[Bug 654139] Review Request: ease - GNOME desktop presentation application

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=654139

Arun SAG  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Flag|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+

--- Comment #8 from Arun SAG  2010-12-15 02:28:22 EST ---
[+] OK
[X] NOT OKAY
[-] NA


[+] Package meets naming and packaging guidelines
[+] Spec file matches base package name.
[+] Spec has consistant macro usage.
[+] Meets Packaging Guidelines.
[+] License
[+] License field in spec matches
[+] License file included in package
[+] Spec in American English
[+] Spec is legible.
[+] Sources match upstream md5sum:
[zer0c...@gnubox SOURCES]$ md5sum ~/Downloads/ease-0.4.tar.bz2 
9134b74a2ff3701b62d08f5b4d954232  /home/zer0c00l/Downloads/ease-0.4.tar.bz2

-- done
[-] Package needs ExcludeArch
[+] BuildRequires correct
[+] Spec handles locales/find_lang
[-] Package is relocatable and has a reason to be.
[+] Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good.
[-] Package has a correct %clean section.
[-] Package has correct buildroot
[+] Package is code or permissible content.
[-] Doc subpackage needed/used.
[-] Packages %doc files don't affect runtime.

[+] Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage.
[+] Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun
[X] .pc files in -devel subpackage/requires pkgconfig
[+] .so files in -devel subpackage.
[+] -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
[+] .la files are removed.

[+] Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file

[+] Package compiles and builds on at least one arch.
[+] Package has no duplicate files in %files.
[+] Package doesn't own any directories other packages own.
[+] Package owns all the directories it creates.

[+] No rpmlint output : ignorable
[zer0c...@gnubox i686]$ rpmlint ease-0.4-1.fc13.i686.rpm 
ease.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ease
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
[zer0c...@gnubox i686]$ rpmlint ease-devel-0.4-1.fc13.i686.rpm 
ease-devel.i686: W: no-documentation
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
[zer0c...@gnubox i686]$ rpmlint ~/rpmbuild/SRPMS/ease-0.4-1.fc13.src.rpm 
ease.src:53: E: hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib
ease.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %clean
ease.src: W: no-buildroot-tag
ease.src: W: no-%clean-section

Note: hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib @ Line 53. Where the line is "sed -i
's|/lib /usr/lib|/lib /usr/lib /lib64 /usr/lib64|' libtool".
It removes rpath. Not an error.


SHOULD Items:

[+] Should build in mock.
[+] Should build on all supported archs
[+] Should function as described.
[-] Should have sane scriptlets.
[-] Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend.
[+] Should have dist tag
[+] Should package latest version
[+] check for outstanding bugs on package. (For core merge reviews)


XXX APPROVED XXX

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 225773] Merge Review: f-spot

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225773

Parag AN(पराग)  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution||NEXTRELEASE
   Flag|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+
Last Closed||2010-12-15 02:21:31

--- Comment #11 from Parag AN(पराग)  2010-12-15 02:21:31 
EST ---
Thanks. APPROVED.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 661193] Review Request: man-pages-zh-CN - Chinese man pages

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=661193

--- Comment #3 from Peng Wu  2010-12-15 01:44:23 EST ---
+ Koji build http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2665208 is
successful.
+ rpmlint is output for SRPM and for RPM.
man-pages-zh-CN.spec: W: invalid-url Source0:
http://manpages-zh.googlecode.com/files/manpages-zh-1.5.1.tar.gz HTTP Error
404: Not Found
man-pages-zh-CN.src: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found zh_CN
man-pages-zh-CN.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US manpages ->
manages, man pages, man-pages
man-pages-zh-CN.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cmpp -> cm pp,
cm-pp, RCMP
man-pages-zh-CN.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US linuxforum ->
linguiform, Linux, linoleum
man-pages-zh-CN.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
http://manpages-zh.googlecode.com/files/manpages-zh-1.5.1.tar.gz HTTP Error
404: Not Found
man-pages-zh-CN.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US manpages ->
manages, man pages, man-pages
man-pages-zh-CN.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cmpp -> cm pp,
cm-pp, RCMP
man-pages-zh-CN.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US linuxforum ->
linguiform, Linux, linoleum
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings.

+ source files match upstream url (sha1sum)
194b486b37b3407dee2cf26daa67cc1e3a99c7a9  manpages-zh-1.5.1.tar.
+ package meets naming and packaging guidelines.
+ specfile is properly named, is cleanly written
+ Spec file is written in American English.
+ The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
+ Spec file is legible.
+ dist tag is present.
+ license is open source-compatible.
+ License text is included in package.
+ Macro use appears rather consistent.
+ no duplicates in %files.
+ file permissions are appropriate.

Note:
  Please remove "Epoch: 0" from man-pages-zh-CN.spec file when importing.

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 661193] Review Request: man-pages-zh-CN - Chinese man pages

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=661193

Peng Wu  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 588941] Review Request: pypy - Implementation of the Python language, using Python itself

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=588941

--- Comment #28 from Maciej Fijalkowski  2010-12-15 01:13:56 
EST ---
Hello.

I'll look into prefix thing at some point, it should work.

Regarding various builds - we decided that "pypy" is the one with jit and
"pypy-stackless" is one with stackless no jit. We don't ship nojit binaries at
all (and I think this helps to avoid confusion).

