[Bug 630681] Review Request: lasem - SVG and MathML rendering 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=630681 --- Comment #8 from Dmitrij S. Kryzhevich kr...@land.ru 2010-11-04 01:59:58 EDT --- I went throught the sources and I drop the exit issue. This call is in itex2mml code. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 225956] Merge Review: jzlib
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225956
--- Comment #3 from Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com 2010-11-04
04:19:04 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #2)
=== Issues ===
1. rpmlint output
jzlib.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) zlib - lib, glib, z lib
jzlib.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US zlib - lib, glib, z lib
Fixed.
2. Packaging Guidelines: Please fix release tag with next bump (8%{?dist})
Fixed.
3. buildroot
Removed.
4. No license file in javadoc subpackage
Fixed.
5. Demo subpackage needs versioned dependency on main package. If it's really
independent, it needs its own license file
Dependency added.
6. Check BRs/Rs for jpackage-utils (and java/java-devel)
7. Check javadoc Rs for jpackage-utils
Fixed.
8. global - define
Removed.
=== Final Notes ===
1. post/postun for subpackages seem to be unnecessary
Removed.
2. I guess, docs for subpackages don't need to be ghosted
Removed.
--
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 637507] Review Request: php-phpunit-Text-Template - Simple template 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=637507
Christof Damian chris...@damian.net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||chris...@damian.net
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|chris...@damian.net
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Christof Damian chris...@damian.net 2010-11-04 04:19:36
EDT ---
MUST:
OK: rpmlint must be run on every package.
1 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
OK: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
OK: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}
OK: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines
OK: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines
OK: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
OK: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package must be included in %doc.
OK: The spec file must be written in American English.
OK: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
OK: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no
upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL
Guidelines for how to deal with this.
de7b8f04dce1bf5bf404594c843f539a Text_Template-1.0.0.tgz
OK: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture.
builds in mock f14
OK: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of
those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
OK: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a
directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that
directory.
OK: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings.
OK: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with
executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
%defattr(...) line.
OK: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}
(or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
OK: Each package must consistently use macros.
OK: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
OK: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of
the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly
if it is not present.
OK: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
OK: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
SHOULD:
OK: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
builds in f13 and f14
COMMENTS:
- I would prefer https://github.com/sebastianbergmann/php-text-template/ as the
URL instead of the pear channel url.
- All github URLs are now https
*** 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 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
--- Comment #2 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com 2010-11-04 04:19:04 EDT
---
One (non-blocker) suggestion - I suspect that the contents of
%{_libdir}/%{name} are dlopened, right? Then no need to use versioned soname
for them (if they are dlopened and not linked at compile time). Please,
consider adding -avoid-version or something similar (depending on your
buildsystem) to libtool command line in the next releases of Fawkes.
REVIEW:
Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable
+ rpmlint is NOT silent, but all its messages were explained by submitter (see
above). I decided not to post this really huge text here.
+ The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
+ The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
+ The package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
+ The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines.
+ The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
+ The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included
in %doc.
+ The spec file is written in American English.
+ The spec file for the package is legible.
+ The sources used to build the package, match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: sha256sum fawkes-0.4.tar.bz2*
8bd9a44c070eec07323846f069be4c3dbdb6c54bb3a9312285ea14614b9ea80d
fawkes-0.4.tar.bz2
8bd9a44c070eec07323846f069be4c3dbdb6c54bb3a9312285ea14614b9ea80d
fawkes-0.4.tar.bz2.1
sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES:
+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
primary architecture. See koji link above.
+ All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. There are several
unneeded BuildRequires listed (from default build root set) but listing them
explicitly is not a blocker and might help other distribution's maintainers to
adapt this spec-file easily.
0 No need to handle locales.
+ The package stores shared library files in some of the dynamic linker's
default paths, and it calls ldconfig in %post and %postun.
+ The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
0 The package is not designed to be relocatable.
- The package MUST own all directories that it creates. Please, add %dir
%{_datadir}/fawkes to fawkes-core %files section.
+ The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files
listings.
+ Permissions on files are set properly.
+ The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ The package consistently uses macros.
+ The package contains code, or permissible content.
+ Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the
application.
+ Header files are stored in a -devel package.
0 No static libraries.
0 No pkgconfig(.pc) files.
+ The library file(s) that end in .so (without suffix) is(are) stored in a
-devel package.
+ The -devel package requires the base package using a fully versioned
dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
+ The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
- The package includes a %{name}.desktop files, and this files should be
validated with with desktop-file-validate in the %install section.
+ The package does not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
+ At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.
So here is a summary:
* Add %dir %{_datadir}/fawkes to fawkes-core %files section.
* Validate installed *.desktop files with desktop-file-validate in the %install
section.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 637519] Review Request: php-phpunit-PHPUnit-MockObject - Mock Object library for PHPUnit
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=637519
Christof Damian chris...@damian.net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||chris...@damian.net
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|chris...@damian.net
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Christof Damian chris...@damian.net 2010-11-04 04:35:15
EDT ---
MUST:
OK: rpmlint must be run on every package.
1 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
OK: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
OK: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}
OK: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines
OK: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines
OK: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
OK: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package must be included in %doc.
OK: The spec file must be written in American English.
OK: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
OK: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no
upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL
Guidelines for how to deal with this.
b0213445543496cfd8d7b2532475ce9c PHPUnit_MockObject-1.0.1.tgz
OK: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture.
builds in mock f14
OK: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of
those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
OK: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a
directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that
directory.
OK: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings.
OK: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with
executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
%defattr(...) line.
OK: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}
(or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
OK: Each package must consistently use macros.
OK: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
OK: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of
the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly
if it is not present.
OK: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
OK: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
SHOULD:
OK: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
builds in f14 (f13 + epel-6 are missing php-pear(PEAR) = 1.9.1)
COMMENTS:
- I would prefer https://github.com/sebastianbergmann/phpunit-mock-objects
as the URL instead of the pear channel URL.
*** 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 575466] Review Request: gtk-aurora-engine - Aurora GTK+ theme 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=575466 --- Comment #15 from Germán Racca gra...@gmail.com 2010-11-04 04:40:20 EDT --- (In reply to comment #14) Hi, Removing FE-NEEDSPONSOR blocker as Germán has been sponsored for a while now. Germán, I see that you've quite a few open review requests. The easiest way to get your packages reviewed is to swap reviews with others. I would not mind swapping a review or 2 with you, let me know if you're interested. Regards, Hans Hi Hans Many thanks for your message. I'm interested in swapping reviews with you, I see it is important. But it would be my first review, if you don't mind... Cheers, Germán. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 649662] New: Review Request: python-tilecache - A web map tile caching system - This is my first package and need a sponsor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: python-tilecache - A web map tile caching system - This is my first package and need a sponsor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=649662 Summary: Review Request: python-tilecache - A web map tile caching system - This is my first package and need a sponsor Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: vijivijayaku...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://viji.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/python-tilecache.spec SRPM URL: http://viji.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/python-tilecache-2.11-1.fc13.src.rpm Description: TileCache is a BSD licensed tile caching mechanism. The goal is to make it easy to set up a WMS or TMS frontend to any backend data services you might be interested in, using a pluggable caching and rendering mechanism. TileCache was developed by MetaCarta Labs as a companion to OpenLayers. This TileCache client supports multiple different rendering backends (Mapserver, Mapnik etc). Each rendering backend also supports the ability to draw 'metatiles', where a large tile is rendered, and then chopped into smaller tiles using the Python Imaging library. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 637518] Review Request: php-phpunit-PHPUnit-Selenium - Selenium RC integration for PHPUnit
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=637518
Christof Damian chris...@damian.net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||chris...@damian.net
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|chris...@damian.net
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Christof Damian chris...@damian.net 2010-11-04 04:43:41
EDT ---
MUST:
OK: rpmlint must be run on every package.
1 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
OK: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
OK: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}
OK: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines
OK: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines
OK: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
OK: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package must be included in %doc.
OK: The spec file must be written in American English.
OK: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
OK: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no
upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL
Guidelines for how to deal with this.
1aec4f3bd9b5a7d2babdad5ee2435b22 PHPUnit_Selenium-1.0.0.tgz
OK: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture.
builds in mock f14
OK: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of
those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
OK: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a
directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that
directory.
OK: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings.
OK: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with
executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
%defattr(...) line.
OK: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}
(or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
OK: Each package must consistently use macros.
OK: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
OK: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of
the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly
if it is not present.
OK: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
OK: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
SHOULD:
OK: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
builds in f14 (f13 + epel-6 are missing php-pear(PEAR) = 1.9.1)
COMMENTS:
- I would prefer https://github.com/sebastianbergmann/phpunit-selenium as the
URL instead of the pear channel URL.
*** 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 649662] Review Request: python-tilecache - A web map tile caching system - This is my first package and need a sponsor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=649662 viji vijivijayaku...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||vijivijayaku...@gmail.com Blocks||177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 637521] Review Request: php-phpunit-DbUnit - DbUnit port for PHP/PHPUnit
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=637521
Christof Damian chris...@damian.net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||chris...@damian.net
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|chris...@damian.net
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Christof Damian chris...@damian.net 2010-11-04 04:54:22
EDT ---
MUST:
OK: rpmlint must be run on every package.
