[Bug 652571] Review Request: ghc-digest - cryptographic hashes of bytestrings
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652571 Lakshmi Narasimhan changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Lakshmi Narasimhan 2010-12-06 02:41:36 EST --- SPEC URL : http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/ghc-digest/ghc-digest.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 634037] Review Request: ghc-MissingH - Large utility 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=634037 --- Comment #9 from Jens Petersen 2010-12-05 23:31:48 EST --- Created attachment 464921 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=464921 ghc-MissingH.spec-2.patch Package is APPROVED. I forgot to post this little suggestion to simplify the COPYRIGHT conversion. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 654374] Review Request: navit - Car navigation system with routing 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=654374 --- Comment #21 from Ralf Corsepius 2010-12-05 22:52:26 EST --- Further remarks: - tarballs contains an uses a bundled library: navit/fib-1.1 Googling for it indicates nobody is shipping this library. - the svn snapshot tarballs contain bundled libraries and java binaries (android java, licensed Apache-2.0 == GPLv2 incompatible) => Your source tarballs are non-GPLv2 compatible - the svn snapshot tarballs contain a copy of the Liberation-fonts. == unnecessary bloat The official stable source tarball doesn't contain the android code nor the liberation fonts. Therefore, I am inclined to think your snapshot tarballs are improperly cut or upstream might be heading an unhealthy development direction. That said, I can't avoid to ask a direct question: Why are you trying to package an unstable developments branch instead of what upstream calls "stable"? Finally: Package still contains the sample map. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 634037] Review Request: ghc-MissingH - Large utility 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=634037
Jens Petersen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #8 from Jens Petersen 2010-12-05 22:41:42 EST
---
Here is the review:
+:ok, NA: not applicable
MUST Items:
[+] MUST: rpmlint output:
ghc-MissingH.src: W: strange-permission ghc-MissingH.spec 0640L
ghc-MissingH.src: W: strange-permission MissingH-1.1.0.3.tar.gz 0640L
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
ghc-MissingH-prof.x86_64: E: devel-dependency ghc-MissingH-devel
ghc-MissingH-prof.x86_64: W: no-documentation
ghc-MissingH-prof.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/ghc-6.12.3/MissingH-1.1.0.3/libHSMissingH-1.1.0.3_p.a
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings.
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match base package %{name}
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[+] MUST: include license files in %doc if included in source
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English and be legible.
[+] MUST: source md5sum matches upstream release
a64af1885d60523fe598b4dad086fa6e MissingH-1.1.0.3.tar.gz
[+] MUST: must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on one main arch
[+] MUST: if necessary use ExcludeArch for other archs
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires
[NA] MUST: use %find_lang macro for .po translations
[NA] MUST: packages with shared library files in the dynamic linker's default
paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[+] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[NA] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must
state this fact in the request for review
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates, or require a
package which does create that directory.
[+] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing
(except license files if necessary).
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
%defattr(...) line.
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[NA] MUST: Large documentation files should go in a doc subpackage.
[+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application.
[+] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[NA] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[NA] MUST: If a package has library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1),
then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel
package.
[+] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release}
[+] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be
removed in the spec.
[NA] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the
%install section.
[+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
[+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
SHOULD Items:
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2645981
[+] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all
supported architectures.
[+] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 596593] Review Request: ibus-table-chinese - Chinese tables for IBus-Table
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=596593 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 596593] Review Request: ibus-table-chinese - Chinese tables for IBus-Table
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=596593 --- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System 2010-12-05 21:19:35 EST --- ibus-table-chinese-1.3.0.20101206-1.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ibus-table-chinese-1.3.0.20101206-1.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 596593] Review Request: ibus-table-chinese - Chinese tables for IBus-Table
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=596593 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System 2010-12-05 21:19:23 EST --- ibus-table-chinese-1.3.0.20101206-1.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ibus-table-chinese-1.3.0.20101206-1.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 523540] Review Request: opentracker - BitTorrent Tracker
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=523540 Stefan Neufeind changed: What|Removed |Added CC||red...@stefan-neufeind.de --- Comment #67 from Stefan Neufeind 2010-12-05 19:33:37 EST --- Since no more objects from a packaging-side arrived so far, the package builds fine for me on FC14 and opentracker works as intended, I'd like to suggest to accept this package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 660159] Review Request: thunar-vfs - Virtual filesystem shipped with Thunar 1.0 and earlier releases
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=660159 Kevin Fenzi changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ke...@tummy.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Kevin Fenzi 2010-12-05 18:06:17 EST --- I'll go ahead and review this later today or in the next few days. Look for a full review then. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 660159] New: Review Request: thunar-vfs - Virtual filesystem shipped with Thunar 1.0 and earlier releases
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: thunar-vfs - Virtual filesystem shipped with Thunar 1.0 and earlier releases https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=660159 Summary: Review Request: thunar-vfs - Virtual filesystem shipped with Thunar 1.0 and earlier releases Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: cwick...@fedoraproject.org QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://cwickert.fedorapeople.org/review/thunar-vfs.spec SRPM URL: http://cwickert.fedorapeople.org/review/thunar-vfs-1.1.1-1.fc15.src.rpm Description: This package contains the virtual filesystem shipped with Thunar 1.0 and earlier releases. It provides compatibility for applications that still use thunar-vfs while Thunar was ported to GVFS. Note: This package is targeted at Xfce 4.8 and conflicts wich Thunar < 1.1.0. You will need to use the Xfce 4.8 repo from http://repos.fedorapeople.org/repos/cwickert/xfce-4.8/ in order to build the package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 650717] Review Request: PolicyKit-olpc - OLPC-specific PolicyKit overrides
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=650717
Peter Robinson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Peter Robinson 2010-12-05 17:30:50
EST ---
Looks fine but except for the one rpmlint warning although not a blocker.
APPROVED.