Cheers,
fijal

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 588941] Review Request: pypy - Implementation of the Python language, using Python itself

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=588941

--- Comment #27 from Toshio Ernie Kuratomi  2010-12-15 
01:00:00 EST ---
Yeah, that's something I wanted to look into along with FHS compliance but
haven't had time.  dmalcolm has this note in the spec file:

# Install the various support libraries as described at:
#  
http://codespeak.net/pypy/dist/pypy/doc/getting-started-python.html#installation
# which refers to a "PREFIX" found relative to the location of the binary.
# Given that the pypy binaries will be in /usr/bin, PREFIX can be
# "../share/pypy-1.2" relative to that directory, i.e. /usr/share/pypy-1.2
# 
# Running "strace" on a built binary indicates that it searches within
#   PREFIX/lib-python/modified-2.5.2
# not
#   PREFIX/lib-python/modified.2.5.2
# as given on the above page, i.e. it uses '-' not '.'

But, at least with pypy-1.4, that doesn't work.  pypy thinks the PREFIX is
/usr/bin/ when it would need to be /usr/share (or %{_libdir}/pypy-%{version} in
our case.)

You can either cd to /usr/share (or /usr/share/pypy-1.4... I'm not sure which
atm) or you can add /usr/share/pypy-1.4 to the PYTHONPATH in order to get pypy
to work.  Really, though, we need to patch pypy to recognize the proper
directory.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 663244] New: Review Request: CUnit - A unit testing framework for C

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

Summary: Review Request: CUnit - A unit testing framework for C

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=663244

   Summary: Review Request: CUnit - A unit testing framework for C
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
  Platform: All
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
 Component: Package Review
AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org
ReportedBy: shakthim...@gmail.com
 QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com
   Estimated Hours: 0.0
Classification: Fedora


Spec URL: http://shakthimaan.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/CUnit.spec
SRPM URL: http://shakthimaan.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/CUnit-2.1_2-1.fc14.src.rpm
Description: CUnit is a lightweight system for writing, administering,
and running unit tests in C.  It provides C programmers a basic
testing functionality with a flexible variety of user interfaces.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 661832] Review Request: kdevelop-pg-qt - A parser generator

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=661832

Dmitrij S. Kryzhevich  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Flag|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+

--- Comment #11 from Dmitrij S. Kryzhevich  2010-12-14 23:54:38 
EST ---
==
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 588941] Review Request: pypy - Implementation of the Python language, using Python itself

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=588941

--- Comment #26 from Ed Marshall  2010-12-14 23:34:37 EST 
---
Toshio, just a quick note: I ran a local mock build of the SRPM you uploaded,
and ended up with this result (-jit, -nojit, and -stackless all behave
similarly):

$ pypy-jit
debug: WARNING: library path not found, using compiled-in sys.path
'import site' failed
Python 2.5.2 (78826, Dec 15 2010, 01:41:24)
[PyPy 1.4.0] on linux2
Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
debug: OperationError:
debug:  operror-type: ImportError
debug:  operror-value: No module named _pypy_interact
$ pypy-jit -c 'import sys; print sys.path'
debug: WARNING: library path not found, using compiled-in sys.path
'import site' failed
['', '/builddir/build/BUILD/pypy-1.4/lib_pypy',
'/builddir/build/BUILD/pypy-1.4/lib-python/modified-2.5.2',
'/builddir/build/BUILD/pypy-1.4/lib-python/2.5.2',
'/builddir/build/BUILD/pypy-1.4/lib-python/2.5.2/plat-linux2']

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 630205] Review Request: ghc-regexpr - Regular expression like Perl/Ruby in Haskell

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=630205

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

[Bug 595011] Review Request: sshdfilter - Filter for SSH ports

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=595011

--- Comment #26 from David Highley  
2010-12-14 22:12:46 EST ---
Well it seems to take forever to make progress on this package. I intended
originally to submit and maintain this package. I have read the get sponsored
information and went so far as to contact someone I had communications with in
the past who could sponsor me but did not get a reply.

I have also been communicating changes I think are needed back to the original
author but get little interest. I still think it improves the security of an
unrestricted ssh port to the open internet. With all the delays and lack of
interest from the original author I guess my interest is fading at this point.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 609295] Review Request: python-cement - CLI Application Framework for Python

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=609295

--- Comment #8 from BJ Dierkes  2010-12-14 20:44:33 EST 
---
You're right about the python2-devel bit.  I've removed the %{python} macro
now... thanks for your patience.

As for building for both python2 and python3, yes it was a thought.  However
upstream the project is not ready for python3 yet  the next version of
cement upstream will be targeted at python3 and therefore will probably have
cement-0.X on python2, and the next version on python3.


SPEC: http://5dollarwhitebox.org/tmp/python-cement.spec
SRPM: http://5dollarwhitebox.org/tmp/python-cement-0.8.14-3.fc14.src.rpm

$ rpmlint -i SPECS/python-cement.spec 
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

$ rpmlint -i RPMS/noarch/python-cement-*
python-cement-devtools.noarch: E: zero-length
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/cement/paste/templates/cementapp/LICENSE
python-cement-devtools.noarch: E: zero-length
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/cement/paste/templates/cementplugin/LICENSE
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings.


Thanks again.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on 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.

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly 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

   Flag|needinfo?(rc040...@freenet. |
   |de) |

--- Comment #14 from Ralf Corsepius  2010-12-14 20:17:28 
EST ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> (In reply to comment #11)
> > (In reply to comment #10)
> > 
> > > about .pc files, and the Package Review Guidelines say:
> > > 
> > > SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, 
> > > and
> > > this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel 
> > > pkg.
> > > A reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a devel tool not
> > > installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb. 
> > 
> > That's not my point. My point is FPC discussed whether packages shipping a
> > %{_libdir}/pkgconfig/*.pc should own the %{_libdir}/pkgconfig directory.
> > 
> > Unfortunately I can't find a trace of this discussion, ATM
> 
> Doesn't this happen implicitly?