1 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
OK: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
OK: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}
OK: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines
OK: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines
OK: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
OK: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package must be included in %doc.
OK: The spec file must be written in American English.
OK: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
OK: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no
upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL
Guidelines for how to deal with this.
07b6b9d544c08b54aea840ed05a99ed0 DbUnit-1.0.0.tgz
OK: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture.
builds in mock f14
OK: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of
those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
OK: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a
directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that
directory.
OK: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings.
OK: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with
executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
%defattr(...) line.
OK: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}
(or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
OK: Each package must consistently use macros.
OK: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
OK: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of
the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly
if it is not present.
OK: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
OK: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
SHOULD:
OK: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
builds in f14 (f13 + epel-6 are missing php-pear(PEAR) = 1.9.1)
COMMENTS:
- I would prefer https://github.com/sebastianbergmann/dbunit as the
URL instead of the pear channel URL.
*** 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 649662] Review Request: python-tilecache - A web map tile caching system - This is my first package and need a sponsor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=649662 viji vijivijayaku...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 649662] Review Request: python-tilecache - A web map tile caching system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=649662 Thomas Spura toms...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |python-tilecache - A web|python-tilecache - A web |map tile caching system - |map tile caching system |This is my first package| |and need a sponsor | --- Comment #1 from Thomas Spura toms...@fedoraproject.org 2010-11-04 05:09:20 EDT --- Change title, so saying it here: This is my first package and need a sponsor - Blocking FE-NEEDSPONSOR -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 649662] Review Request: python-tilecache - A web map tile caching system - This is my first package and need a sponsor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=649662 viji vijivijayaku...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |python-tilecache - A web|python-tilecache - A web |map tile caching system |map tile caching system - ||This is my first package ||and need a sponsor -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 533919] mplus fonts - The M+ family of fonts designed by Coji Morishita
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=533919 --- Comment #11 from Igshaan Mesias igshaan.mes...@gmail.com 2010-11-04 05:22:50 EDT --- Hi Hans, (In reply to comment #10) Hi, I'm not sure what the status of this review request is. But I see that an awesome amount of work has been done, both by the submitter and the reviewer. I would be more then happy to sponsor Igshaan if he still needs a sponsor. Regards, Hans Nicolas Mailhot has approved the package, Thank you for your assistance in sponsorship. It's greatly appreciated. I'm quite new to the process and I assume that I will need to be added to the packager group before submitting the SCM request? Could someone advise? Regards, Igshaan -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 649662] Blocking FE-NEEDSPONSOR - Review Request: python-tilecache - A web map tile caching system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=649662 viji vijivijayaku...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | Summary|Review Request: |Blocking FE-NEEDSPONSOR - |python-tilecache - A web|Review Request: |map tile caching system - |python-tilecache - A web |This is my first package|map tile caching system |and need a sponsor | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 642583] Review Request: rubygem-rr - RR is a framework that features a rich selection of double techniques
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=642583 Marek Mahut mma...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||mma...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mma...@redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 642601] Review Request: rubygem-uuid - Ruby UUID generator based on RFC 4122
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=642601 Marek Mahut mma...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||mma...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mma...@redhat.com --- Comment #4 from Marek Mahut mma...@redhat.com 2010-11-04 05:39:04 EDT --- Same as for previous package, please update with correct 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 649662] Review Request: python-tilecache - A web map tile caching system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=649662 viji vijivijayaku...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) Summary|Blocking FE-NEEDSPONSOR - |Review Request: |Review Request: |python-tilecache - A web |python-tilecache - A web|map tile caching system |map tile caching system | Alias||python-tilecache -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 642592] Review Request: rubygem-macaddr - Cross platform mac address determination for Ruby
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=642592 Marek Mahut mma...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||mma...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mma...@redhat.com --- Comment #5 from Marek Mahut mma...@redhat.com 2010-11-04 05:38:32 EDT --- Michal, please update the spec with a correct licence. https://github.com/btakita/rr/blob/master/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 649662] Review Request: python-tilecache - A web map tile caching system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=649662 viji vijivijayaku...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Alias|python-tilecache| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 642666] Review Request: rubygem-progressbar - ProgressBar is a text progress bar library for Ruby
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=642666 Michal Fojtik mfoj...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 642666] Review Request: rubygem-progressbar - ProgressBar is a text progress bar library for Ruby
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=642666 --- Comment #7 from Michal Fojtik mfoj...@redhat.com 2010-11-04 05:53:14 EDT --- Thank you for the review! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: rubygem-progressbar Short Description: ProgressBar is a text progress bar library for Ruby Owners:mfojtik Branches: f13 f14 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 635382] Review Request: perl-Tk-Text-SuperText - Improved text widget for perl/tk
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=635382
--- Comment #3 from Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com 2010-11-04 05:59:27 EDT ---
Spec file changes:
--- perl-Tk-Text-SuperText.spec 2010-09-19 12:33:20.0 +0200
+++ perl-Tk-Text-SuperText.spec.1 2010-11-03 19:16:42.0 +0100
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
Name: perl-Tk-Text-SuperText
Version:0.9.4
-Release:1%{?dist}
+Release:2%{?dist}
Summary:Improved text widget for perl/tk
License:GPL+ or Artistic
Group: Development/Libraries
@@ -12,12 +12,17 @@
BuildArch: noarch
BuildRequires: perl(ExtUtils::MakeMaker)
BuildRequires: perl(Tk::Text)
+BuildRequires: perl(App::Prove)
+# Parts of X Window System needed for tests to run:
+BuildRequires: xorg-x11-server-Xvfb
+BuildRequires: xorg-x11-xinit
+BuildRequires: font(:lang=en)
Requires: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_%(eval `%{__perl} -V:version`; echo
$version))
%description
Tk::Text::SuperText implements many new features over the standard Tk::Text
-widget while supporting all it's standard features.Its used simply as the
-Tk::Text widget. New Features:
+widget while supporting all it's standard features. Its used simply as the
+Tk::Text widget.
%prep
@@ -43,12 +48,10 @@
%check
-# Test can't be run w/o x11, run them at least
-# when developing the package until a mockup/Xvfb is provided
-if [ $DISPLAY ]
-then
- make test
-fi
+xinit /usr/bin/make -s test -- /usr/bin/Xvfb :666 |tee testing.TAP
+# xinit throws away the return value from make
+# Let's validate its TAP output ourselves
+prove --exec cat testing.TAP
%clean
@@ -63,6 +66,10 @@
%changelog
+* Wed Nov 03 2010 Lubomir Rintel (GoodData) lubo.rin...@gooddata.com 0.9.4-2
+- Formatting/wording fixes (Peter Pisar)
+- Actually run the test suite (Peter Pisar)
+
* Tue Jun 09 2009 Lubomir Rintel (Good Data) lubo.rin...@gooddata.com
0.9.4-1
- Specfile autogenerated by cpanspec 1.78.
- Fix up license
FIX: BuildRequires is missing perl(Tk) and perl(Tk::Derived) (SuperText.pm).
Tk::Text apparently drags them in. Do you insist on pulling them in? You know,
fedora-qa script would complain that I have unnecessarily duplicate
dependencies if I added them =]
FIX: I do not ask to BuildRequire on perl-Tk three times. I ask you to depend
on perl(Tk), perl(Tk::Derived), and perl(Tk::Text). Maintainers of perl-Tk can
decide to split the package into independent subpackages. It's good idea to
depend on each explicit Perl module to prevent future dependency problems. See
output from `rpm -pq --requires'. This is standard way how Perl packages are
maintained in Fedora. If fedora-qa script does not know about it, one should
fix the fedora-qa script and not to break spec files. In other words,
dependencies in Perl should not be expressed by package name, they should be
expressed by Perl module symbolic name (the `perl(FOO)' token). See
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Perl#Perl_Requires_and_Provides.
FIX: Description miss space after full stop and has dangling `New Features:'
string.
Uh, fixed.
Ok.
TODO: The test is never run as modern rpmbuild unset DISPLAY. Consider
running tests against Xvfb.
Done.
Ok.
+xinit /usr/bin/make -s test -- /usr/bin/Xvfb :666 |tee testing.TAP
TODO: It would be nice to replace the `/usr/bin' path with %{__bindir} macro to
achieve higher consistency and portability of the spec file.
$ rpmlint -i perl-Tk-Text-SuperText.spec
../SRPMS/perl-Tk-Text-SuperText-0.9.4-2.fc13.src.rpm
../RPMS/noarch/perl-Tk-Text-SuperText-0.9.4-2.fc13.noarch.rpm
perl-Tk-Text-SuperText.spec:19: W: comparison-operator-in-deptoken
font(:lang=en)
This dependency token contains a comparison operator (, or =). This is
usually not intended and may be caused by missing whitespace between the
token's name, the comparison operator and the version string.
perl-Tk-Text-SuperText.src:19: W: comparison-operator-in-deptoken
font(:lang=en)
This dependency token contains a comparison operator (, or =). This is
usually not intended and may be caused by missing whitespace between the
token's name, the comparison operator and the version string.
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
This is spurious warning because of `font(:lang=en)'. Ok.
Package builds in F15
(http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2575964). Ok.
Please correct all `FIX' prefixed issues and provide new spec file.