+ rpmlint output
rpmlint PolicyKit-olpc-1.4-1.fc14.src.rpm PolicyKit-olpc-1.4-1.fc14.noarch.rpm
PolicyKit-olpc.spec
PolicyKit-olpc.src: W: strange-permission PolicyKit-olpc-1.4.tar.gz 0444L
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
+ package name satisfies the packaging naming guidelines
+ specfile name matches the package base name
+ package should satisfy packaging guidelines
+ license meets guidelines and is acceptable to Fedora
+ license matches the actual package license
+ latest version packaged
+ %doc includes license file
+ spec file written in American English
+ spec file is legible
+ upstream sources match sources in the srpm
5cad081bb55d925671cf9881433b781f PolicyKit-olpc-1.4.tar.gz
+ package successfully builds on at least one architecture
tested using koji scratch build
+ BuildRequires list all build dependencies
n/a %find_lang instead of %{_datadir}/locale/*
n/a binary RPM with shared library files must call ldconfig in %post and
%postun+ does not use Prefix: /usr
n/a package owns all directories it creates
n/a no duplicate files in %files
+ Package perserves timestamps on install
+ Permissions on files must be set properly
+ %defattr line
+ consistent use of macros
+ package must contain code or permissible content
n/a large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage
+ files marked %doc should not affect package runtime
n/a header files should be in -devel
n/a static libraries should be in -static
n/a packages containing pkgconfig (.pc) files need 'Requires: pkgconfig'
n/a libfoo.so must go in -devel
n/a devel must require the fully versioned base
+ packages should not contain libtool .la files
n/a packages containing GUI apps must include %{name}.desktop file
+ packages must not own files or directories owned by other packages
+ filenames must be valid UTF-8
Optional:
n/a if there is no license file, packager should query upstream to include it
n/a translations of description and summary for non-English languages, if
available
+ reviewer should build the package in mock/koji
n/a the package should build into binary RPMs on all supported architectures
n/a review should test the package functions as described
+ scriptlets should be sane
n/a non -devel packages should require fully versioned base
n/a pkgconfig files should go in -devel
+ shouldn't have file dependencies outside /etc /bin /sbin /usr/bin or
/usr/sbin
n/a Package should have man files
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 650717] Review Request: PolicyKit-olpc - OLPC-specific PolicyKit overrides
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=650717 --- Comment #2 from Peter Robinson 2010-12-05 17:20:56 EST --- Original review https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=454329 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Fixed In Version||perl-Test-Fatal-0.003-1 Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2010-12-05 17:07:11 --- Comment #16 from Paul Howarth 2010-12-05 17:07:11 EST --- Built and released in all branches now. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 592645] Review Request: mkgmap - Convert OpenStreetMap data for Garmin GPSes
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=592645 --- Comment #23 from Bruce Cowan 2010-12-05 16:54:58 EST --- Sorry, that was badly phrased. I know about Fedora's policy about licences, and I respect that. I was just saying that I have no reply to the e-mail I sent to the author to ask about the licence yet, and so can't work on this at the moment. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 654374] Review Request: navit - Car navigation system with routing 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=654374
--- Comment #20 from Michel Alexandre Salim
2010-12-05 16:34:49 EST ---
Package seems almost ready, with one major issue and several minor ones
remaining.
Major: source tarball does not match result of SVN export.
The reordering is not a big deal, but the checkout I get uses lowercase
is_nan whereas yours use uppercase is_nan. Since this is referred to in the
patch files, it probably should be fixed
(The file ordering problem can probably only be fixed by using git-svn
instead
of svn, and then using git archive instead of svn export, but as long as the
recursive diff matches I'd consider the source tarball to match)
Minor: incomplete directory ownership. See below.
* TODO Review [54%]
** DONE Names [3/3]
*** DONE Package name
*** DONE Spec name
*** DONE Package version [2/2]
DONE Version number
DONE Release tag
** DONE Meets
[[http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines][guidelines]]
** FAIL Source files match upstream
Contents do not match:
$ diff -ru navit-3732 ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES/navit-3732
diff -ru navit-3732/navit/vehicle/gpsd_dbus/vehicle_gpsd_dbus.c
/home/michel/rpmbuild/SOURCES/navit-3732/navit/vehicle/gpsd_dbus/vehicle_gpsd_dbus.c
--- navit-3732/navit/vehicle/gpsd_dbus/vehicle_gpsd_dbus.c 2010-11-22
15:51:07.994297000 +0100
+++
/home/michel/rpmbuild/SOURCES/navit-3732/navit/vehicle/gpsd_dbus/vehicle_gpsd_dbus.c
2010-11-28 09:11:53.0 +0100
@@ -86,9 +86,9 @@
priv->geo.lat=latitude;
priv->geo.lng=longitude;
}
- if (!is_nan(track))
+ if (!is_NaN(track))
priv->track=track;
- if (!is_nan(speed))
+ if (!is_NaN(speed))
priv->speed=speed;
if (!isnan(altitude))
priv->altitude=altitude;
** TODO [[http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries][No
bundled libraries]]
** DONE License [4/4]
*** DONE License is Fedora-approved
*** DONE No licensing conflict
Remember not to enable espeak support
*** DONE License field accurate
*** DONE License included iff packaged by upstream
** TODO rpmlint [/]
*** TODO on src.rpm
$ rpmlint ~/Downloads/navit-0.5.0-0.1.20101128svn3732.fc14.src.rpm
navit.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gpsd -> Gypsy, gypsy, gramps
navit.src:6: W: macro-in-comment %{name}
=> can be ignored
navit.src:17: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 17)
=> should be fixed
navit.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
http://downloads.sourceforge.net/navit/navit-3732.tar.bz2 HTTP Error 404: Not
Found
=> probably comment out this Source line when using a snapshot tarball
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
*** TODO on x86_64.rpm
$ rpmlint ~/Downloads/navit-*.x86_64*.rpm
navit.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gpsd -> Gypsy, gypsy,
gramps
navit-graphics-qt.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xml -> XML,
cml, ml
navit-graphics-qt.x86_64: W: no-documentation
navit-graphics-sdl.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xml -> XML,
cml, ml
navit-graphics-sdl.x86_64: W: no-documentation
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
=> All harmless
** DONE Language & locale [3/3]
*** DONE Spec in US English
*** DONE Spec legible
*** DONE Use %find_lang to handle locale files
** TODO Build [2/3]
*** DONE Koji results
*** DONE BRs complete
*** FAIL Directory ownership
- Nobody owns %dir %{_sysconfdir}/navit
- Should Require: hicolor-icon-theme for /usr/share/icons
** TODO Spec inspection [8/9]
*** N/A ldconfig for libraries
*** DONE No duplicate files
*** DONE File permissions
*** DONE Filenames must be UTF-8
*** WAIT no BuildRoot
([[https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag][except if
targeting EPEL5]])
BuildRoot can be removed, but it's harmless
*** DONE Has %clean section
(except F-13+:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#.25clean)
*** DONE %buildroot cleaned on %install
*** DONE Macro usage consistent
*** DONE Other subpackages
** DONE Desktop file validation
** DONE
[[http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets][Scriptlets]] [4/4]
*** N/A desktop-database (desktop entry has MimeType)
*** DONE icon cache (icons in %{_datadir}/icons/)
*** N/A info files
*** N/A mimeinfo (file in %{_datadir}/mime/packages)
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 560894] Review Request: perl-Pod-Coverage-TrustPod - Allow a module's pod to contain Pod::Coverage hints
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=560894 --- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System 2010-12-05 15:13:48 EST --- perl-Pod-Coverage-TrustPod-0.092830-4.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Pod-Coverage-TrustPod-0.092830-4.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 654374] Review Request: navit - Car navigation system with routing 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=654374 --- Comment #19 from viji 2010-12-05 15:09:53 EST --- Spec URL: http://viji.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/navit.spec SRPM URL: http://viji.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/navit-0.5.0-0.1.20101128svn3732.fc14.src.rpm Koji F14 Scratch http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2630789 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 590244] Review Request: pinta - Simple Paint Application