No.

> The pkgconfig auto-provs/reqs generate a provide for the shipped .pc file(s)
> and a require for /usr/bin/pkg-config;
This is a bug - A package which provides a *.pc does _not_ necessarily have to
require /usr/bin/pkg-config but only has to have %{_libdir}/pkgconfig owned.

> this comes from the pkgconfig package,
> which owns the %{_libdir}/pkgconfig directory.
It's the old "plugins" vs. "dependency" issue.

A package which provides an "add-on" to suport a tool, doesn't not mean this
package has to depend on this tool.

Wrt. libraries: Libraries are well usable without pkg-config.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 609295] Review Request: python-cement - CLI Application Framework for Python

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=609295

--- Comment #7 from Jason Tibbitts  2010-12-14 20:14:01 EST 
---
Unfortunately the %{python} macro doesn't save you all the trouble, because you
still need your build dependencies to include python2-devel on Fedora (instead
of python-devel).

Also, if you intend to do the python3 thing, did you consider using the method
in the current guidelines that builds packages for both python 2 and 3 from a
single package?  It's even more loaded with macros but gets you the whole thing
at once.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 588941] Review Request: pypy - Implementation of the Python language, using Python itself

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=588941

Toshio Ernie Kuratomi  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Flag|needinfo?(a.bad...@gmail.co |
   |m)  |

--- Comment #25 from Toshio Ernie Kuratomi  2010-12-14 
20:04:48 EST ---
Sorry, I've been away on vacation.  Latest src.rpm and spec file are now
uploaded to http://toshio.fedorapeople.org/packages/  I'll be back to work
tomorrow if you want to throw more questions at me on IRC.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 663213] New: Review Request: perl-File-Inplace - Perl module for in-place editing of files

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

Summary: Review Request: perl-File-Inplace - Perl module for in-place editing 
of files

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=663213

   Summary: Review Request: perl-File-Inplace - Perl module for
in-place editing of files
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
  Platform: All
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
 Component: Package Review
AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org
ReportedBy: r.landm...@redhat.com
 QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com
   Estimated Hours: 0.0
Classification: Fedora
Target Release: ---


Spec URL: 
http://rlandmann.fedorapeople.org/perl-File-Inplace/perl-File-Inplace.spec

SRPM URL:
http://rlandmann.fedorapeople.org/perl-File-Inplace/perl-File-Inplace-0.20-1.fc14.src.rpm

Description: 
File::Inplace is a perl module intended to ease the common task of editing
a file in-place. Inspired by variations of perl's -i option, this module is
intended for somewhat more structured and reusable editing than command
line perl typically allows. File::Inplace endeavors to guarantee file
integrity; that is, either all of the changes made will be saved to the
file, or none will. It also offers functionality such as backup creation,
automatic field splitting per-line, automatic chomping/unchomping, and
aborting edits partially through without affecting the original file.

rpmlint output:
$ rpmlint SPECS/perl-File-Inplace.spec 
SPECS/perl-File-Inplace.spec: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %clean
SPECS/perl-File-Inplace.spec: W: no-buildroot-tag
SPECS/perl-File-Inplace.spec: W: no-%clean-section
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.

$ rpmlint SRPMS/perl-File-Inplace-0.20-1.fc14.src.rpm
perl-File-Inplace.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unchomping ->
uncomplaining, uncompromising, uncomprehending
perl-File-Inplace.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %clean
perl-File-Inplace.src: W: no-buildroot-tag
perl-File-Inplace.src: W: no-%clean-section
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.

$ rpmlint RPMS/noarch/perl-File-Inplace-0.20-1.fc14.noarch.rpm
perl-File-Inplace.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unchomping ->
uncomplaining, uncompromising, uncomprehending
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

Scratchbuilds in Koji:
F15 -- https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2664417
F14 -- https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2664684

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 609295] Review Request: python-cement - CLI Application Framework for Python

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=609295

--- Comment #6 from BJ Dierkes  2010-12-14 19:05:36 EST 
---
Oh by the way, yes I am also the upstream author.  I didn't think to mention
that initially, but will with any future submissions.  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 609295] Review Request: python-cement - CLI Application Framework for Python

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=609295

--- Comment #5 from BJ Dierkes  2010-12-14 19:02:18 EST 
---
Thank you for your feedback.  I can agree with the use of 'real_name' making
things more cluttered.  I've cleaned that up.  I've also removed
--single-version-externally-managed.

As for the use of %{python} this was done to make porting to other python
stacks easier.  Rather than changing all references of 'python' to 'python3' or
what-have-you, I can simply change the python macro.  

As for %{pyver}, using wild cards in the files list for 'egg-info' seems it
would be less efficient... again when considering that this package may very
well be ported to another python stack (via side-by-side python installs,
etc) where pyver might be 2.6 or 3.1 depending on the stack.   I don't see
any reason to change that at this point.  That said the updated files are at:

SPEC: http://5dollarwhitebox.org/tmp/python-cement.spec
SRPM: http://5dollarwhitebox.org/tmp/python-cement-0.8.14-2.fc14.src.rpm

$ rpmlint -i SPECS/python-cement.spec 
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

$ rpmlint -i RPMS/noarch/python-cement-*
python-cement-devtools.noarch: E: zero-length
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/cement/paste/templates/cementapp/LICENSE
python-cement-devtools.noarch: E: zero-length
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/cement/paste/templates/cementplugin/LICENSE
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 654139] Review Request: ease - GNOME desktop presentation application

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=654139

--- Comment #7 from Michel Alexandre Salim  
2010-12-14 18:49:39 EST ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> I see some .pc files in -devel subpackage, Don't they require 'pkgconfig' ?

