.90.5-2.fc.src.rpm * Sun Oct 31 2010 Mamoru Taska - 0.90.5-2 - 0.90.5 - Move C extension so that "require %%gemname" works correctly -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 639638] Review Request: rubygem-rsvg2 - Ruby binding of librsvg-2.x
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=639638 --- Comment #2 from Mamoru Tasaka 2010-10-31 14:57:09 EDT --- http://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/Review_request/rubygem-rsvg2/rubygem-rsvg2-0.90.5-2.fc.src.rpm http://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/Review_request/rubygem-rsvg2/rubygem-rsvg2.spec * Sun Oct 31 2010 Mamoru Taska - 0.90.5-2 - 0.90.5 - Move C extension so that "require %%gemname" works correctly -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 648254] Review Request: Fawkes - Robot Software Framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=648254 Peter Lemenkov changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||lemen...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|lemen...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Peter Lemenkov 2010-10-31 15:04:12 EDT --- That's a really big spec-file. Ok, I'll review it -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 639278] Review Request: erlang-lfe - Lisp Flavoured 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=639278 Tim Niemueller changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||t...@niemueller.de AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|t...@niemueller.de Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #5 from Tim Niemueller 2010-10-31 15:14:38 EDT --- I'll take it. I'm using emacs daily, and though I'm not profound in writing code for it, I'll have a look anyway. Maybe I can help out with some experience from emacs-lua. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 643014] Review Request: fetch-crl3 - Downloads Certificate Revocation Lists
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=643014 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 643014] Review Request: fetch-crl3 - Downloads Certificate Revocation Lists
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=643014 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System 2010-10-31 15:15:49 EDT --- fetch-crl3-3.0.3-2.el4 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 4. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/fetch-crl3-3.0.3-2.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 643014] Review Request: fetch-crl3 - Downloads Certificate Revocation Lists
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=643014 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System 2010-10-31 15:15:56 EDT --- fetch-crl3-3.0.3-2.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/fetch-crl3-3.0.3-2.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 546445] Review Request: nagios-plugins-check-updates - A Nagios plugin to check if Red Hat or Fedora system is up-to-date
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=546445 --- Comment #13 from Jose Pedro Oliveira 2010-10-31 15:24:31 EDT --- A couple of hours ago the upstream author released version 1.4.8 with the License clarified. The check_updates script disclaimer now reads: -- ... # This module is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it # under the terms of GNU general public license (gpl) version 3, # or (at your option) any later version. # See the COPYING file for details. ... - Note: upstream check_updates changes can be browsed here: https://trac.id.ethz.ch/projects/nagios_plugins/timeline Regards, jpo -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 591389] Review Request: po-debconf - Tool for managing templates file translations with gettext
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=591389 --- Comment #9 from Oron Peled 2010-10-31 15:53:46 EDT --- Reference: link to Debian bug report: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=601941 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 562585] Review Request: ccd2iso - CloneCD image to ISO image file converter
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=562585 --- Comment #32 from Mohammed Safwat 2010-10-31 16:50:35 EDT --- I've received a mail today stating that the package couldn't be successfully untagged from dist-f14-updates-testing-pending; the mail looked like this Package: ccd2iso NVR: ccd2iso-0.3-6.fc14 User: bodhi Status: failed Tag Operation: untagged >From Tag: dist-f14-updates-testing-pending ccd2iso-0.3-6.fc14 unsuccessfully untagged from dist-f14-updates-testing-pending by bodhi Operation failed with the error: koji.TagError: build ccd2iso-0.3-6.fc14 not in tag dist-f14-updates-testing-pending I've received similar mails for the f13 and f12 builds. However earlier today I received three other mails confirming that the package on the three targets were successfully untagged. Is there anything wrong that I can fix? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 562585] Review Request: ccd2iso - CloneCD image to ISO image file converter
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=562585 --- Comment #33 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil 2010-10-31 16:56:32 EDT --- Don't worry about those emails. That is RelEng business. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 640889] Review Request: q4wine - Qt4 GUI for wine
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=640889 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System 2010-10-31 17:31:32 EDT --- q4wine-0.120-3.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 q4wine'. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/q4wine-0.120-3.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 595697] Review Request: ghc-regex-tdfa - Haskell "tagged" DFA regex engine