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=590244 --- Comment #27 from Paul Lange 2010-12-05 15:07:36 EST --- Sorry, should be fixed. http://palango.fedorapeople.org/pinta/pinta.spec http://palango.fedorapeople.org/pinta/pinta-0.5-3.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 583105] Review Request: djmount - Mount MediaServers content as a Linux file 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=583105 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System 2010-12-05 14:58:27 EST --- djmount-0.71-2.fc14 has been pushed to the Fedora 14 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 583105] Review Request: djmount - Mount MediaServers content as a Linux file 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=583105 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||djmount-0.71-2.fc14 Resolution||ERRATA Last Closed||2010-12-05 14:58:32 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 639292] Review Request: erlang-etorrent - Erlang BitTorrent client and library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=639292
--- Comment #2 from Peter Lemenkov 2010-12-05 13:49:27 EST
---
rpmlint output:
sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SPECS: rpmlint
../RPMS/ppc/erlang-etorrent-1.1.2-1.fc12.ppc.rpm
erlang-etorrent.ppc: E: explicit-lib-dependency erlang-stdlib
erlang-etorrent.ppc: E: no-binary
erlang-etorrent.ppc: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
erlang-etorrent.ppc: W: no-manual-page-for-binary etorrentctl
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 2 warnings.
sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SPECS:
The first three messages are common for almost all erlang-related applications.
Unfortunately, despite of whether package is arch-dependent or not it must be
installed into %{_libdir} which is arch-dependent. The message
"explicit-lib-dependency" should be ignored too - erlang/otp dependencies are
still cannot be auto-detected (I'm working on this - expect something working
in F-15 or F-16).
The last message means exactly what it says - there are no man-pages for this
package yet.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 660131] Review Request: mu - mu is a collection of utilties for indexing and searching Maildirs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=660131 --- Comment #1 from Andy Bailey 2010-12-05 13:40:13 EST --- one more thing- the short name worries me a little- the author uses "mu0" at google code (I'm guessing maybe theres a minimum length?), but the project is also referred to as "mu-tools" in a few places, so I think there's an alternative if "mu" doesn't work for Fedora packaging. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 639292] Review Request: erlang-etorrent - Erlang BitTorrent client and library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=639292 Peter Lemenkov changed: What|Removed |Added Status Whiteboard|NotReady| --- Comment #1 from Peter Lemenkov 2010-12-05 13:40:54 EST --- Ok, unblocking NotReady. Here is a koji scratchbuild for Rawhide: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2645592 http://peter.fedorapeople.org/erlang-etorrent.spec http://peter.fedorapeople.org/erlang-etorrent-1.1.2-1.fc12.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 660131] Review Request: mu - mu is a collection of utilties for indexing and searching Maildirs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=660131 Andy Bailey 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 660131] New: Review Request: mu - mu is a collection of utilties for indexing and searching Maildirs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: mu - mu is a collection of utilties for indexing and searching Maildirs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=660131 Summary: Review Request: mu - mu is a collection of utilties for indexing and searching Maildirs Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: bai...@akamai.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://github.com/GooseYArd/rpm/raw/master/SPECS/mu.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/GooseYArd/rpm/raw/master/SRPMS/mu-0.9.11.fc14.src.rpm Description: mu is a set of tools for dealing with Maildirs and the e-mail messages in them. This is my first package, so I'm hunting for a sponsor. A couple of notes about the spec, as you can see from the sed commands, there's a libtool/rpath issue in the package. I read that autoreconfing is frowned upon, so this solution seems to work reasonably well. I've been working with the upstream author already on a few other configure.ac changes to help building on fc-14, so I suspect we'll be able to eliminate this kludge within an upstream release or two. Thanks! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 660095] Review Request: impressive - A program that displays presentation slides
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=660095 Michael J Gruber changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||558965 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System 2010-12-05 13:20:06 EST --- perl-Test-Fatal-0.003-1.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 #14 from Fedora Update System 2010-12-05 13:19:57 EST --- perl-Test-Fatal-0.003-1.el4 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 4 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 660095] Review Request: impressive - A program that displays presentation slides
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=660095 Michael J Gruber changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||657127 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 660095] Review Request: impressive - A program that displays presentation slides
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=660095 Michael J Gruber changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #8 from Michael J Gruber 2010-12-05 13:06:37 EST --- Package Change Request == Package Name: impressive New Branches: f14 el6 Owners: mjg Taking over an orphaned+retired F13 package. f13 ownership taken over in pkgdb. Changed summary. The review request for the original package is in bug #484726 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 592645] Review Request: mkgmap - Convert OpenStreetMap data for Garmin GPSes
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=592645 --- Comment #22 from Alexander Kurtakov 2010-12-05 13:06:02 EST --- (In reply to comment #21) > Due to having not received a reply yet, not knowing if that source I found > will > even build, and that I no longer use a Garmin GPS, I'm putting this review on > hold. Sorry but I missed your quetion. We can not accept any package with unknown license. Even if there is no license file it would have been ok if the source files contained license headers which they don't. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 630283] Review Request: ghc-neither - Either with monad and applicative instances
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=630283 Ben Boeckel changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |MODIFIED Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Ben Boeckel 2010-12-05 12:40:21 EST --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: ghc-neither Short Description: Either with monad and applicative instances Owners: mathstuf Branches: F-13 F-14 InitialCC: haskell-sig -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 630223] Review Request: ghc-failure - A simple type class for success/failure computations
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=630223 Ben Boeckel changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |MODIFIED Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Ben Boeckel 2010-12-05 12:39:45 EST --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: ghc-failure Short Description: A simple type class for success/failure computations Owners: mathstuf Branches: F-13 F-14 InitialCC: haskell-sig -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 598511] Review Request: libgtextutils - Assaf Gordon text utilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=598511 --- Comment #14 from Jussi Lehtola 2010-12-05 11:54:13 EST --- Ping Adam, what's the status? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 597307] Review Request: fastx_toolkit - Tools to process short-reads FASTA/FASTQ files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=597307 --- Comment #12 from Jussi Lehtola 2010-12-05 11:54:16 EST --- Ping Adam, what's the status? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 660095] Review Request: impressive - A program that displays presentation slides
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=660095
Jussi Lehtola changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #7 from Jussi Lehtola 2010-12-05 11:51:57
EST ---
Final comments:
As SOURCE1 is a self-created file, please add a comment to the spec file about
what it does. For instance
# Wrapper script for making sure hardware acceleration is available
Source1: %{name}.sh
**
Please don't mix %{name} and "impressive" in %files. Choose one and stick with
it.