Hi Arun,

That's handled automatically by RPM:

$ rpm -qp --requires ease-devel-0.4-1.fc14.x86_64.rpm | grep pkg-config
/usr/bin/pkg-config  
$ rpm -qf /usr/bin/pkg-config
pkgconfig-0.25-2.fc14.x86_64

Unfortunately the Koji build results have been garbage collected by now; you
can check the rebuild I just made here:

http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2664560

Just in case, though, the Koji-built RPMs are now cached in 
http://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/gnome/

as well. Please check them if the Koji builds are no longer accessible.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 652257] Review Request: focuswriter - A fullscreen, distraction-free writing program

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652257

Golo Fuchert  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|packa...@golotop.de

--- Comment #3 from Golo Fuchert  2010-12-14 17:51:03 EST 
---
Jean-Francois, I just took a quick look and the package looks good to me, I
will review it in the next days.
Right now I wonder if you want to package this for Fedora only. If yes, then it
should not be necessary to BuildRequire the explicit version 4.6 of qt-devel
after the EOL of F12, do you agree? As far as I know 4.6 is already included in
F13.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 661312] Review Request: mingw32-atkmm - MinGW Windows C++ interface for the ATK library

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=661312

Thomas Sailer  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution||RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2010-12-14 17:45:56

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 661354] Review Request: identicurse - Curses based Status.net client

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=661354

Julian Aloofi  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Flag|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+

--- Comment #8 from Julian Aloofi  2010-12-14 
17:39:19 EST ---
Awesome, this package is alright.

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 661902] Review Request: moksha - A platform for creating real-time web applications

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=661902

--- Comment #5 from Luke Macken  2010-12-14 17:23:28 EST ---
Spec URL: http://lmacken.fedorapeople.org/rpms/moksha.spec
SRPM URL: http://lmacken.fedorapeople.org/rpms/moksha-0.5.0-3.fc14.src.rpm

* Tue Dec 14 2010 Luke Macken  - 0.5.0-3
- Handle ghosting /var/run/moksha
- Setup a log directory
- Get the moksha-hub init script working properly
- A variety of specfile cleanups from our package review (#661902)

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 663181] Review Request: ompc - MATLAB to Python syntax adapting compiler

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=663181

Jason Tibbitts  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

Summary|Review Request: MATLAB to   |Review Request: ompc -
   |Python syntax adapting  |MATLAB to Python syntax
   |compiler.   |adapting compiler

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 660625] Review Request: techne - A general purpose, programmable physical simulator and renderer

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=660625

--- Comment #7 from Jason Tibbitts  2010-12-14 16:53:26 EST 
---
Git done (by process-git-requests).

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 661312] Review Request: mingw32-atkmm - MinGW Windows C++ interface for the ATK library

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=661312

--- Comment #10 from Jason Tibbitts  2010-12-14 16:53:53 EST 
---
Git done (by process-git-requests).

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 663181] New: Review Request: MATLAB to Python syntax adapting compiler.

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

Summary: Review Request: MATLAB to Python syntax adapting compiler.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=663181

   Summary: Review Request: MATLAB to Python syntax adapting
compiler.
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
  Platform: Unspecified
OS/Version: Unspecified
Status: NEW
  Severity: medium
  Priority: low
 Component: Package Review
AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org
ReportedBy: al...@redhat.com
 QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com
   Estimated Hours: 0.0
Classification: Fedora
Target Release: ---


Spec URL: http://people.freedesktop.org/~alon/ompc.spec
SRPM URL:
http://people.freedesktop.org/~alon/ompc-1.0beta-1.96c520b01abc.src.rpm
Description:
OMPC (http://ompc.juricap.com) aims to allow effortless reuse of MATLAB code 
from Python. OMPC is a code adaptation layer that translates MATLAB's m-files
into Python compatible syntax. The generated Python compatible code 
depends on OMPClib which provides MATLAB compatible array interface for Python.
The OMPClib interface is another numerical Python library but the only one with 
indexing based at 1 instead at 0, strict FORTRAN binary interface and 
copy on assignment.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 588941] Review Request: pypy - Implementation of the Python language, using Python itself

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=588941

Dave Malcolm  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Flag||needinfo?(a.bad...@gmail.co
   ||m)

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 660625] Review Request: techne - A general purpose, programmable physical simulator and renderer

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=660625

Tadej Janež  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Flag||fedora-cvs?

--- Comment #6 from Tadej Janež  2010-12-14 
16:31:43 EST ---
New Package SCM Request
===
Package Name: techne
Short Description: A general purpose, programmable physical simulator and
renderer
Owners: tadej
Branches: f13 f14
InitialCC:

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 661312] Review Request: mingw32-atkmm - MinGW Windows C++ interface for the ATK library

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=661312

Thomas Sailer  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Flag||fedora-cvs?