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=595697 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System 2010-10-31 17:32:38 EDT --- ghc-regex-tdfa-1.1.6-1.fc14 has been pushed to the Fedora 14 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 ghc-regex-tdfa'. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ghc-regex-tdfa-1.1.6-1.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 645288] Review Request: erlang-xmlrpc - HTTP 1.1 compliant XML-RPC library for Erlang
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=645288 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System 2010-10-31 17:30:41 EDT --- erlang-xmlrpc-1.13-2.fc12 has been pushed to the Fedora 12 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 erlang-xmlrpc'. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/erlang-xmlrpc-1.13-2.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 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 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System 2010-10-31 17:31:46 EDT --- libmikey-0.8.0-0.2.20100127svn3750.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 libmikey'. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libmikey-0.8.0-0.2.20100127svn3750.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 645801] Review Request: erlang-gettext - Erlang internationalization 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=645801 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System 2010-10-31 17:30:01 EDT --- erlang-gettext-2.1.0-0.2.20101022gitb55cb72.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 erlang-gettext'. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/erlang-gettext-2.1.0-0.2.20101022gitb55cb72.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 639284] Review Request: erlang-neotoma - Erlang library and packrat parser-generator for parsing expression grammars
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=639284 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System 2010-10-31 17:30:06 EDT --- erlang-neotoma-1.4-2.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 erlang-neotoma'. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/erlang-neotoma-1.4-2.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 634091] Review Request: postgresql-plparrot - A PostgreSQL procedural language for the Parrot virtual machine
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=634091 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System 2010-10-31 17:32:04 EDT --- postgresql-plparrot-0.04-2.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 postgresql-plparrot'. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/postgresql-plparrot-0.04-2.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 562585] Review Request: ccd2iso - CloneCD image to ISO image file converter
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=562585 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #34 from Fedora Update System 2010-10-31 17:30:32 EDT --- ccd2iso-0.3-6.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 ccd2iso'. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ccd2iso-0.3-6.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 630509] Review Request: ghc-split - Combinator library for splitting lists
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=630509 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System 2010-10-31 17:31:38 EDT --- ghc-split-0.1.2.1-1.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 ghc-split'. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ghc-split-0.1.2.1-1.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 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 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System 2010-10-31 17:31:28 EDT --- libmsip-0.8.0-0.1.20100629svn3775.fc12 has been pushed to the Fedora 12 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 libmsip'. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libmsip-0.8.0-0.1.20100629svn3775.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 646573] Review Request: rubygem-whiskey_disk - Ruby tool for embarrassingly fast deployments
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=646573 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System 2010-10-31 17:30:50 EDT --- rubygem-whiskey_disk-0.5.3-1.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-whiskey_disk'. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rubygem-whiskey_disk-0.5.3-1.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 637868] Rename request: meego-panel-pasteboard - MeeGo Panel for Paste Board
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=637868 Peter Robinson changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Peter Robinson 2010-10-31 17:45:04 EDT --- New Package GIT Request === Package Name: meego-panel-pasteboard Short Description: MeeGo Panel for Paste Board Owners: pbrobinson Branches: F-14 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 490803] Review Request: emos - Interpolation software and GRIB, BUFR, CREX encoding/decoding routines
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=490803 --- Comment #2 from Jeroen van Meeuwen 2010-10-31 18:14:38 EDT --- New (copy of) SRPM: http://kanarip.fedorapeople.org/emos-000370-2.fc13.src.rpm New (copy of) SPEC: http://kanarip.fedorapeople.org/emos.spec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 648305] New: Review Request: open-sendmail - Additional m4 files used to generate sendmail.cf