Also, please be more explicit in %files. Free use of wildcards can end up in
unwanted things, for instance if something goes wrong in the install you might
not detect it if you use a wildcard. Explicit specs are also easier to read
(you see straight away what files are installed). When you have dozens of
binaries, wildcards have their place.
Thus, please replace
%{_mandir}/man1/*
with the more explicit
%{_mandir}/man1/impressive.1*
(or, if you want to use %{name} in %files, use %{name} here as well).
**
Please address these issues before git import.
This package has been 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 660095] Review Request: impressive - A program that displays presentation slides
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=660095 Michael J Gruber changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: impressive |Review Request: impressive |- The stylish way of giving |- A program that displays |presentations |presentation slides --- Comment #6 from Michael J Gruber 2010-12-05 11:23:36 EST --- New spec addressing all reviewer comments: http://mjg.fedorapeople.org/rpmdev/impressive.spec http://mjg.fedorapeople.org/rpmdev/impressive-0.10.3-2.fc14.src.rpm http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2645340 Also, editing bug title to match the new summary. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 577514] Review Request: luarocks - Package management system for Lua modules
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=577514 Jason Tibbitts changed: What|Removed |Added Status Whiteboard||NotReady -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 592645] Review Request: mkgmap - Convert OpenStreetMap data for Garmin GPSes
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=592645 --- Comment #21 from Bruce Cowan 2010-12-05 11:07:46 EST --- Due to having not received a reply yet, not knowing if that source I found will even build, and that I no longer use a Garmin GPS, I'm putting this review on hold. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 660095] Review Request: impressive - The stylish way of giving presentations
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=660095
--- Comment #5 from Jussi Lehtola 2010-12-05 10:56:00
EST ---
Okay, if it's the standard for opengl-games-utils, then that's okay..
Although, the only thing you'd need to modify is SOURCE1, since the stuff in
opengl-game-utils doesn't care at all about impressive.
Actually there is a bug in the current implementation: the wrapper has
APP=python-impressive
checkDriOK $APP
which will print
"Therefore python-impressive cannot run."
if DRI support is missing, when it actually should print
"Therefore impressive cannot run."
If you place the python script in %{python_sitelib}, you'll just have to change
SOURCE 1 to e.g.
#!/bin/bash
. /usr/share/opengl-games-utils/opengl-game-functions.sh
APP=impressive
checkDriOK $APP
exec @PYTHONSITELIB@/$APP.py "$@"
and you'll have to install it with
sed "s|@PYTHONSITELIB@|%{python_sitelib}|g" %{SOURCE1} >
%{buildroot}%{bindir}/impressive
but this isn't a problem anyway.
The added convenience of installing into python_sitelib is that RPM will
compile the python file into bytecode, so execution will be (marginally)
faster.
(In reply to comment #4)
> > This is a Python package, so you should add BuildRequires: python-devel to
> > make
> > sure everything goes alright.
>
> This package does not build anything and does not use setup.py etc.
> (distutils). Maybe it should, but it doesn't...
> It's a single standalone python file/program (save the wrapper).
Nonetheless, you need python-devel so that the macros are declared and so that
the bytecode compilation takes place (IIRC). Doesn't hurt having it, anyhow.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 660095] Review Request: impressive - The stylish way of giving presentations
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=660095
--- Comment #4 from Michael J Gruber 2010-12-05
10:41:07 EST ---
> The summary would be better as
> "A program that displays presentation slides"
I'm happy to change it (just wasn't sure how much to deviate from the old
package).
>
> **
>
> The install scenario is a bit odd. I'd probably just install impressive.py as
> %{_bindir}/impressive, but for some reason the past maintainer has implemented
> a wrapper for checking that the hardware has OpenGL acceleration.
That is the recommendation for users of opengl-games-utils.
>
> The install of the wrapped python script as %{_bindir}/python-impressive seems
> a bit silly. I'd install it as %{python_sitelib}/impressive.py.
Again, this is how other opengl-games-utils users (all of them games it seems)
do it. I can change it, of course, but it would also mean injecting the path
%{python_sitelib} into the wrapper script.
> This is a Python package, so you should add BuildRequires: python-devel to
> make
> sure everything goes alright.
This package does not build anything and does not use setup.py etc.
(distutils). Maybe it should, but it doesn't...
It's a single standalone python file/program (save the wrapper).
And sorry for the flag, I must have mixed that up. (Or did I do this before?)
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 660095] Review Request: impressive - The stylish way of giving presentations
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=660095
Jussi Lehtola changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||jussi.leht...@iki.fi
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jussi.leht...@iki.fi
Flag|fedora-review? |
--- Comment #2 from Jussi Lehtola 2010-12-05 10:11:28
EST ---
rpmlint output:
impressive.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary python-impressive
impressive.src: W: no-buildroot-tag
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
**
The summary would be better as
"A program that displays presentation slides"
**
The install scenario is a bit odd. I'd probably just install impressive.py as
%{_bindir}/impressive, but for some reason the past maintainer has implemented
a wrapper for checking that the hardware has OpenGL acceleration.