--- Comment #9 from Thomas Sailer  2010-12-14 16:28:24 
EST ---
New Package SCM Request
===
Package Name: mingw32-atkmm
Short Description: MinGW Windows C++ interface for the ATK library
Owners: sailer epienbro
Branches: f14
InitialCC:

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 661312] Review Request: mingw32-atkmm - MinGW Windows C++ interface for the ATK library

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=661312

--- Comment #8 from Thomas Sailer  2010-12-14 16:27:05 
EST ---
Thanks Eric for the 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 661354] Review Request: identicurse - Curses based Status.net client

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=661354

--- Comment #7 from Steve Milner  2010-12-14 16:03:14 EST 
---
Spec URL: http://smilner.fedorapeople.org/identicurse/identicurse.spec
SRPM URL:
http://smilner.fedorapeople.org/identicurse/identicurse-0.4.1-3.fc14.src.rpm

Change:
-%{_python_sitelib}/*
+%{python_sitelib}/%{name}/
+%{python_sitelib}/%{name}-*.egg-info/

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 661354] Review Request: identicurse - Curses based Status.net client

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=661354

--- Comment #6 from Steve Milner  2010-12-14 15:54:41 EST 
---
Excellent. I'll make that change as well.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 661312] Review Request: mingw32-atkmm - MinGW Windows C++ interface for the ATK library

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=661312

Erik van Pienbroek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Flag|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+

--- Comment #7 from Erik van Pienbroek  2010-12-14 
15:49:36 EST ---
$ rpmlint mingw32-atkmm.spec 
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

$ rpmlint mingw32-atkmm-2.22.0-1.fc15.src.rpm 
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

$ rpmlint mingw32-atkmm-2.22.0-1.fc15.noarch.rpm 
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

$ md5sum atkmm-2.22.0.tar.bz2 
6faeedb26810fd954a856f05e03d4ea8  atkmm-2.22.0.tar.bz2
$ curl -s
http://ftp.gnome.org/pub/GNOME/sources/atkmm/2.22/atkmm-2.22.0.tar.bz2 | md5sum
6faeedb26810fd954a856f05e03d4ea8  -

$ rpmquery --requires mingw32-atkmm
pkgconfig  
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
mingw32-filesystem >= 63
mingw32-runtime  
mingw32(kernel32.dll)  
mingw32(libatk-1.0-0.dll)  
mingw32(libgcc_s_sjlj-1.dll)  
mingw32(libglib-2.0-0.dll)  
mingw32(libglibmm-2.4-1.dll)  
mingw32(libgobject-2.0-0.dll)  
mingw32(libsigc-2.0-0.dll)  
mingw32(libstdc++-6.dll)  
mingw32(msvcrt.dll)  
rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1

$ rpmquery --provides mingw32-atkmm
mingw32(libatkmm-1.6-1.dll)  
mingw32-atkmm = 2.22.0-1.fc15

Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2664174


+ OK
! Needs to be looked into
/ Not applicable
* Overridden by MinGW guidelines

[+] Files are installed in /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw
[+] BuildRequires: mingw32-filesystem >= xx is in the .spec file
[+] Requires are OK
[+] BuildArch: noarch
[+] No man pages or info files
[+] default strip and objdump commands are overridden with mingw32 specific
ones


[+] rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the
review
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
[*] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption on Package Naming Guidelines
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines .
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[+] MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package must be included in %doc.
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL.
[+] MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one supported architecture.
[/] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch.
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for
any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional.
[/] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
[*] MUST: Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files (not just
symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in
%post and %postun. 
[/] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package.
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. 
[+] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros
section of Packaging Guidelines .
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[/] MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage.
[+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application.
[*] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[/] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[+] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'
(for directory ownership and usability).
[*] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g.
libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in
a -devel package.
[/] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully ve

[Bug 513320] Review Request: boxbackup - A fast, secure and automatic online backup system

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=513320

Jason Tibbitts  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ti...@math.uh.edu
   Flag||fedora-review?

--- Comment #21 from Jason Tibbitts  2010-12-14 14:47:48 EST 
---
Hate to do this, but now that I look at the license stuff I'm having trouble
figuring out what's what.  The COPYING.txt file indicates that a bunch of stuff
is under their specific "GPLv2+ with exceptions" license, and that some of the
code is dual licensed "GPL (v something) or BSD", and of course it says "unless
stated otherwise in the file" so you have to check all of the files.

So it looks to me to be a bit more complicated than just "BSD or GPLv2+ with
exceptions".  You will need to figure out which parts of the final packages are
under which license(s) and indicate that, generally with a comment in the spec
near the License: tag but if it gets overly complex you can move it off to a
file included as documentation.

I'm guessing since spot already signed off on these that there's no problem
with compatibility between the different license stuff, since you can always
use the dual-licensed stuff under the BSD license in order to link it with the
GPLv2+ with exceptions stuff.

It seems that nothing owns /etc/boxbackup.


* source files match upstream.  sha256sum:
  7bd734b5ab37f67aa88029635306e586b9e33bffe4ded5760f9d299b2b03e01b
   boxbackup-0.11rc8.tgz
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* summaries are OK.
* descriptions are OK.
* dist tag is present.
? license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* license text included in package.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* compiler flags are appropriate.
* package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64).
* package installs properly.
* debuginfo package looks complete.
* rpmlint has acceptable complaints.
* final provides and requires are sane:
  boxbackup-0.11-0.3.rc8.fc15.x86_64.rpm
   config(boxbackup) = 0.11-0.3.rc8.fc15
   boxbackup = 0.11-0.3.rc8.fc15
   boxbackup(x86-64) = 0.11-0.3.rc8.fc15
  =
   /bin/bash  
   /bin/sh  
   /usr/bin/perl  
   chkconfig  
   config(boxbackup) = 0.11-0.3.rc8.fc15
   initscripts  
   libcrypto.so.10()(64bit)  
   libdb-4.8.so()(64bit)  
   libedit.so.0()(64bit)  
   libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)  
   libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)  
   libssl.so.10()(64bit)  
   libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)  
   libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)  
   libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4)(64bit)  
   libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.11)(64bit)  
   libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.14)(64bit)  
   libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.9)(64bit)  
   libz.so.1()(64bit)  
   openssl >= 0.9.7a
   perl(strict)  
   shadow-utils  