Resolution: Package NOT APPROVED.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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
Michal Fojtik mfoj...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|needinfo?(mfoj...@redhat.co |fedora-cvs+
|m) |
--- Comment #6 from Michal Fojtik mfoj...@redhat.com 2010-11-04 06:10:09 EDT
---
I'm really sorry for the delay, as usually, this package looks perfectly sane
for me:
* Packages that contain Ruby Gems must be called rubygem-%{gemname} where
gemname is the name from the Gem's specification.
[OK]
* The Source of the package must be the full URL to the released Gem archive;
th version of the package must be the Gem's version
[!] Please correct URL to:
http://rubygems.org/downloads/%{gemname}-%{version}.gem
The package must have a Requires and a BuildRequires on rubygems
[OK]
For every dependency on a Gem named gemdep, the package must contain a Requires
on rubygem(%{gemdep}) with the same version constraints as the Gem
[OK]
The %prep and %build sections of the specfile should be empty.
[OK] - They are not empty, but it's OK for binary extensions
The Gem must be installed into %{gemdir} defined as
%global gemdir %(ruby -rubygems -e 'puts Gem::dir' 2/dev/null)
[OK]
Architecture-specific content must not be installed into %{gemdir}
[OK]
If the Gem contains binary content (e.g., for a database driver), it must be
marked as architecture specific, and all architecture specific content must be
moved from the %{gemdir} to the [#ruby_sitearch %{ruby_sitearch} directory]
during %install
[OK]
Other things looks good as well. REVIEW+
(Please correct that URL before importing this gem into git)
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 529485] Review Request: qjoypad - Gamepad translator software
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=529485 --- Comment #2 from Alexander Kahl e-u...@fsfe.org 2010-11-04 06:12:09 EDT --- Spec URL: http://akahl.fedorapeople.org/qjoypad.spec SRPM URL: http://akahl.fedorapeople.org/qjoypad-4.0.0-2.fc13.src.rpm Changes: - updated spec to latest standards - replace occurences of my former corporate email address - added libX11 to linker list -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 529485] Review Request: qjoypad - Gamepad translator software
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=529485 Alexander Kahl e-u...@fsfe.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status Whiteboard|BuildFails | --- Comment #3 from Alexander Kahl e-u...@fsfe.org 2010-11-04 06:26:04 EDT --- Cleared Whiteboard. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 #7 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2010-11-04 06:23:23 EDT --- Thank you! Would you change fedora-review flag instead of fedora-cvs flag? (I can do it, however I guess I should not do it) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 641341] Review Request: perl-File-Map - Memory mapping made simple and safe
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=641341
--- Comment #4 from Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com 2010-11-04 06:27:37 EDT ---
Spec file changes:
--- perl-File-Map.spec 2010-11-04 11:10:18.571439897 +0100
+++ perl-File-Map.spec.1 2010-11-03 19:31:17.0 +0100
@@ -1,13 +1,11 @@
Name: perl-File-Map
Version:0.31
-Release:2%{?dist}
+Release:3%{?dist}
Summary:Memory mapping made simple and safe
License:GPL+ or Artistic
Group: Development/Libraries
URL:http://search.cpan.org/dist/File-Map/
Source0:
http://www.cpan.org/authors/id/L/LE/LEONT/File-Map-%{version}.tar.gz
-Patch0: perl-File-Map-0.31-pod.patch
-Patch1: perl-File-Map-0.31-tie.patch
BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
BuildRequires: perl = 0:5.008
BuildRequires: perl(Const::Fast)
@@ -18,16 +16,20 @@
BuildRequires: perl(Test::More)
BuildRequires: perl(Test::Warn)
BuildRequires: perl(Test::Pod::Coverage)
+BuildRequires: perl(Test::Pod) = 1.22
+BuildRequires: perl(IO::Handle)
+BuildRequires: perl(Time::Hires)
Requires: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_%(eval `%{__perl} -V:version`; echo
$version))
+%{?perl_default_filter}
+
%description
File::Map maps files or anonymous memory into perl variables.
%prep
%setup -q -n File-Map-%{version}
-%patch0 -p1
-%patch1 -p1
+chmod -x examples/fastsearch.pl
%build
@@ -62,6 +64,10 @@
%changelog
+* Wed Nov 03 2010 Lubomir Rintel (GoodData) lubo.rin...@gooddata.com 0.31-3
+- Drop el5 secific patches
+- Add more BuildRequires (Petr Pisar)
+
* Mon Oct 11 2010 Lubomir Rintel (GoodData) lubo.rin...@gooddata.com 0.31-2
- Fix build on el5
Patch0: perl-File-Map-0.31-pod.patch
FIX: This is wrong as the bug is in Test::Pod that has been fixed in 1.41
(http://cpansearch.perl.org/src/DWHEELER/Test-Pod-1.41/Changes). No Fedora
is affected, drop this patch or apply it conditionally on older RHEL
distributions (if necessary).
Done.
Ok.
FIX: BuildRequire perl(IO::Handle) (Build.PL and tests) as it can be
dual-lived package in the future http://search.cpan.org/~gbarr/IO/.
Ok.
FIX: BuildRequire perl(Time::Hires) (Build.PL and tests) as it can be
dual-lived package in the future http://search.cpan.org/~jhi/Time-HiRes/.
Done.
+BuildRequires: perl(Time::Hires)
Fix: Proper name is `perl(Time::HiRes)' (capital `R'). I'm sorry I got you
wrong name. Use this one please, otherwise the package cannot be built.
FIX: Remove the private library from provides. You can do that by calling
`%{?perl_default_filter}' macro right before %description section. See
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Perl_default_filter.
Done.
Ok.
FIX: Remove executable bit from fastsearch.pl.
Done.
Ok.
t/pod.t ... skipped: Test::Pod 1.22 required for testing POD
FIX: BuildRequire perl(Test::Pod) = 1.22
Done.
Ok.
FIX: Package does not build in F15 because of perl(Time::HiRes) typo
(http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2576028).
Please correct all `FIX' previxed notes and submit new spec file.
Resolution: Package NOT APPROVED.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 637491] Review Request: perl-Params-Classify - Argument type classification
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=637491
--- Comment #2 from Iain Arnell iarn...@gmail.com 2010-11-04 06:33:15 EDT ---
Oops. optimze=%{optimize} is a bug in cpanspec. Fixed to use %{optflags}.
I've also updated to latest upstream version and tweaked the {Build,}Requires
as necessary.
Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~iarnell/review/perl-Params-Classify.spec
SRPM URL:
http://fedorapeople.org/~iarnell/review/perl-Params-Classify-0.012-1.fc13.src.rpm
Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2576037
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 567678] Review Request: Cameramonitor - Notification icon when webcam is active
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=567678 Ankur Sinha sanjay.an...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||sanjay.an...@gmail.com --- Comment #18 from Ankur Sinha sanjay.an...@gmail.com 2010-11-04 07:12:11 EDT --- Hello Andrew, If you're low on time, I could try packaging this. You'll have to close this ticket so that I can submit a new review request. Thanks, regards, Ankur -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 533919] mplus fonts - The M+ family of fonts designed by Coji Morishita
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=533919 --- Comment #12 from Paul Flo Williams p...@frixxon.co.uk 2010-11-04 07:15:17 EDT --- You're quite correct. After you're sponsored, you'll be able to set the Flags at the top of the bug -- you'll see the fedora-cvs flag there. Be patient, it may take a day. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 571019] Review Request v2: libmtag - An advanced C music tagging library with a simple API