The install of the wrapped python script as %{_bindir}/python-impressive seems
a bit silly. I'd install it as %{python_sitelib}/impressive.py.
**
This is a Python package, so you should add BuildRequires: python-devel to make
sure everything goes alright.
**
MUST: The package does not yet exist in Fedora. The Review Request is not a
duplicate. OK
MUST: The spec file for the package is legible and macros are used
consistently. OK
MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. ~OK
- Upstream uses the upper-case name Impressive, also in the tarball. However,
the program in the tarball is "impressive.py", which would point to a
lower-case name.
- It's better to keep the name in lowercase, since the package already exists
in Fedora.
MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}. OK
MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines. OK
MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
OK
MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL. OK
1fefb25db71ee322a59353de85ae00b4 Impressive-0.10.3.tar.gz
1fefb25db71ee322a59353de85ae00b4 ../SOURCES/Impressive-0.10.3.tar.gz
MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms. OK
MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. N/A
MUST: Optflags are used and time stamps preserved. OK
MUST: Packages containing shared library files must call ldconfig. N/A
MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates or require the package
that owns the directory. OK
MUST: Files only listed once in %files listings. OK
MUST: Debuginfo package is complete. N/A
MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. OK
MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. N/A
- demo.pdf is quite large in comparison to the other files, but I guess this is
OK.
MUST: All relevant items are included in %doc. Items in %doc do not affect
runtime of application. OK
MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. N/A
MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. N/A
MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix then library files
ending in .so must go in a -devel package. N/A
MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency. N/A
MUST: Packages does not contain any .la libtool archives. N/A
MUST: Desktop files are installed properly. N/A
- Although the application is graphical, it needs to be launched from the
command prompt.
MUST: No file conflicts with other packages and no general names. OK
SHOULD: %{?dist} tag is used in release. OK
SHOULD: If the package does not include license text(s) as separate files from
upstream, the packager should query upstream to include it. OK
SHOULD: The package builds in mock. OK
EPEL: Clean section exists. OK
EPEL: Buildroot cleaned before install. OK
EPEL: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'. N/A
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 660095] Review Request: impressive - The stylish way of giving presentations
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=660095 Jussi Lehtola changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #3 from Jussi Lehtola 2010-12-05 10:12:50 EST --- Michael: the fedora_review flag is set by the reviewer, not the submitter. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 590244] Review Request: pinta - Simple Paint Application
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=590244 --- Comment #26 from Andrea Musuruane 2010-12-05 09:42:03 EST --- Paul, your latest package do not build under x86_64. I get the following error: + /usr/lib/rpm/redhat/brp-strip-static-archive /usr/bin/strip + /usr/lib/rpm/brp-python-bytecompile /usr/bin/python 1 + /usr/lib/rpm/redhat/brp-python-hardlink + /usr/lib/rpm/redhat/brp-java-repack-jars Processing files: pinta-0.5-2.fc14.x86_64 errore: File non trovato: /home/andrea/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/pinta-0.5-2.fc14.x86_64/usr/lib64/pinta Esecuzione(%doc) in corso: /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.IsVCDo + umask 022 + cd /home/andrea/rpmbuild/BUILD + cd pinta-0.5 + DOCDIR=/home/andrea/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/pinta-0.5-2.fc14.x86_64/usr/share/doc/pinta-0.5 + export DOCDIR + rm -rf /home/andrea/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/pinta-0.5-2.fc14.x86_64/usr/share/doc/pinta-0.5 + /bin/mkdir -p /home/andrea/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/pinta-0.5-2.fc14.x86_64/usr/share/doc/pinta-0.5 + cp -pr todo.txt readme.txt license-mit.txt license-pdn.txt /home/andrea/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/pinta-0.5-2.fc14.x86_64/usr/share/doc/pinta-0.5 + exit 0 Errori di compilazione RPM: File non trovato: /home/andrea/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/pinta-0.5-2.fc14.x86_64/usr/lib64/pinta -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 484726] Review Request: impressive - The stylish way of giving presentations
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=484726 Michael J Gruber changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? | --- Comment #14 from Michael J Gruber 2010-12-05 09:28:58 EST --- (In reply to comment #13) > Michael: I believe you need to make a new review request, as stated on the > OrphanedPackages page. The old review request is independent of the new one. Uh, that wasn't clear to me from the description because of the referral to an SCM update request (thinking you can't only update something existing. Anyways, the new (re)review request is in bug #660095 and I'm clearing the review flag for this one from "?" to " ". Hope this correct. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 660095] New: Review Request: impressive - The stylish way of giving presentations
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: impressive - The stylish way of giving presentations https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=660095 Summary: Review Request: impressive - The stylish way of giving presentations Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: m...@fedoraproject.org QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://mjg.fedorapeople.org/rpmdev/impressive.spec SRPM URL: http://mjg.fedorapeople.org/rpmdev/impressive-0.10.3-1.fc14.src.rpm Description: Impressive is a program that displays presentation slides. But unlike OpenOffice.org Impress or other similar applications, it does so with style. Smooth alpha-blended slide transitions are provided for the sake of eye candy, but in addition to this, Impressive offers some unique tools that are really useful for presentations. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 660095] Review Request: impressive - The stylish way of giving presentations
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=660095 Michael J Gruber changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Michael J Gruber 2010-12-05 09:26:25 EST --- Package "impressive" used to be available for F13 but is orphaned; it got marked retired for F14 and rawhide (master) because of maintainer inactivity. I took over ownership for F13, synced with upstream and cleaned up the spec file. Scratch build is at: Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2643812 Once approved I plan to request an SCM change for f14, rawhide and epel6 branches. The review request for the original package is in bug #484726 . -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 561484] Review Request: jruby - Pure Java implementation of the Ruby interpreter
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561484
--- Comment #7 from Alexander Kurtakov 2010-12-05
09:18:54 EST ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[!] Rpmlint output:
jruby.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
You can not install in libdir in noarch package because libdir will be
evaluated on the build machine. E.g. rpm build on x86 will break on x86_64.