  boxbackup-server-0.11-0.3.rc8.fc15.x86_64.rpm
   config(boxbackup-server) = 0.11-0.3.rc8.fc15
   boxbackup-server = 0.11-0.3.rc8.fc15
   boxbackup-server(x86-64) = 0.11-0.3.rc8.fc15
  =
   /bin/bash  
   /bin/sh  
   /usr/bin/perl  
   config(boxbackup-server) = 0.11-0.3.rc8.fc15
   libcrypto.so.10()(64bit)  
   libdb-4.8.so()(64bit)  
   libedit.so.0()(64bit)  
   libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)  
   libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)  
   libssl.so.10()(64bit)  
   libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)  
   libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)  
   libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4)(64bit)  
   libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.11)(64bit)  
   libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.14)(64bit)  
   libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.9)(64bit)  
   libz.so.1()(64bit)  
   perl(strict)  

* no bundled libraries.
X fails to own /etc/boxbackup.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* no generically named files
* scriptlets are OK (service management, user creation).
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* no static libraries.
* no libtool .la 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 660625] Review Request: techne - A general purpose, programmable physical simulator and renderer

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=660625

Hans de Goede  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Flag|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+

--- Comment #5 from Hans de Goede  2010-12-14 14:36:22 EST 
---
Looks good now, approved!

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 590355] Review Request: golly - cellular automata simulator

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=590355

Tom "spot" Callaway  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||tcall...@redhat.com

--- Comment #16 from Tom "spot" Callaway  2010-12-14 
14:13:19 EST ---
lexicon license is missing permission to distribute, I've emailed upstream
asking for clarification.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 663102] Review Request: pyscard - python module adding smart cards support.

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=663102

--- Comment #1 from Andrew Elwell  2010-12-14 13:31:32 
EST ---
Created attachment 468665
  --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=468665
self performed review of spec / package

OK - I did my own self-test review (attached) -- please can a real reviewer
point out where I'm incorrect?

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 663058] Review Request: rubygem-rack-restful_submit - Allows RESTful routing without Javascript and multiple submit buttons

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=663058

--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  2010-12-14 
13:26:22 EST ---
rubygem-rack-restful_submit-1.1.1-3.fc14 has been submitted as an update for
Fedora 14.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rubygem-rack-restful_submit-1.1.1-3.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 663058] Review Request: rubygem-rack-restful_submit - Allows RESTful routing without Javascript and multiple submit buttons

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=663058

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |MODIFIED

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 663058] Review Request: rubygem-rack-restful_submit - Allows RESTful routing without Javascript and multiple submit buttons

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=663058

--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  2010-12-14 
13:23:02 EST ---
rubygem-rack-restful_submit-1.1.1-3.fc13 has been submitted as an update for
Fedora 13.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rubygem-rack-restful_submit-1.1.1-3.fc13

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 473046] Review Request: miniupnpc - command line tool to control NAT in UPnP-enabled routers as Linksys, D-Link etc

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473046

--- Comment #29 from Jason Tibbitts  2010-12-14 13:08:50 EST 
---
Not sure if I'll get flamed for nitpicking again, but here are some comments:

You should at least look at the rpmlint output and try to address what you can:

  miniupnpc.src: W: strange-permission upnpnats 0777L
The file in the srpm is mode 777; not really a good idea.

  miniupnpc.src:54: E: hardcoded-library-path in $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr/lib
I guess I understand that you're trying to avoid patching the makefile, but I'm
curious why just doing 
  make PREFIX=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT INSTALLDIRLIB=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_libdir} install
doesn't work for you.

  miniupnpc.src:9: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line
9)
No reason not to clean that up.

  miniupnpc.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog
   1.2-5.fc9 ['1.4-5.fc15', '1.4-5']
Don't include the dist tag in changelog entries.

  miniupnpc.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/libminiupnpc.so.4
This is odd; you'll need to investigate why this isn't being stripped properly.
 It looks like the compiler flags are correct (although most of them seem to be
listed twice, so maybe there's some sort issue relating to that).  Or maybe it
has somethig to do with the static stuff.

  miniupnpc.x86_64: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/sysconfig/upnpnats
Needs to be %config(noreplace), not just %config, else it will be overwritten
when the package is updated.

  miniupnpc.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary upnpc
It is nice to have manual pages but it's not essential.

  miniupnpc.x86_64: W: service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/upnpnats
  miniupnpc.x86_64: W: service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/upnpnats
The services should definitely not be enabled by default.

  miniupnpc.x86_64: E: incoherent-subsys /etc/rc.d/init.d/upnpnats upnpcnats
  miniupnpc.x86_64: W: incoherent-init-script-name upnpnats
   ('miniupnpc', 'miniupnpcd')
These are OK; rpmlint is confused by the service name differing from the
package name.

This package includes a static library.  If you really wish to include a static
lib, you must follow
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Packaging_Static_Libraries

You are missing the the ldconfig dependencies for the scriptlets.

There are some bits of the spec you can remove if you're only planning to
target Fedora and RHEL6 or newer: BuildRoot, the first line of %install, and
the entire %clean section.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 663102] New: Review Request: pyscard - python module adding smart cards support.