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=571019 Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|needinfo?(felipe.contreras@ | |gmail.com) | --- Comment #5 from Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com 2010-11-04 07:16:49 EDT --- (In reply to comment #3) http://people.freedesktop.org/~felipec/fedora/libmtag.spec Gives a 404 error... Fixed. Also may I ask why you are packaging libmtag? As it is a library mostly, I assume you're packaging it for use in something else? I'm asking because for sponsering I always find it good when a submitter submits multiple packages in one go, this gives me a better chance to get a feeling for how well you know the packaging guidelines. The library is good in itself. The reason I'm packaging it is so I and other people don't have to manually compile it every time. I know the packaging guidelines for C libraries, but I have never tried python or ruby packaging which is how most people are using this library. That's why I decided to start with the library first. To be honest, the process to submit packages was painful and demotivational, and after one year and addressing every comment, there's no light on the end of the tunnel. I guess I'll better give up, write compelling UI applications that use this library, and leave to other people to push for this library, when presumably you guys would bend over due to public demand. FTR. This package follows the guidelines already. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 Michal Fojtik mfoj...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review?, fedora-cvs+ |fedora-review+ --- Comment #8 from Michal Fojtik mfoj...@redhat.com 2010-11-04 08:00:54 EDT --- (In reply to comment #7) Thank you! Would you change fedora-review flag instead of fedora-cvs flag? (I can do it, however I guess I should not do it) Oh crap, sorry for that. Just too much work nowadays ;-) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 227067] Review Request: javassist-3.1-1jpp - Java Programming Assistant: bytecode manipulation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=227067 Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW CC||akurt...@redhat.com --- Comment #13 from Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com 2010-11-04 08:20:41 EDT --- Resetting assigned status to new because it wasn't really assigned to anyone. -- 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 642995] Review Request: rubygem-deltacloud-client - Deltacloud REST Client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=642995 --- Comment #14 from Michal Fojtik mfoj...@redhat.com 2010-11-04 08:30:02 EDT --- (In reply to comment #12) However currently rest-client = 1.4.2 is really needed. [r...@localhost ~]# rpm -q rubygem-deltacloud-client rubygem-rest-client rubygem-deltacloud-client-0.1.0-2.fc14.noarch rubygem-rest-client-1.4.0-6.fc14.noarch [r...@localhost ~]# ruby -rubygems -e 'gem deltacloud-client' /usr/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/rubygems.rb:779:in `report_activate_error': RubyGem version error: rest-client(1.4.0 not = 1.4.2) (Gem::LoadError) from /usr/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/rubygems.rb:214:in `activate' from /usr/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/rubygems.rb:249:in `activate' from /usr/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/rubygems.rb:248:in `each' from /usr/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/rubygems.rb:248:in `activate' from /usr/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/rubygems.rb:1082:in `gem' from -e:1 Going to update rest-client. Thanks for find out this one. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 641957] Review Request: rubygem-database_cleaner - Strategies for cleaning databases
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=641957 Jozef Zigmund jzigm...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 529485] Review Request: qjoypad - Gamepad translator software
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=529485 --- Comment #4 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2010-11-04 08:48:04 EDT --- Is there any reason not to update to 4.1? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 642592] Review Request: rubygem-macaddr - Cross platform mac address determination for Ruby
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=642592 Jozef Zigmund jzigm...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|mma...@redhat.com |jzigm...@redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 646836] Review Request: rubygem-bundler - The best way to manage your application's dependencies
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=646836 --- Comment #8 from Jozef Zigmund jzigm...@redhat.com 2010-11-04 08:51:35 EDT --- (In reply to comment #6) (In reply to comment #4) One question. Did you already find someone who is willing to sponsor you? Marek Mahut wrote me that he will be my sponsor (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=642577#c5), but it hasn't happened yet. I'm a bit pissed off, because it takes long time. Today, I became an user in Fedora 'packager' group. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 646836] Review Request: rubygem-bundler - The best way to manage your application's dependencies
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=646836 Jozef Zigmund jzigm...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 642601] Review Request: rubygem-uuid - Ruby UUID generator based on RFC 4122
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=642601 Jozef Zigmund jzigm...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|mma...@redhat.com |jzigm...@redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 637491] Review Request: perl-Params-Classify - Argument type classification
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=637491
Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com 2010-11-04 08:59:34 EDT ---
Spec file changes:
--- perl-Params-Classify.spec 2010-09-26 09:22:44.0 +0200
+++ perl-Params-Classify.spec.1 2010-11-04 11:33:13.0 +0100
@@ -1,15 +1,20 @@
Name: perl-Params-Classify
-Version:0.011
+Version:0.012
Release:1%{?dist}
Summary:Argument type classification
License:GPL+ or Artistic
Group: Development/Libraries
URL:http://search.cpan.org/dist/Params-Classify/
Source0:
http://www.cpan.org/authors/id/Z/ZE/ZEFRAM/Params-Classify-%{version}.tar.gz
+BuildRequires: perl(ExtUtils::ParseXS)
BuildRequires: perl(Module::Build)
BuildRequires: perl(parent)
+BuildRequires: perl(Scalar::Util) = 1.01
BuildRequires: perl(Test::More)
+BuildRequires: perl(Test::Pod)
+BuildRequires: perl(Test::Pod::Coverage)
Requires: perl(Exporter)
+Requires: perl(Scalar::Util) = 1.01
Requires: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_%(eval `%{__perl} -V:version`; echo
$version))
%{?perl_default_filter}
@@ -25,7 +30,7 @@
%setup -q -n Params-Classify-%{version}
%build
-%{__perl} Build.PL installdirs=vendor optimize=%{optimize}
+%{__perl} Build.PL installdirs=vendor optimize=%{optflags}
./Build
%install
@@ -46,5 +51,9 @@
%{_mandir}/man3/*
%changelog
+* Thu Nov 04 2010 Iain Arnell iarn...@gmail.com 0.012-1
+- update to latest upstream version
+- use correct optflags macro
+
* Sun Sep 26 2010 Iain Arnell iarn...@gmail.com 0.011-1
- Specfile autogenerated by cpanspec 1.78.
FIXME: BuildRequire perl(Scalar::Util) = 1.1 as it can be dual-live package
in the future (http://search.cpan.org/~gbarr/Scalar-List-Utils/)
Ok.
%{__perl} Build.PL installdirs=vendor optimize=%{optimize}
What's the `optimize' macro and argument?
Oops. optimze=%{optimize} is a bug in cpanspec. Fixed to use %{optflags}.
-%{__perl} Build.PL installdirs=vendor optimize=%{optimize}
+%{__perl} Build.PL installdirs=vendor optimize=%{optflags}
/usr/lib/rpm/rpmrc. Ok.
t/pod_cvg.t .. skipped: Test::Pod::Coverage not available
t/pod_cvg_pp.t ... skipped: Test::Pod::Coverage not available
t/pod_syn.t .. skipped: Test::Pod not available
FIX: BuildRequire perl(Test::Pod) and perl(Test::Pod::Coverage).
Ok.
Source file original. Ok.
License verified from README. Ok.
+ /usr/bin/perl Build.PL installdirs=vendor 'optimize=-O2 -g -pipe -Wall
-Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector
--param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m64 -mtune=generic'
Creating custom builder _build/lib/MyModuleBuilder.pm in _build/lib
Checking whether your kit is complete...
Looks good
Checking prerequisites...
- ERROR: ExtUtils::ParseXS (2.2002) is installed, but we need version
= 2.2006
FIX: Version perl(ExtUtils::ParseXS) = 2.006 BuildRequires.
All tests pass. Ok.
Package builds in F15
(http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2576190). Ok.
$ rpmlint perl-Params-Classify.spec
../SRPMS/perl-Params-Classify-0.012-1.fc15.src.rpm
../RPMS/x86_64/perl-Params-Classify-0.012-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm
perl-Params-Classify.spec: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %clean
perl-Params-Classify.spec: W: no-buildroot-tag
perl-Params-Classify.spec: W: no-%clean-section
perl-Params-Classify.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %clean
perl-Params-Classify.src: W: no-buildroot-tag
perl-Params-Classify.src: W: no-%clean-section
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings.
rpmlint Ok.
$ rpm -pq --requires
../RPMS/x86_64/perl-Params-Classify-0.012-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm | sort | uniq -c
1 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit)
1 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4)(64bit)
1 libc.so.6()(64bit)
1 perl(Exporter)
1 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.12.2)
1 perl(parent)
1 perl(Scalar::Util) = 1.01
1 perl(strict)
1 perl(warnings)
1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) = 3.0.4-1
1 rpmlib(FileDigests) = 4.6.0-1
1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) = 4.0-1
1 rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) = 5.2-1
2 rpmlib(VersionedDependencies) = 3.0.3-1
1 rtld(GNU_HASH)
$ rpm -pq --provides
../RPMS/x86_64/perl-Params-Classify-0.012-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm | sort | uniq -c
1 perl-Params-Classify(x86-64) = 0.012-1.fc15
1 perl(Params::Classify) = 0.012
1 perl-Params-Classify = 0.012-1.fc15
Binary dependencies Ok.
Please add the version to perl(ExtUtils::ParseXS) before commit.