Please install jruby in /usr/share/jruby instead on /usr/lib/jruby.
jruby.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/lib/jruby/bin/gem.bat
jruby.noarch: E: wrong-script-end-of-line-encoding /usr/lib/jruby/bin/gem.bat
jruby.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/lib/jruby/bin/rdoc.bat
jruby.noarch: E: wrong-script-end-of-line-encoding /usr/lib/jruby/bin/rdoc.bat
jruby.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/lib/jruby/bin/spec.bat
jruby.noarch: E: wrong-script-end-of-line-encoding /usr/lib/jruby/bin/spec.bat
jruby.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/lib/jruby/bin/jrubyd.bat
jruby.noarch: E: wrong-script-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/lib/jruby/bin/jrubyd.bat
jruby.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib/jruby/samples/ext/mytest.c
jruby.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/lib/jruby/bin/jirb_swing.bat
jruby.noarch: E: wrong-script-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/lib/jruby/bin/jirb_swing.bat
jruby.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/lib/jruby/bin/jruby.bat
jruby.noarch: E: wrong-script-end-of-line-encoding /usr/lib/jruby/bin/jruby.bat
jruby.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/lib/jruby/bin/ast.bat
jruby.noarch: E: wrong-script-end-of-line-encoding /usr/lib/jruby/bin/ast.bat
jruby.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/lib/jruby/bin/jgem.bat
jruby.noarch: E: wrong-script-end-of-line-encoding /usr/lib/jruby/bin/jgem.bat
jruby.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/lib/jruby/bin/jirb.bat
jruby.noarch: E: wrong-script-end-of-line-encoding /usr/lib/jruby/bin/jirb.bat
jruby.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/lib/jruby/bin/rake.bat
jruby.noarch: E: wrong-script-end-of-line-encoding /usr/lib/jruby/bin/rake.bat
jruby.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/lib/jruby/bin/jrubyc.bat
jruby.noarch: E: wrong-script-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/lib/jruby/bin/jrubyc.bat
jruby.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/lib/jruby/bin/ri.bat
jruby.noarch: E: wrong-script-end-of-line-encoding /usr/lib/jruby/bin/ri.bat
Please don't install bat files.
jruby.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary jirb
jruby.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary jruby
If there is some please install otherwise we can skip this warnings
./SPECS/jruby.spec:146: W: libdir-macro-in-noarch-package (main package)
%{_libdir}/%{name}
Described before that.
[x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines[1].
[x] Spec file name must match the base package name, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines[2].
[x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms.
[!] Buildroot definition is not present - Please remove it, it's no longer
needed
[x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines[3,4].
[x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package is included in %doc.
[x] All independent sub-packages have license of their own
[x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines[5].
[x] Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x] Permissions on files are set properly.
[!] Package does NOT have a %clean section which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}
(or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). (not needed anymore)
[x] Package consistently uses macros (no %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
mixing)
[x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[x] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
applxication.
[x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x] Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
subpackage
[!] Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlinks)
[x] Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
[x] Javadoc subpackages have Require: jpackage-utils
[x] Package uses %global not %define
[-] If package uses tarball from VCS include comment how to
[Bug 604031] Review Request: kde-plasma-kprayertime - Displays Islamic prayer Time
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=604031 Volker Fröhlich changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|volke...@gmx.at -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 577514] Review Request: luarocks - Package management system for Lua modules
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=577514 --- Comment #2 from Duboucher Thomas 2010-12-05 08:30:05 EST --- Thanks for having a look at this issue. I am very busy at the moment and I will have little time to dedicate. I originaly made the package and the following request when I noticed that Lua was missing its package manager in Fedora so that if anyone would want to use it he or she can find the request. Actually, I think the best for me would be to wait until I get more spare time; I will then update the request for Fedora 14-15 and fix issue #2 and #3. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 634909] Review Request: v8 - JavaScript 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=634909 --- Comment #10 from Lubomir Rintel 2010-12-05 08:24:52 EST --- (In reply to comment #8) > I'm not committing to reviewing this but I noticed a couple things: > > 1) I see that we're installing jsmin.py... If this is a derivative of the > jsmin > stuff that Douglas Crockford did then we can't do that. jsmin is not under an > fsf free license (the silly "must be used for good, not evil clause does that > to us). It's not. >From ChangeLog: 2009-10-07: Version 1.3.14 Implemented a new JavaScript minifier for compressing the source of the built-in JavaScript. This removes non-Open Source code from Douglas Crockford from the project. > 2) usually we don't make shared libraries if upstream is not making shared > libraries due to being afraid that we'll choose a version that upstream will > later stomp on. The same idea (upstream reusing the version number we use for > a later, API incompatible, release of their own) would seem to apply here. > However, I do see that Debian is providing versioned dynamic libs (Their > patches are different, though... perhaps we should adopt their approach? > http://packages.debian.org/experimental/libv8-2.4.7) The best outcome would > be > for upstream to start providing versioned dynamic libraries. Have you > contacted them about this? The debian patches are to the build files so they > could be an appropriate starting point for that discussion. In this version upstream provides a target to build shared libraries. Unfortunatelly, they picked a rather weird SONAME (v8-version.so; contrary to more customary v8.so.version, that Debian uses). I did not find a specification that would mandate the latter form, so I'm sticking with upstream for now. I don't care much about that though, if I'm proved that it's not a good idea I'll change it. (In reply to comment #9) > Could you please add a pkg-config file to v8-devel? It would make it easier > to > use as a library. Well, not now. I guess this is something you'd need upstream to do; if upstream does not do that, packages that use v8 won't use pkg-config either. SPEC: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SPECS/v8.spec SRPM: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SRPMS/v8-2.5.9-1.fc15.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 634909] Review Request: v8 - JavaScript 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=634909 --- Comment #11 from Lubomir Rintel 2010-12-05 08:25:30 EST --- Anything willing to review this? I believe the package is in fairly good shape now. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 561484] Review Request: jruby - Pure Java implementation of the Ruby interpreter
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561484 Alexander Kurtakov changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||akurt...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|akurt...@redhat.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #6 from Alexander Kurtakov 2010-12-05 08:16:17 EST --- I'll do 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 657795] Review Request: libspatialite - Enables SQLite to support spatial data
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=657795 --- Comment #11 from Volker Fröhlich 2010-12-05 07:52:35 EST --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: libspatialite Short Description: Enables SQLite to support spatial data Owners: volter 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 439772] Review Request: x11vnc - VNC server for the current X11 session
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439772 Bug 439772 depends on bug 439979, which changed state. Bug 439979 Summary: libvncserver is using internal version of minilzo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439979 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||WONTFIX Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|WONTFIX | Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 660024] Review Request: libepsilon - Powerful wavelet image compressor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=660024 viji changed: What|Removed |Added CC||vijivijayaku...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|vijivijayaku...@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 571993] Review Request: non-sequencer - A powerful, real-time, pattern-based MIDI sequencer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=571993 Adam Huffman changed: What|Removed |Added Status Whiteboard|StalledSubmitter| --- Comment #15 from Adam Huffman 2010-12-05 07:13:52 EST --- Sorry for the delay - will take a look in a couple of days. This was one of my first packages so it's no wonder it needs a lot of work... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 659756] Review Request: libnfsidmap - Library that handles mapping between names and ids for NFSv4.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=659756
Ralf Corsepius changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rc040...@freenet.de
--- Comment #9 from Ralf Corsepius 2010-12-05 07:08:29
EST ---
Provided the speed this review was rushed through, I can't deny having uneasy
feeling about this review (Pingpong match?).