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

Summary: Review Request: pyscard -  python module adding smart cards support.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=663102

   Summary: Review Request: pyscard -  python module adding smart
cards support.
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
  Platform: All
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
  Severity: medium
  Priority: low
 Component: Package Review
AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org
ReportedBy: andrew.elw...@gmail.com
 QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com
   Estimated Hours: 0.0
Classification: Fedora


Spec URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/6594808/Fedora/pyscard.spec
SRPM URL:  http://dl.dropbox.com/u/6594808/Fedora/pyscard-1.6.12-1.fc14.src.rpm
Description: 

1st attempt at packaging for Fedora -- rpmbuild on my F14 box works ok, and I'm
running the built rpm to try and get my touchatag reader working with RFIDIOt.

rpmlint on spec:
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

rpmlint on src.rpm: 

pyscard.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US smartcard -> smart card,
smart-card, smartness
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

upstream uses 'smartcard' in his text.


please note this is my first package and I'm seeking a sponsor

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 663102] Review Request: pyscard - python module adding smart cards support.

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=663102

Andrew Elwell  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 663092] Review Request: oxygen-gtk - Oxygen GTK theme

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=663092

--- Comment #2 from Rex Dieter  2010-12-14 12:28:13 EST 
---
No, it is not.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 663058] Review Request: rubygem-rack-restful_submit - Allows RESTful routing without Javascript and multiple submit buttons

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=663058

--- Comment #7 from Jason Tibbitts  2010-12-14 12:27:18 EST 
---
Git done (by process-git-requests).

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 663092] Review Request: oxygen-gtk - Oxygen GTK theme

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=663092

--- Comment #1 from Jason Tibbitts  2010-12-14 12:19:18 EST 
---
Is this related to bug 642238?

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 595011] Review Request: sshdfilter - Filter for SSH ports

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=595011

--- Comment #25 from Jason Tibbitts  2010-12-14 12:22:28 EST 
---
>From reading the comments I can't tell if you intend to submit this to Fedora
or if you're just posting this here in case someone else wants to take it and
add it to the distribution (comment 21).  So, which is it?  If you wish to
submit this yourself, have you read
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group? 
Have you done any other packaging or review 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 663092] New: Review Request: oxygen-gtk - Oxygen GTK theme

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

Summary: Review Request: oxygen-gtk - Oxygen GTK theme

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=663092

   Summary: Review Request: oxygen-gtk - Oxygen GTK theme
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
  Platform: All
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
 Component: Package Review
AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org
ReportedBy: rdie...@math.unl.edu
 QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com
   Estimated Hours: 0.0
Classification: Fedora


Spec URL: http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/oxygen-gtk/oxygen-gtk.spec
SRPM URL:
http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/oxygen-gtk/oxygen-gtk-1.0.0-1.fc13.src.rpm
Description:
Oxygen-Gtk is a port of the default KDE widget theme (Oxygen), to gtk.

It's primary goal is to ensure visual consistency between gtk-based and
qt-based applications running under KDE. A secondary objective is to also
have a stand-alone nice looking gtk theme that would behave well on other
Desktop Environments.

Unlike other attempts made to port the KDE oxygen theme to gtk, this
attempt does not depend on Qt (via some Qt to Gtk conversion engine),
nor does render the widget appearance via hard-coded pixmaps, which
otherwise breaks every time some setting is changed in KDE.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 663092] Review Request: oxygen-gtk - Oxygen GTK theme

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=663092

Rex Dieter  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||656997(kde-reviews)
  Alias||oxygen-gtk

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 663058] Review Request: rubygem-rack-restful_submit - Allows RESTful routing without Javascript and multiple submit buttons

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=663058

--- Comment #6 from Jozef Zigmund  2010-12-14 11:59:36 EST 
---
New Package SCM Request
===
Package Name:  rubygem-rack-restful_submit
Short Description: Allows RESTful routing without Javascript and multiple
submit buttons
Owners:jzigmund
Branches:  f13 f14

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 663058] Review Request: rubygem-rack-restful_submit - Allows RESTful routing without Javascript and multiple submit buttons

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=663058

Jozef Zigmund  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Flag||fedora-cvs?

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 609295] Review Request: python-cement - CLI Application Framework for Python

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=609295

--- Comment #4 from Jason Tibbitts  2010-12-14 11:58:16 EST 
---
A few comments:

Do I recall correctly that you are the upstream developer of this software?  It
would probably have benefited you to let us know about that.

Are you sure you still need to pass --single-version-externally-managed to
setuptools?  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python_Eggs indicates that
this should no longer be required, and that document is a few years old now.

Nothing seems to own %{python_sitelib}/%{real_name}.  You include a few
subdirectories but not the directory itself.  And, what does %{real_name}
actually buy you, anyway?  Isn't it shorter to simply type "cement"?

It looks like you have a bunch of nasty macroification at the top which is
unnecessary for Fedora (or even EL6).  You could dispense with %pyver just by
using globs in your file lists, and I'm not sure what the %python macro is used
for at all.  Some of the spec is so buried in pointless macros that it becomes
quite difficult to understand.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 661832] Review Request: kdevelop-pg-qt - A parser generator

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=661832

--- Comment #10 from Rex Dieter  2010-12-14 11:58:29 EST 
---
Spec URL: http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/kdevelop-php/kdevelop-pg-qt.spec
SRPM URL:
http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/kdevelop-php/kdevelop-pg-qt-0.9.0-3.fc14.src.rpm

%changelog
* Thu Dec 14 2010 Rex Dieter  - 0.9.0-3
- License: LGPLv2+ and GPLv2+ with exception

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 661833] Review Request: kdevelop-php - Php language plugin for KDevelop