Resolution: Package APPROVED.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list
[Bug 529485] Review Request: qjoypad - Gamepad translator software
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=529485 --- Comment #5 from Alexander Kahl e-u...@fsfe.org 2010-11-04 09:10:31 EDT --- None, my bad - I just didn't bother checking for a new version. Spec URL: http://akahl.fedorapeople.org/qjoypad.spec SRPM URL: http://akahl.fedorapeople.org/qjoypad-4.1.0-1.fc13.src.rpm Changes: - update to 4.1.0 - added symbolic link for suitable default icon -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 645761] Review Request: django-threadedcomments - a simple yet flexible threaded commenting system for Django
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=645761 --- Comment #3 from Domingo Becker domingobec...@gmail.com 2010-11-04 09:10:58 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1) Most of my comments in bug 645764 also apply here: * Full URL is needed on Source Fixed. * License should be BSD Fixed. * License Text should be included in the package Fixed. * Summary should be shortened (A simple yet... is enough) Please, check it. * There are couple more files for the %doc section (Changelog.txt and contributors.txt) Fixed. * Version advised in changlog does not match package Changelog seems to be outdated. I will communicate it upstream. * Did not check a mock build, but chances are Django is needed as BR: Added as BuildRequires. Same spec and srpm urls as in first comment. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 emmanuel.sey...@club-internet.fr changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #456737|0 |1 is obsolete|| Attachment #456738|0 |1 is obsolete|| --- Comment #17 from Emmanuel Seyman emmanuel.sey...@club-internet.fr 2010-11-04 09:18:12 EDT --- Created attachment 457786 -- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=457786 New patch to the spec file (In reply to comment #16) Buildroot and rm -rf in build section are not needed since F-13. These could be removed, but everything else looks allright. You're right. The new patch does this (and adds the correct changelog). Can you commit this ? I don't have provenpackager rights. -- 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 523034] Review Request: python-setuptools_trial - Setuptools plugin that makes unit tests execute with trial instead of pyunit
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=523034 Toshio Ernie Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||a.bad...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|a.bad...@gmail.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 531544] Review Request: python-trml2pdf - Tiny RML2PDF is a tool to easily create PDF documents without programming
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=531544 Toshio Ernie Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||a.bad...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|a.bad...@gmail.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 649495] Review Request: openstack-nova - OpenStack Compute (nova)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=649495 --- Comment #1 from Silas Sewell si...@sewell.ch 2010-11-04 10:12:11 EDT --- SRPM: https://github.com/downloads/silas/rpms/openstack-nova-2010.1-2.fc13.src.rpm Fixed many of the runtime issues (all daemons now start). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 467655] Review Request: yafaray - a raytracer for Blender.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467655 --- Comment #82 from Paulo Roma Cavalcanti pro...@gmail.com 2010-11-04 10:12:07 EDT --- Hi, In fact, there still is a problem. With the Qt interface active, it only works for me in KDE. In gnome, it crashes as people mentioned before. I think it is the qt gui stile, but running qtconfig-qt4 and changing the style to plastique does not seem to change anything in gnome. Any suggestion? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 523034] Review Request: python-setuptools_trial - Setuptools plugin that makes unit tests execute with trial instead of pyunit
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=523034 Toshio Ernie Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #8 from Toshio Ernie Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com 2010-11-04 10:14:36 EDT --- NEEDSWORK Good: * Named according to the naming guidelines (there's an underscore in all the upstream references to this name.) * license is BSD which is approved * spec file is readable * Source matches upstream * No locale files * No shared libraries * Not relocatable * No file listed multiple times * Permissions set properly * Package consistently uses macros * Code not content * Nothing in doc affects runtime * Not a GUI application * Does not bundle libraries in the built rpm but see below * filenames are valid utf8 * Does not own files owned by other packages * Owns all directories it creates Needswork: * Does not build in koji. The build looks for the setuptools_darcs package. This does not appear to be needed (only for creating sdists, not for the built package that we're doing so you can remove the line from the setup.py that adds this to requires. * setuptools_darcs code is present in the tarball. However, it is not being used in the build. The FPC is looking at new guidelines that say to remove such code (to make sure that it isn't being used in the build) so be ready for that potential guideline change. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Treatment_Of_Bundled_Libraries Rpmlint: srpm and binary rpm share these warnings: python-setuptools_trial.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Setuptools - Setup tools, Setup-tools, Setups python-setuptools_trial.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US plugin - plug in, plug-in, plugging python-setuptools_trial.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pyunit - pyuria, punitive, impunity These are all common words in computer jargon or proper names so these are false positives. Fix the building problems and I'll give it one more look. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 637491] Review Request: perl-Params-Classify - Argument type classification
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=637491 Iain Arnell iarn...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 637491] Review Request: perl-Params-Classify - Argument type classification
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=637491 --- Comment #4 from Iain Arnell iarn...@gmail.com 2010-11-04 10:23:50 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: perl-Params-Classify Short Description: Argument type classification Owners: iarnell Branches: f14 InitialCC: perl-sig -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 649777] New: Review Request: jorbis - Pure Java Ogg Vorbis Decoder
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: jorbis - Pure Java Ogg Vorbis Decoder https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=649777 Summary: Review Request: jorbis - Pure Java Ogg Vorbis Decoder Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: hdego...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Target Release: --- Spec URL: http://people.fedoraproject.org/~jwrdegoede/jorbis.spec SRPM URL: http://people.fedoraproject.org/~jwrdegoede/jorbis-0.0.17-1.fc14.src.rpm Description: JOrbis is a pure Java Ogg Vorbis decoder. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 649781] New: Review Request: cortado - Java media 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: cortado - Java media framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=649781 Summary: Review Request: cortado - Java media framework Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: hdego...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Target Release: --- Spec URL: http://people.fedoraproject.org/~jwrdegoede/cortado.spec SRPM URL: http://people.fedoraproject.org/~jwrdegoede/cortado-0.6.0-1.fc14.src.rpm Description: Cortado is a Java media framework based on GStreamer's design. rpmlint output: [h...@shalem devel]$ rpmlint *.src.rpm noarch/* 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 644135] Review Request: miglayout - Versatile and flexible Swing and SWT layout manager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=644135 --- Comment #3 from Hans de Goede hdego...@redhat.com 2010-11-04 10:53:58 EDT --- Note I would be grateful if you could review one of the other 2 packages needed to be able to update freecol in return :) Bug 649777 - Review Request: jorbis - Pure Java Ogg Vorbis Decoder Bug 649781 - Review Request: cortado - Java media framework -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 634911] Review Request: nodejs - Evented I/O for v8 JavaScript
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=634911 --- Comment #6 from Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk 2010-11-04 10:58:51 EDT --- (In reply to comment #5) - The provided /usr/bin/node will generate a clash with the /usr/sbin/node[4] especially when the user will have in the PATH both /usr/bin/ and /usr/sbin/ and node[4] package installed. Upstream probably could not have chosen a more generic name. I'll leave it as it is now and will attempt to settle this with upstream cooperation. So, upstream is not being very helpful here: http://groups.google.com/group/nodejs/browse_thread/thread/12a673a14838aa9a# Is this a blocker? Would it make sense to persuade the other package's upstream to change their executable name? That could be easier, since that's not an interpreter so is likely to be embedded in smaller number of scripts. Also it probably did not gain very wide adoption due state of their development, here's an excerpt from their README: This is a simple node frontend for Linux kernel AX.25, NETROM, ROSE and TCP. It's based on pms.c by Alan Cox (GW4PTS) but has been heavily modified since. It's probably not very well tested, not pretty, not very flexible and it is certainly not ready! However I think it's already somewhat usable. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 635450] Review Request: docky - MacOS-like docker app
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=635450 --- Comment #9 from Lukáš Zapletal l...@redhat.com 2010-11-04 11:04:39 EDT --- Hans, thank you for your support. I will try to pick up something from the wishlist. If you have a tip just let me know. I have already tried Crafty chess engine but due licensing issues I had to drop it (legal list confirmed me its not compatible license). Will make a new package tonight. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 571019] Review Request v2: libmtag - An advanced C music tagging library with a simple API
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=571019 --- Comment #6 from Hans de Goede hdego...@redhat.com 2010-11-04 11:06:17 EDT --- (In reply to comment #5) (In reply to comment #3) http://people.freedesktop.org/~felipec/fedora/libmtag.spec Gives a 404 error... Fixed. Thanks. Also may I ask why you are packaging libmtag? As it is a library mostly, I assume you're packaging it for use in something else? I'm asking because for sponsering I always find it good when a submitter submits multiple packages in one go, this gives me a better chance to get a feeling for how well you know the packaging guidelines. The library is good in itself. The reason I'm packaging it is so I and other people don't have to manually compile it every time. Ok. I know the packaging guidelines for C libraries, but I have never tried python or ruby packaging which is how most people are using this library. That's why I decided to start with the library first. Ok. To be honest, the process to submit packages was painful and demotivational, and after one year and addressing every comment, there's no light on the end of the tunnel. Well it seems you're previous submission ended up in a communications break down / personality clash. I do not want to get into whose fault that is (I don't care), but that does make you're case somewhat special. And I must admit that unfortunately we do not have enough people doing reviews, esp. not reviews of people who need a sponsor. If you're still interested in becoming a Fedora package maintainer I'm willing to help you through the process. Step 1 would be for me to review this package, which as you indicate should be a formality. Then I would somehow like to see some more of your packaging skills for example by packaging up a python application using this lib, see here for specific guidelines for python packaging: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python If that sounds like a good way forward to you let me know, and I'll start by reviewing this package submission. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 491331] Review Request: spacewalk-config - Spacewalk Configuration
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=491331
Miroslav Suchý msu...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|needinfo?(msu...@redhat.com |
|), |
|needinfo?(msu...@redhat.com |
|) |
--- Comment #10 from Miroslav Suchý msu...@redhat.com 2010-11-04 11:12:45 EDT
---
- Incorrect BuildRoot tag. For Fedora it can be omitted and for EPEL5 it should
be one of
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/GuidelinesAndPolicies#BuildRoot_tag
- Should use %global instead of %define
- %description should end with a dot (and could be a little more elaborate).
all addressed
- startup.pl and satidmap.pl should be tagged %config or not be in
%{_sysconfdir}. The latter is something that be fixed upstream but not in
packaging.
I moved satidmap.pl to /usr/share/rhn. No problem here.
But I have problem with startup.pl. It is perl executable. Not configuration
file. This is file which mod_perl call during its start. And it always put in
apache configuration. I tried to search for some mod_perl aplication in Fedora,
but find none.
I hesitate to mark this one file as config and also move it to other place.
- Should be GPLv2+.
No. It was released as GPLv2. We intentionaly did not released it with or
later appendix.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#Good_Licenses list GPLv2 as good
license.
[/] Package must own all directories that it creates.
Addressed.
[/] Package does not contain duplicates in %files
Addressed.
Is %{_sharedstatedir}/rhn really not owned by something else?