Package is not OK:
- ChangeLog date is wrong:
.. * Fri Dec 3 2006 ...
- Superfluous BR's:
.. BR: autoconf, automake
- Package supplies *.pc's => Package must own %{_libdir}/pkgconfig
(recent FPG change)
- Hard-coded /etc at several places.
Should be %{_sysconfdir}
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 252108] Review Request: python-html5lib - A python based HTML5 parser/tokenizer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=252108 --- Comment #21 from Oded Arbel 2010-12-05 07:04:17 EST --- Created attachment 464828 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=464828 Updated spec for python-html5lib Sorry for taking a long while with this (3 years :-( ), but here is an updated spec for python-html5lib 0.11, with the zip issue fixed. SRPM and precompiled binary for Fedora 14 are available at http://rpms.geek.co.il/fc14/SRPMS/python-html5lib-0.11-1.fc14.src.rpm and http://rpms.geek.co.il/fc14/x86_64/python-html5lib-0.11-1.fc14.noarch.rpm. Thanks for Matthew Miller for nudging me. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 657795] Review Request: libspatialite - Enables SQLite to support spatial data
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=657795 --- Comment #10 from Volker Fröhlich 2010-12-05 06:52:45 EST --- I redefined the if clause for %configure to work with RHEL. Spec URL: http://www.geofrogger.net/review/libspatialite.spec SRPM URL: http://www.geofrogger.net/review/libspatialite-2.4.0-0.4.RC4.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 630288] Review Request: ghc-enumerator - Implementation of Oleg Kiselyov's left-fold enumerators
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=630288 --- Comment #6 from Lakshmi Narasimhan 2010-12-05 06:48:04 EST --- Also the contents of the spec file given in the URL does not match that of the spec file inside the srpm. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 657795] Review Request: libspatialite - Enables SQLite to support spatial data
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=657795 Volker Fröhlich changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #9 from Volker Fröhlich 2010-12-05 06:51:51 EST --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: libspatialite Short Description: Enables SQLite to support spatial data Owners: volter 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 630288] Review Request: ghc-enumerator - Implementation of Oleg Kiselyov's left-fold enumerators
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=630288 --- Comment #5 from Lakshmi Narasimhan 2010-12-05 06:46:59 EST --- Created attachment 464824 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=464824 patch to fix permission issue on readme.txt -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 659972] Review Request: votca-csg - a systematic coarse-graining 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=659972 --- Comment #7 from Christoph Junghans 2010-12-05 05:56:05 EST --- (In reply to comment #6) > Christoph: you'll need to make a review request for votca-tools, as well. The request can be found under bug #660061 > You're not a Fedora packager yet, right? Yes, but I would like to stay on the upstream side and get involved if something needs to be added to the official votca release. > > - And usually if libraries (%_libdir/libfoo.so.X*) are splitted out > > into -libs subpackage, the main package has "R: -libs = %version-%release" > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package > > (In this case the "base" package is -libs). > > e.g. file has "R: file-libs = %version-%release", many others do so > Hmm, Mamoru seems to have a point here. Although, > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Explicit_Requires > clearly states: > "Packages must not contain explicit Requires on libraries except when > absolutely necessary." This seems correct to me due to the fact that dynamically linked binaries will need the shared 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 659972] Review Request: votca-csg - a systematic coarse-graining 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=659972 Christoph Junghans changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||660061 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 659972] Review Request: votca-csg - a systematic coarse-graining 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=659972 --- Comment #8 from Jussi Lehtola 2010-12-05 06:08:48 EST --- (In reply to comment #7) > > You're not a Fedora packager yet, right? > Yes, but I would like to stay on the upstream side and get involved if > something needs to be added to the official votca release. Hmm, we're *downstream* in Fedora. If you want to become a Fedora packager, you'll need to get a sponsor. I am willing to sponsor you if you show me your knowing of the Fedora guidelines, most importantly http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines Additionally to the Packaging Guidelines, there are a bunch of language / application specific guidelines that are linked to in the Packaging Guidelines. Here are some tricks of the trade: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging_tricks http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues Normally I sponsor people who have made at least two submissions and performed a couple of informal reviews of packages of other people. However, as in this case your submissions are two spec files written by other people (that is, myself), I'll require that you generate two packages of your own. Other sponsors may have different criteria. I won't perform the official review of votca-tools or votca-csg, since I've written both spec files originally. As a general guideline: please review only packages *not* marked with FE-NEEDSPONSOR. Your sponsor will have to do the full formal review after you to check that you have got everything correctly. Once you have been sponsored you will be able to do formal reviews of your own. > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Explicit_Requires > > clearly states: > > "Packages must not contain explicit Requires on libraries except when > > absolutely necessary." > This seems correct to me due to the fact that dynamically linked binaries will > need the shared library. The thing is that normally it's not necessary for dynamically linked binaries, as RPM will add dependencies on the relevant library (e.g. libgmx_d.so.6, or libvotca_tools.so.0). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 659895] Review Request: makedepf90 - Create Makefile dependency list for Fortran source files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=659895
Jussi Lehtola changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||jussi.leht...@iki.fi
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jussi.leht...@iki.fi
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Jussi Lehtola 2010-12-05 05:54:41
EST ---
rpmlint output:
makedepf90.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cpp -> cop, cp, pp
makedepf90.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gcc -> cc, acc, g cc
makedepf90.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cpp -> cop, cp, pp
makedepf90.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gcc -> cc, acc, g cc
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
MUST: The package does not yet exist in Fedora. The Review Request is not a
duplicate. OK
MUST: The spec file for the package is legible and macros are used
consistently. OK
- IMHO using macros for rm and make is a bit silly, but it's not disallowed.
MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. OK
MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}. OK
MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines. OK
MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
OK
MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL. OK
514a32147e956264ac5e60cc12fd5f5d makedepf90-2.8.8.tar.gz
514a32147e956264ac5e60cc12fd5f5d ../SOURCES/makedepf90-2.8.8.tar.gz
MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms. OK
MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. N/A
MUST: Optflags are used and time stamps preserved. ~OK
- Please add INSTALL="install -p" to make install so that time stamp of the man
page is preserved.
MUST: Packages containing shared library files must call ldconfig. N/A
MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates or require the package
that owns the directory. N/A
MUST: Files only listed once in %files listings. OK
MUST: Debuginfo package is complete. OK
MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. OK
MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. N/A
MUST: All relevant items are included in %doc. Items in %doc do not affect
runtime of application. OK
MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. N/A
MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. N/A
MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix then library files
ending in .so must go in a -devel package. N/A
MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency. N/A
MUST: Packages does not contain any .la libtool archives. N/A
MUST: Desktop files are installed properly. N/A
MUST: No file conflicts with other packages and no general names. OK
SHOULD: %{?dist} tag is used in release. OK
SHOULD: If the package does not include license text(s) as separate files from
upstream, the packager should query upstream to include it. OK
SHOULD: The package builds in mock. OK
EPEL: Clean section exists. OK
EPEL: Buildroot cleaned before install. OK
EPEL: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'. N/A
Package APPROVED. Please check the time stamp issue before importing to 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 660061] Review Request: votca-tools - support library for votca-csg
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=660061 Christoph Junghans changed: What|Removed |Added URL||www.votca.org CC||jussi.leht...@iki.fi Blocks||659972 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 660061] New: Review Request: votca-tools - support library for votca-csg
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: votca-tools - support library for votca-csg https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=660061 Summary: Review Request: votca-tools - support library for votca-csg Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: jungh...@votca.org QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://www.mpip-mainz.mpg.de/~junghans/fedora/votca-tools.spec SRPM URL: http://www.mpip-mainz.mpg.de/~junghans/fedora/votca-tools-1.0.1-1.fc14.src.rpm Description:Versatile Object-oriented Toolkit for Coarse-graining Applications (VOTCA) is a package intended to reduce the amount of routine work when doing systematic coarse-graining of various systems. (For the Non-Experts: 'Coarse-graining' is a way to simplify simulations, think of it as replacing a whole molecule by a sphere.) This package contains the basic tools library of VOTCA package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 630223] Review Request: ghc-failure - A simple type class for success/failure computations
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=630223
Lakshmi Narasimhan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Comment #6 from Lakshmi Narasimhan 2010-12-05
04:47:22 EST ---
Sorry for the delay, was down with fever. Here is the review.
[+]MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
the review.
rpmlint -i ghc-failure.spec ghc-failure-0.1.0.1-1.fc14.i686.rpm
ghc-failure-devel-0.1.0.1-1.fc14.i686.rpm
ghc-failure-prof-0.1.0.1-1.fc14.i686.rpm ghc-failure-0.1.0.1-1.fc14.src.rpm
ghc-failure.i686: W: no-documentation
The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include
documentation files.
ghc-failure-prof.i686: E: devel-dependency ghc-failure-devel
Your package has a dependency on a devel package but it's not a devel package
itself.
ghc-failure-prof.i686: W: no-documentation
The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include
documentation files.
ghc-failure-prof.i686: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib/ghc-6.12.3/failure-0.1.0.1/libHSfailure-0.1.0.1_p.a
A development file (usually source code) is located in a non-devel package. If
you want to include source code in your package, be sure to create a
development package.
ghc-failure.src: W: strange-permission ghc-failure.spec 0640L
A file that you listed to include in your package has strange permissions.
Usually, a file should have 0644 permissions.
4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings.
[+]MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+]MUST: The spec file name must match the bsase package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec
[+]MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
Naming-Yes
Version-release - Matches
License - OK
No prebuilt external bits - OK
Spec legibity - OK
Package template - OK
Arch support - OK
Libexecdir - OK
rpmlint - yes
changelogs - OK
Source url tag - OK, validated.
Buildroot is ignored - present anyway. OK
%clean is ignored - present anyway. OK
Build Requires list - OK
Summary and description - OK
API documentation - OK, in devel package
[+]MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines .
[+]MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[+]MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package must be included in %doc.
LICENSE text file not include
[+]MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+]MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+]MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream
source,as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task.
md5sum ghc-failure-0.1.0.1-1.fc14.src/failure-0.1.0.1.tar.gz
9c9c1ab5422de9ef11bc3ef0de7b5b12
ghc-failure-0.1.0.1-1.fc14.src/failure-0.1.0.1.tar.gz
md5sum ~/Downloads/failure-0.1.0.1.tar.gz
9c9c1ab5422de9ef11bc3ef0de7b5b12
/home/lvaikunt/Downloads/failure-0.1.0.1.tar.gz
[+]MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture.
Yes, built on i686
[+]MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch.
[+]MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.
[NA]MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly using the %find_lang macro
[NA]MUST: Packages stores shared library files must call ldconfig in %post and
%postun.
[+]MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[NA]MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review.
[+]MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates.
Tested with a combination of rpmquery --list and rpmquery --whatprovides
[+]MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file's %files listings.
[+]MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
[+]MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[+]MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[+]MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
[+]MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application.
[+]MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[NA]MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[NA]MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix
(e.g.libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must
go in a
[Bug 630283] Review Request: ghc-neither - Either with monad and applicative instances
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=630283 Lakshmi Narasimhan changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 652571] Review Request: ghc-digest - cryptographic hashes of bytestrings
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652571 Lakshmi Narasimhan changed: What|Removed |Added CC||lakshminaras2...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|lakshminaras2...@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