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: open-sendmail - Additional m4 files used to generate sendmail.cf https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=648305 Summary: Review Request: open-sendmail - Additional m4 files used to generate sendmail.cf Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: Unspecified OS/Version: Unspecified Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: redhat-bugzi...@linuxnetz.de QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/open-sendmail.spec SRPM URL: http://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/open-sendmail-0-0.1.20090107cvs.src.rpm Description: Open-Sendmail is the open development of additional m4 files used to generate and enhance sendmail.cf. The project contains sendmail goodies previously provided at anfi.homeunix.net and additional items. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 490803] Review Request: emos - Interpolation software and GRIB, BUFR, CREX encoding/decoding routines
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=490803 Ruediger Landmann changed: What|Removed |Added CC||r.landm...@redhat.com --- Comment #3 from Ruediger Landmann 2010-10-31 18:40:48 EDT --- Thanks Jeroen -- looks like there are some permissions problems with that spec file though. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 490803] Review Request: emos - Interpolation software and GRIB, BUFR, CREX encoding/decoding routines
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=490803 Ruediger Landmann changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo?(kana...@kanarip.c ||om) --- Comment #4 from Ruediger Landmann 2010-10-31 19:31:20 EDT --- ...and building on F13 results in empty packages: $ rpmlint RPMS/x86_64/emos-000370-2.fc13.x86_64.rpm emos.x86_64: E: no-binary 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint RPMS/x86_64/emos-static-000370-2.fc13.x86_64.rpm emos-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. $ rpmlint RPMS/x86_64/emos-debuginfo-000370-2.fc13.x86_64.rpm emos-debuginfo.x86_64: E: empty-debuginfo-package 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings. (Same result on Koji -- http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2567868 ) Could you please take another look? Cheers Rudi -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 639278] Review Request: erlang-lfe - Lisp Flavoured 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=639278 --- Comment #6 from Tim Niemueller 2010-10-31 19:37:06 EDT --- Created attachment 456769 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=456769 Patch to create emacs packages This patch adds sub-packages for the Emacs major mode that is included in the package. From a short test the mode seems to work fine in Emacs. The patch also includes inconsistent macro usage. Please apply and try and upload the new version then somewhere for the final review. From a first glance looks good so far. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 648007] Review Request: ghc-binary-shared - Haskell library for sharing binary elements
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=648007 Jens Petersen 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 629145] Review Request: ghc-cmdargs - Haskell command argument parsing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=629145 --- Comment #14 from Jens Petersen 2010-10-31 20:29:14 EDT --- (In reply to comment #12) > > The Haskell Guidelines > > should state this clearly, though they were written *before* ghc-6.12 > > which introduced shared lib support on linux. > > So there's an agreed exception here with the packaging committee? Well yes: it has been like this forever for ghc. Static libraries are still the default for ghc. I think http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Haskell#Static_vs._Dynamic_Linking is supposed to imply this but unfortunately it doesn't read well. :-( -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 647076] Review Request: jackbeat - audio sequencer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=647076 --- Comment #11 from Brendan Jones 2010-10-31 20:28:35 EDT --- jackbeat-0.7.6-2.fc14.src.rpm: https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B5QCFlQBF-VzODZjMDgwMjQtYjUzZC00MGI1LWEwMmItZWJlNmMxMDNjOTFm&hl=en&authkey=CN2m4tcI jackbeat.spec: https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B5QCFlQBF-VzODFiMjNiNzUtN2MxMy00ZGRjLTk3NjMtNTc0ZTAxZjU5ODBl&hl=en&authkey=COzn_dsN Changes as suggested by Xavier It looks like the COPYING file is needed by the license button in the about box. Well spotted! localhost:~/rpmbuild/SRPMS$ rpmlint jackbeat-0.7.6-2.fc14.src.rpm jackbeat.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US resized -> resined, resided, re sized jackbeat.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US jackeq -> jacket, jacked, jack eq jackbeat.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US olivier -> Olivier jackbeat.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xung -> sung, rung, lung 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 648053] Review Request: libMicro - Portable micro-benchmarks for various system and library calls
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=648053
--- Comment #1 from Pierre Carrier 2010-10-31 22:21:10
EDT ---
I don't think we should use %{optflags} on this one, we don't want to impact
the benchmark. Opinions appreciated.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