No. On fully installed Spacewalk:
# rpm -qf /var/lib/rhn
file /var/lib/rhn is not owned by any package
Updated SRPM:
http://miroslav.suchy.cz/fedora/spacewalk-config/spacewalk-config-1.2.6-1.el6.src.rpm
SPEC: http://miroslav.suchy.cz/fedora/spacewalk-config/spacewalk-config.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 649802] New: Review Request: perl-RT-Extension-CommandByMail - Change metadata of a RT ticket via email
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-RT-Extension-CommandByMail - Change metadata of a RT ticket via email https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=649802 Summary: Review Request: perl-RT-Extension-CommandByMail - Change metadata of a RT ticket via email Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: da...@gnsa.us QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://ke4qqq.fedorapeople.org/perl-RT-Extension-CommandByMail.spec SRPM URL: http://ke4qqq.fedorapeople.org/perl-RT-Extension-CommandByMail-0.07-1.fc14.src.rpm Description: This extension allows you to manage tickets via RT's email interface. You put commands into beginning of a mail and extension applies them. See the list of commands in the RT::Interface::Email::Filter::TakeAction docs. rpmlint output: [ke4...@nalleyx60 SPECS]$ rpmlint ../SRPMS/perl-RT-Extension-CommandByMail-0.07-1.fc14.src.rpm ./perl-RT-Extension-CommandByMail.spec ../RPMS/noarch/perl-RT-Extension-CommandByMail-0.07-1.fc14.noarch.rpm perl-RT-Extension-CommandByMail.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) metadata - meta data, meta-data, metatarsus perl-RT-Extension-CommandByMail.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US TakeAction - Take Action, Take-action, Abreaction perl-RT-Extension-CommandByMail.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) metadata - meta data, meta-data, metatarsus perl-RT-Extension-CommandByMail.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US TakeAction - Take Action, Take-action, Abreaction 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Successful koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2576432 A couple of notes: %test was effectively disabled. As noted in the documentation for the test suite to function, RT's configuration file must be modified. rt3 really is a buildrequires, as it actively looks for the configuration file during building. Leaving it out prompts for the location of the configuration file. (You can see a failed koji build here showing the problem: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2576427 ) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 647149] Review Request: perl-Test-Fatal - Incredibly simple helpers for testing code with exceptions
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=647149 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||ppi...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ppi...@redhat.com Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 635450] Review Request: docky - MacOS-like docker app
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=635450 --- Comment #10 from Hans de Goede hdego...@redhat.com 2010-11-04 11:40:27 EDT --- Hi, (In reply to comment #9) Hans, thank you for your support. I will try to pick up something from the wishlist. Great! If you have a tip just let me know. I think it is best if you select things to package yourself, you'll end up maintaining them too after all. But if you just want some packaging experience and don't mind much what you package, let me know and I'm sure I can come up with something. 3 areas which I have in mind for possible candidates are java, mingw or gaming packages. If you want me to list a few things let me know which area(s) you prefer. Regards, Hans -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 637507] Review Request: php-phpunit-Text-Template - Simple template 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=637507 Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 649662] Review Request: python-tilecache - A web map tile caching system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=649662
Michel Alexandre Salim fed...@michelsylvain.info changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||fed...@michelsylvain.info
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|fed...@michelsylvain.info
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Comment #2 from Michel Alexandre Salim fed...@michelsylvain.info
2010-11-04 11:47:35 EDT ---
Welcome to the world of Fedora packaging :)
A quick initial review:
This is a noarch package, so
- remove CFLAGS=$RPM_OPT_FLAGS from %build
- you must declare BuildArch: noarch
Files in /etc should:
- be marked as either %config(noreplace) -- meaning that if the file is changed
by the user, on upgrade/reinstall the config file is not touched but the new
file saved with a .rpmnew suffix
- or marked %config(replace) -- meaning the opposite; old file saved as
.rpmsave
- use %{_sysconfdir} rather than /etc
Also, if you're only targeting Fedora 12 or above, and RHEL 6 or above,
BuildRoot is unnecessary. From Fedora 13 and above (alas, no RHEL release yet)
the %clean section is also unnecessary; see
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#.25clean
%python_sitelib declaration is also optional if you only target F-13+ and RHEL
6+:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python
I'll do an updated review once these are fixed.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 637507] Review Request: php-phpunit-Text-Template - Simple template 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=637507 --- Comment #3 from Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com 2010-11-04 11:48:06 EDT --- Thanks for the review. I will fix the URL after import New Package SCM Request === Package Name: php-phpunit-Text-Template Short Description: Simple template engine Owners: remi Branches: f13 f14 el6 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 637521] Review Request: php-phpunit-DbUnit - DbUnit port for PHP/PHPUnit
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=637521 Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com 2010-11-04 11:52:12 EDT --- Thanks for the review. I will fix the URL after import I will also hack the package.xml to lower PEAR req in EL6 New Package SCM Request === Package Name: php-phpunit-DbUnit Short Description: DbUnit port for PHP/PHPUnit Owners: remi Branches: f14 el6 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 637518] Review Request: php-phpunit-PHPUnit-Selenium - Selenium RC integration for PHPUnit
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=637518 Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com 2010-11-04 11:51:13 EDT --- Thanks for the review. I will fix the URL after import I will also hack the package.xml to lower PEAR req in EL6 New Package SCM Request === Package Name: php-phpunit-PHPUnit-Selenium Short Description: Selenium RC integration for PHPUnit Owners: remi Branches: f14 el6 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 637519] Review Request: php-phpunit-PHPUnit-MockObject - Mock Object library for PHPUnit
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=637519 Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com 2010-11-04 11:50:06 EDT --- Thanks for the review. I will fix the URL after import I will also hack the package.xml to lower PEAR req in EL6 New Package SCM Request === Package Name: php-phpunit-PHPUnit-MockObject Short Description: Mock Object library for PHPUnit Owners: remi Branches: f14 el6 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 565811] Review Request: rubygem-rest-client - Simple REST client for Ruby
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=565811 --- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2010-11-04 11:53:35 EDT --- rubygem-rest-client-1.6.1-1.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rubygem-rest-client-1.6.1-1.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 565811] Review Request: rubygem-rest-client - Simple REST client for Ruby
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=565811 --- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2010-11-04 11:52:43 EDT --- rubygem-rest-client-1.6.1-1.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rubygem-rest-client-1.6.1-1.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 609012] Review Request: gooddata-cl - GoodData integration toolkit
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=609012
Michal Ingeli m...@v3.sk changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||m...@v3.sk
AssignedTo|mma...@redhat.com |m...@v3.sk
--- Comment #5 from Michal Ingeli m...@v3.sk 2010-11-04 11:58:26 EDT ---
* description and spec file clean, no useless comments
- URL contains a dead link.
- Project name and package name consistency GoodData-CL Vs. gooddata-cl
- Build failed for f13 [1] and also f14 [2].
- rpmlint errors:
gooddata-cl.src: W: invalid-url Source0: gooddata-cl-1.1.4.tar.gz
* sources from git repo - OK
gooddata-cl.src: W: no-buildroot-tag
* if this package is intended to be build for EPEL, it should contain
buildroot tag.
gooddata-cl.src: W: strange-permission gooddata-cli 0755L
* file listed in %{_bindir}, rpmlint shouldn't be complaining
- missing BuildDeps reported by koji:
DEBUG util.py:260: No Package Found for axis = 1.4
DEBUG util.py:260: No Package Found for javacc-maven-plugin
DEBUG util.py:260: No Package Found for xpp3-minimal = 1.1.3.8-3.4
DEBUG util.py:260: No Package Found for xstream = 1.3.1
DEBUG util.py:260: No Package Found for json-lib
DEBUG util.py:260: No Package Found for gdata-java 1.39
[1] http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2576436
[2] http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2576466
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 533919] mplus fonts - The M+ family of fonts designed by Coji Morishita
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=533919 --- Comment #13 from Hans de Goede hdego...@redhat.com 2010-11-04 12:05:00 EDT --- Hi, I've done quick review of the package , which thanks to Nicolas very thorough review of course is fine (you first package must be reviewed by a sponsor hence the re-review, a mere formality in this case). I've added you to the packager group in the account system and sponsored you, so you should be able to proceed with the next steps in the process: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join#Add_Package_to_Source_Code_Management_.28SCM.29_system_and_Set_Owner Note that it may take up to an hour for the change in the account system to make its way into bugzilla, and before that you cannot set the fedora-cvs flag. Welcome as a Fedora packager! Regards, Hans -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 649826] New: Review Request: instantbird - Instant messaging client based on XULrunner and libpurple
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: instantbird - Instant messaging client based on XULrunner and libpurple https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=649826 Summary: Review Request: instantbird - Instant messaging client based on XULrunner and libpurple Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: hicham.haou...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://hicham.fedorapeople.org/instantbird/F-14/instantbird.spec SRPM URL: http://hicham.fedorapeople.org/instantbird/F-14/SRPMS/instantbird-0.2-1.1291hg.fc14.src.rpm Description: Instantbird is an IM client based on Mozilla's XULrunner. It supports connecting to all of the popular IRC networks through the use of libpurple, Pidgin's messaging core. It supports all of the usual IM networks, like AIM, MSN, Jabber and so on. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 533919] Review Request: mplus fonts - The M+ family of fonts designed by Coji Morishita
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=533919 Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|mplus fonts - The M+ family |Review Request: mplus fonts |of fonts designed by Coji |- The M+ family of fonts |Morishita |designed by Coji Morishita -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 646874] Review Request: rubygem-sequel - database toolkit for ruby
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=646874 --- Comment #6 from Alejandro_Perez alejandro.perez.tor...@gmail.com 2010-11-04 12:19:58 EDT --- 1 License, changed spec file at http://aeperezt.fedorapeople.org/rpmdev/rubygem-sequel.spec srpm file at http://aeperezt.fedorapeople.org/rpmdev/rubygem-sequel-3.16.0-6.fc14.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 646874] Review Request: rubygem-sequel - database toolkit for ruby
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=646874 --- Comment #7 from Alejandro_Perez alejandro.perez.tor...@gmail.com 2010-11-04 12:24:46 EDT --- 2 rpmlint for spec and srpm file rpmlint -i rubygem-sequel.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint -i ../SRPMS/rubygem-sequel-3.16.0-6.fc14.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 647149] Review Request: perl-Test-Fatal - Incredibly simple helpers for testing code with exceptions
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=647149 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com 2010-11-04 12:29:46 EDT --- Source file original. Ok. License verified from README. Ok. Patch0: Test-Fatal-0.003-versions.patch TODO: Post the patch to upstream. -use ExtUtils::MakeMaker 6.31; +use ExtUtils::MakeMaker 6.17; TODO: Put the version to BuildRequires in spec file. This makes RPM backporting into old distribution easier. -'Test::More' = '0.96', +'Test::More' = '0.47', TODO: Put the version to BuildRequires in spec file. BuildRequires: perl(Test::Pod) $ grep -Hnr Test::Pod * t/release-pod-syntax.t:12:eval use Test::Pod 1.41; t/release-pod-syntax.t:13:plan skip_all = Test::Pod 1.41 required for testing TODO: Put the version to BuildRequires in spec file. All tests pass. Ok. $ rpmlint perl-Test-Fatal.spec ../SRPMS/perl-Test-Fatal-0.003-1.fc15.src.rpm ../RPMS/noarch/perl-Test-Fatal-0.003-1.fc15.noarch.rpm 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint Ok. $ rpm -pq -lv ../RPMS/noarch/perl-Test-Fatal-0.003-1.fc15.noarch.rpm drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 lis 4 17:08 /usr/share/doc/perl-Test-Fatal-0.003 -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 379 říj 29 04:11 /usr/share/doc/perl-Test-Fatal-0.003/Changes -rw-r--r--1 rootroot18258 říj 29 04:11 /usr/share/doc/perl-Test-Fatal-0.003/LICENSE -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 324 říj 29 04:11 /usr/share/doc/perl-Test-Fatal-0.003/README -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 3046 lis 4 17:08 /usr/share/man/man3/Test::Fatal.3pm.gz drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 lis 4 17:08 /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Test -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 3355 lis 4 17:08 /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Test/Fatal.pm File layout and permissions Ok. $ rpm -pq --requires ../RPMS/noarch/perl-Test-Fatal-0.003-1.fc15.noarch.rpm | sort | uniq -c 1 perl(Carp) 1 perl(Exporter) = 5.57 1 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.12.2) 1 perl(strict) 1 perl(Try::Tiny) = 0.07 1 perl(warnings) 1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) = 3.0.4-1 1 rpmlib(FileDigests) = 4.6.0-1 1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) = 4.0-1 1 rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) = 5.2-1 1 rpmlib(VersionedDependencies) = 3.0.3-1 $ rpm -pq --provides ../RPMS/noarch/perl-Test-Fatal-0.003-1.fc15.noarch.rpm | sort | uniq -c 1 perl(Test::Fatal) = 0.003 1 perl-Test-Fatal = 0.003-1.fc15 Binary dependencies Ok. Package is in line with Fedora and Perl packaging guidelines. Package builds in F15 (http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2576674). Ok. Please consider correcting all `TODO' prefixed advises. Resolution: Package APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 645603] Review Request: python-mox - Mock object 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=645603 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2010-11-04 12:36:34 EDT --- python-mox-0.5.3-2.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-mox-0.5.3-2.fc14 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 645603] Review Request: python-mox - Mock object 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=645603 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2010-11-04 12:37:15 EDT --- python-mox-0.5.3-2.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-mox-0.5.3-2.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 648266] 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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=648266 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||ppi...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ppi...@redhat.com Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 645603] Review Request: python-mox - Mock object 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=645603 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 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 531544] Review Request: python-trml2pdf - Tiny RML2PDF is a tool to easily create PDF documents without programming
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=531544 --- Comment #8 from Cristian Ciupitu cristian.ciup...@yahoo.com 2010-11-04 12:35:17 EDT --- (In reply to comment #7) (In reply to comment #6) - URL is incorrect, it should be something of the sort http://packages.pardus.org.tr/contrib/source/trml2pdf.html (it should point to the package homepage, not the directory where the tarball has been taken from) As far as I know the package is unmaintained, so that why I've used that URL. How do you know that it's unmaintained? You can always ask upstream... I tried to contact upstream and I got no answer. The latest versions can be found here: - http://github.com/ciupicri/rpmbuild/raw/master/SPECS/python-trml2pdf.spec - http://sites.google.com/site/cristianciupitu/python-trml2pdf-1.2-1.fc14.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 529485] Review Request: qjoypad - Gamepad translator software
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=529485
Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ti...@math.uh.edu
--- Comment #6 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2010-11-04 12:34:21 EDT
---
FYI, you don't need %clean at all these days. (F12 was the last Fedora release
that needed it, and F12 is closed to new packages, so)
Unfortunately manipulation of %buildroot in %build is a guideline violation.
rpmlint complains about it:
qjoypad.src:35: W: rpm-buildroot-usage
%build test -d $RPM_BUILD_ROOT || mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
qjoypad.src:38: W: rpm-buildroot-usage
%build ./config --prefix=%{_prefix} --install-dir=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT
I believe it suffices to simply call the config script twice; once in %build
without --install-dir and again in %install with --install-dir. This seems to
result in an identical package.
I installed and ran the package and it seems to work but I have no joypads (nor
can I understand how anyone uses those uncomfortable things).
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 645603] Review Request: python-mox - Mock object 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=645603 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2010-11-04 12:38:03 EDT --- python-mox-0.5.3-2.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-mox-0.5.3-2.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 647149] Review Request: perl-Test-Fatal - Incredibly simple helpers for testing code with exceptions
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=647149 Paul Howarth p...@city-fan.org changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Paul Howarth p...@city-fan.org 2010-11-04 12:39:47 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: perl-Test-Fatal Short Description: Incredibly simple helpers for testing code with exceptions Owners: pghmcfc Branches: EL-4 EL-5 EL-6 F-13 F-14 InitialCC: perl-sig -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 609012] Review Request: gooddata-cl - GoodData integration toolkit
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=609012 --- Comment #7 from Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk 2010-11-04 12:43:54 EDT --- Built: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2576732 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 609012] Review Request: gooddata-cl - GoodData integration toolkit
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=609012
--- Comment #6 from Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk 2010-11-04 12:43:36 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #5)
* description and spec file clean, no useless comments
- URL contains a dead link.
Fixed
- Project name and package name consistency GoodData-CL Vs. gooddata-cl
- Build failed for f13 [1]
F13 is too old.
and also f14 [2].
Fixed.
gooddata-cl.src: W: no-buildroot-tag
* if this package is intended to be build for EPEL, it should contain
buildroot tag.
EPEL is even more ancient.
gooddata-cl.src: W: strange-permission gooddata-cli 0755L
* file listed in %{_bindir}, rpmlint shouldn't be complaining
Well this is about the Source file. Fixed.
- missing BuildDeps reported by koji:
DEBUG util.py:260: No Package Found for axis = 1.4
DEBUG util.py:260: No Package Found for javacc-maven-plugin
DEBUG util.py:260: No Package Found for xpp3-minimal = 1.1.3.8-3.4
DEBUG util.py:260: No Package Found for xstream = 1.3.1
DEBUG util.py:260: No Package Found for json-lib
DEBUG util.py:260: No Package Found for gdata-java 1.39
This is on F13. That's too old.
SPEC: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SPECS/gooddata-cl.spec
SRPM:
http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SRPMS/gooddata-cl-1.1.4-2.fc14.src.rpm
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 225956] Merge Review: jzlib
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225956 Chris Spike chris.sp...@arcor.de changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ Last Closed||2010-11-04 12:50:48 --- Comment #4 from Chris Spike chris.sp...@arcor.de 2010-11-04 12:50:48 EDT --- *** APPROVED *** closing... -- 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 647149] Review Request: perl-Test-Fatal - Incredibly simple helpers for testing code with exceptions
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=647149 --- Comment #6 from Paul Howarth p...@city-fan.org 2010-11-04 12:51:27 EDT --- Patch0: Test-Fatal-0.003-versions.patch TODO: Post the patch to upstream. Done: https://rt.cpan.org/Public/Bug/Display.html?id=62699 -use ExtUtils::MakeMaker 6.31; +use ExtUtils::MakeMaker 6.17; TODO: Put the version to BuildRequires in spec file. This makes RPM backporting into old distribution easier. Not really necessary: this version requirement is met by all current releases including EL-4. -'Test::More' = '0.96', +'Test::More' = '0.47', TODO: Put the version to BuildRequires in spec file. Again, this requirement is met by all current releases. BuildRequires: perl(Test::Pod) $ grep -Hnr Test::Pod * t/release-pod-syntax.t:12:eval use Test::Pod 1.41; t/release-pod-syntax.t:13:plan skip_all = Test::Pod 1.41 required for testing TODO: Put the version to BuildRequires in spec file. Doing that would prevent builds on older releases purely because we couldn't check the POD syntax during the build, so I don't think that's a good idea. Thanks for the review Petr. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 531363] Review request: WiKIDToken - Token for the WiKID Strong Authentication System
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=531363 --- Comment #4 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2010-11-04 12:54:13 EDT --- Java isn't my strong suit; I'll make some comments and hopefully the Java SIG folks can help out. In %prep, you need to delete any jar and class files present in the zip. It looks like there's a pile of bundled stuff in there, and we need to make sure that none of it gets into the final package. Unfortunately I did that and the package fails to build, so it looks like you're relying on that bundled stuff. Bundling libraries in that manner is not permissible in Fedora. See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Duplication_of_system_libraries and and http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries for more information. This is a strong blocker, but there are a few other things I see on a first glance. Please remove the suse stuff from the spec. Don't reference $RPM_BUILD_DIR at all. Don't redefine %_prefix. You probably want %_datadir instead of defining %_sharedir to what %_datadir normally contains. Be careful of using macros in comments. '#' isn't a comment character in a spec file, and macros are still expanded. This means that multiline macros will cause problems. Do you really find it simpler to use %__chmod instead of just chmod? If so, you need to be consistent, so use %__mkdir, %__mkdir_p and such as well. Or just drop the needless complexity and call the commands directly. Don't mix usage of %buildroot and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT. Pick one style and use it consistently. Fedora does not need BuildRoot:, the first line of %install or the %clean section. (EPEL 4 and 5 still do, though, so it's not mandatory that you remove them.) %fedora_version, %rhel_version and %centos_version are not defined anywhere in your spec, and they aren't defined in the buildsystem. You should remove them. If you want to conditionalize things based on RHEL or Fedora versions, see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:DistTag. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 645604] Review Request: python-gflags - Commandline flags 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=645604 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2010-11-04 12:59:56 EDT --- python-gflags-1.4-2.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-gflags-1.4-2.fc14 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 226155] Merge Review: mod_perl
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226155 Marcela Mašláňová mmasl...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Fixed In Version||mod_perl-2.0.4-12.fc15 Resolution||RAWHIDE Last Closed||2010-11-04 12:58:17 --- Comment #18 from Marcela Mašláňová mmasl...@redhat.com 2010-11-04 12:58:17 EDT --- (In reply to comment #17) Created attachment 457786 [details] New patch to the spec file (In reply to comment #16) Buildroot and rm -rf in build section are not needed since F-13. These could be removed, but everything else looks allright. You're right. The new patch does this (and adds the correct changelog). Can you commit this ? I don't have provenpackager rights. Built in rawhide. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 645604] Review Request: python-gflags - Commandline flags 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=645604 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 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 645604] Review Request: python-gflags - Commandline flags 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=645604 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2010-11-04 13:01:19 EDT --- python-gflags-1.4-2.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-gflags-1.4-2.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 645764] Review Request: django-addons - to add plugging functionality in your projects easier
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=645764 --- Comment #9 from Domingo Becker domingobec...@gmail.com 2010-11-04 12:58:07 EDT --- (In reply to comment #8) the LICENSE file needs to be added to %doc, along with README or PKG-INFO (the least two seem to have basically the same content) Fixed. Added a %doc section. rpmlint is not clean; some items will go away but I think: django-addons.noarch: W: non-standard-dir-in-usr django_addons needs to be addressed. Is there a reason why that directory is not in /usr/share ? I asked upstream about this issue. Fixed with Toshio's patch to move the data files to a more appropriate place. Current django-addons.spec and patches are in Spec URL: http://beckerde.fedorapeople.org/transifex/django-addons.spec Patch1 URL: http://beckerde.fedorapeople.org/transifex/django-addons-rm-bad-string.diff Patch2 URL: http://toshio.fedorapeople.org/django-addons-package-data.patch SRPM URL: http://beckerde.fedorapeople.org/transifex/django-addons-0.6.2-2.fc13.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 645764] Review Request: django-addons - to add plugging functionality in your projects easier
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=645764 --- Comment #10 from Domingo Becker domingobec...@gmail.com 2010-11-04 13:08:32 EDT --- Updated to new upstream version 0.6.3 which applies proposed patches: Spec URL: http://beckerde.fedorapeople.org/transifex/django-addons.spec SRPM URL: http://beckerde.fedorapeople.org/transifex/django-addons-0.6.3-1.fc13.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 529485] Review Request: qjoypad - Gamepad translator software
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=529485 --- Comment #7 from Alexander Kahl e-u...@fsfe.org 2010-11-04 13:08:18 EDT --- Ha, you're right. Calling config twice did the trick. I'm quite surprised you consider joypads uncomfortable (I'm mostly a keyboard hacker myself). Spec URL: http://akahl.fedorapeople.org/qjoypad.spec SRPM URL: http://akahl.fedorapeople.org/qjoypad-4.1.0-2.fc13.src.rpm Changes: - eliminated %%config altogether - split up into two config calls in order to prevent breaking the guidelines regarding use of $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 649662] Review Request: python-tilecache - A web map tile caching system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=649662 Shakthi Kannan shakthim...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||shakthim...@gmail.com --- Comment #3 from Shakthi Kannan shakthim...@gmail.com 2010-11-04 13:12:52 EDT --- #001 It should be Patch0 and not Patch01. Also when you apply it, it must be %patch0 -p1. #002 Please post output of rpmlint on the built files. #003 Please build the .src.rpm with koji on different target builds and let us know the results. #004 In the changelog, use viji [AT] fedoraproject DOT org to avoid spammers using your direct e-mail address from your package .spec file. #005 When you use cp, try to preserve permissions with cp -p. #006 The changelog entry should be 2.11-1. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 648266] 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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=648266 --- Comment #1 from Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com 2010-11-04 13:23:21 EDT --- Source file original. Ok. License verified from README and lib/CGI/Application/Plugin/JSON.pm. Ok. BuildRequires: perl(CGI::Application) FIX: Add `= 4' version constrain to the BuildRequires (META.yml) BuildRequires: perl(JSON) FIX: Add `= 2.02' version constrain to the BuildRequires (META.yml) BuildRequires: perl(JSON::Any) FIX: Add `= 1.14' version constrain to the BuildRequires (META.yml) All tests pass. Ok. $ rpmlint perl-CGI-Application-Plugin-JSON.spec ../SRPMS/perl-CGI-Application-Plugin-JSON-1.02-1.fc13.src.rpm ../RPMS/noarch/perl-CGI-Application-Plugin-JSON-1.02-1.fc13.noarch.rpm perl-CGI-Application-Plugin-JSON.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/perl-CGI-Application-Plugin-JSON-1.02/TODO 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings. FIX: Do not pack empty TODO file. $ rpm -pq -lv ../RPMS/noarch/perl-CGI-Application-Plugin-JSON-1.02-1.fc13.noarch.rpm drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 lis 4 18:03 /usr/share/doc/perl-CGI-Application-Plugin-JSON-1.02 -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 789 dub 8 2009 /usr/share/doc/perl-CGI-Application-Plugin-JSON-1.02/Changes -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 4459 dub 8 2009 /usr/share/doc/perl-CGI-Application-Plugin-JSON-1.02/README -rw-r--r--1 rootroot0 dub 8 2009 /usr/share/doc/perl-CGI-Application-Plugin-JSON-1.02/TODO -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 3414 lis 4 18:03 /usr/share/man/man3/CGI::Application::Plugin::JSON.3pm.gz drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 lis 4 18:03 /usr/share/perl5/CGI drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 lis 4 18:03 /usr/share/perl5/CGI/Application drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 lis 4 18:03 /usr/share/perl5/CGI/Application/Plugin -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 7192 lis 4 18:03 /usr/share/perl5/CGI/Application/Plugin/JSON.pm File layout and permissions are Ok. $ rpm -pq --requires ../RPMS/noarch/perl-CGI-Application-Plugin-JSON-1.02-1.fc13.noarch.rpm | sort | uniq -c 1 perl(base) 1 perl(CGI::Application) 1 perl(JSON::Any) 1 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.10.1) 1 perl(strict) 1 perl(warnings) 1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) = 3.0.4-1 1 rpmlib(FileDigests) = 4.6.0-1 1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) = 4.0-1 1 rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) = 5.2-1 1 rpmlib(VersionedDependencies) = 3.0.3-1 FIX: Add version to Requires: perl(CGI::Application) and perl(JSON::Any) as stated in META.yml. $ rpm -pq --provides ../RPMS/noarch/perl-CGI-Application-Plugin-JSON-1.02-1.fc13.noarch.rpm | sort | uniq -c 1 perl(CGI::Application::Plugin::JSON) = 1.02 1 perl-CGI-Application-Plugin-JSON = 1.02-1.fc13 Binary provides Ok. Package builds in F15 (http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2577845). Ok. + ./Build test t/00-pod.t ... ok t/01-pod-coverage.t .. skipped: Test::Pod::Coverage 1.04 required for testing POD coverage FIX: BuildRequire perl(Test::Pod::Coverage) = 1.04 Otherwise package is in line with Fedora and Perl packaging guidelines. Ok. Please correct all `FIX' prefixed issues and submit new spec file. Resolution: Package NOT APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 640205] Review Request: visualvm - Lightweight profiler that integrates many command-line JDK tools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=640205 Andrew John Hughes ahug...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|631360 | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