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=661833

--- Comment #8 from Rex Dieter  2010-12-14 11:59:25 EST 
---
ETA on kdevelop's next release?  no idea.  I figured we could ammend the
license tag when/if that happens.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 663058] Review Request: rubygem-rack-restful_submit - Allows RESTful routing without Javascript and multiple submit buttons

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=663058

Jozef Zigmund  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

Summary|Review Request: |Review Request:
   |rubygem-rack_restful_submit |rubygem-rack-restful_submit
   |- Allows RESTful routing|- Allows RESTful routing
   |without Javascript and  |without Javascript and
   |multiple submit buttons |multiple submit buttons

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 663058] Review Request: rubygem-rack_restful_submit - Allows RESTful routing without Javascript and multiple submit buttons

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=663058

--- Comment #5 from Jozef Zigmund  2010-12-14 11:57:31 EST 
---
(In reply to comment #4)
> (In reply to comment #3)
> > Nice,
> > 
> > One more thing:
> > Please fix this URL using defined macro (%gemname) before you import this
> > package to Fedora:
> > 
> > URL: https://github.com/martincik/rack-restful_submit
> > 
> > REVIEW+
> 
> Nice catch and thanks for review.
> 
> New SPEC URL:
> http://people.redhat.com/jzigmund/rubygem-rack_restful_submit.spec
> New SRPM URL:
> http://people.redhat.com/jzigmund/rubygem-rack-restful_submit-1.1.1-3.fc13.src.rpm

Sorry the name of SPEC file was wrong, so here is the right ones:
New SPEC URL:
http://people.redhat.com/jzigmund/rubygem-rack-restful_submit.spec
New SRPM URL:
http://people.redhat.com/jzigmund/rubygem-rack-restful_submit-1.1.1-3.fc13.src.rpm

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 661154] Review Request: votca-csg - VOTCA coarse graining engine

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=661154

--- Comment #12 from Jason Tibbitts  2010-12-14 11:50:55 EST 
---
Git done (by process-git-requests).

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 661143] Review Request: votca-tools - VOTCA tools library

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=661143

--- Comment #10 from Jason Tibbitts  2010-12-14 11:50:44 EST 
---
Git done (by process-git-requests).

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 661143] Review Request: votca-tools - VOTCA tools library

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=661143

Jussi Lehtola  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Flag||fedora-cvs?

--- Comment #9 from Jussi Lehtola  2010-12-14 11:42:44 
EST ---
Thanks a lot for the review!

New Package SCM Request
===
Package Name: votca-tools
Short Description: VOTCA tools library
Owners: jussilehtola
Branches: F-13 F-14
InitialCC:

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 661154] Review Request: votca-csg - VOTCA coarse graining engine

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=661154

Jussi Lehtola  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Flag||fedora-cvs?

--- Comment #11 from Jussi Lehtola  2010-12-14 11:42:09 
EST ---
Thanks a lot for the review!

New Package SCM Request
===
Package Name: votca-csg
Short Description: VOTCA coarse-graining engine
Owners: jussilehtola
Branches: F-13 F-14
InitialCC:

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 657397] Review Request: sbackup - Simple Backup Suite for desktop use

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=657397

--- Comment #11 from dwe...@charter.net 2010-12-14 11:41:08 EST ---
Ok, will do... 

Don

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 663058] Review Request: rubygem-rack_restful_submit - Allows RESTful routing without Javascript and multiple submit buttons

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=663058

--- Comment #4 from Jozef Zigmund  2010-12-14 11:25:17 EST 
---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Nice,
> 
> One more thing:
> Please fix this URL using defined macro (%gemname) before you import this
> package to Fedora:
> 
> URL: https://github.com/martincik/rack-restful_submit
> 
> REVIEW+

Nice catch and thanks for review.

New SPEC URL:
http://people.redhat.com/jzigmund/rubygem-rack_restful_submit.spec
New SRPM URL:
http://people.redhat.com/jzigmund/rubygem-rack-restful_submit-1.1.1-3.fc13.src.rpm

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 572515] Review Request: jogl - Java bindings for OpenGL

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=572515

--- Comment #40 from Sylvestre Ledru  2010-12-14 
11:18:35 EST ---
Do we know if upstream is aware of the license issue ?

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 663058] Review Request: rubygem-rack_restful_submit - Allows RESTful routing without Javascript and multiple submit buttons

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=663058

--- Comment #2 from Jozef Zigmund  2010-12-14 11:08:10 EST 
---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Taking this for review:
> 
> Overall this package looks safe to me, just one issue, please fix wrong email
> in %changelog section.

[FIXED]

> * The Source of the package must be the full URL to the released Gem archive;
> the version of the package must be the Gem's version
> 
> FAILED:
> Please fix it using: 
> http://gems.rubyforge.org/gems/%{gemname}-%{version}.gem
> 

[FIXED]

New SPEC URL:
http://people.redhat.com/jzigmund/rubygem-rack_restful_submit.spec
New SRPM URL:
http://people.redhat.com/jzigmund/rubygem-rack-restful_submit-1.1.1-2.fc13.src.rpm

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 663058] Review Request: rubygem-rack_restful_submit - Allows RESTful routing without Javascript and multiple submit buttons

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=663058

Michal Fojtik  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Flag|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+

--- Comment #3 from Michal Fojtik  2010-12-14 11:12:19 EST 
---
Nice,

One more thing:
Please fix this URL using defined macro (%gemname) before you import this
package to Fedora:

URL: https://github.com/martincik/rack-restful_submit

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 572515] Review Request: jogl - Java bindings for OpenGL

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=572515

Jason Tibbitts  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks|182235(FE-Legal)|

--- Comment #38 from Jason Tibbitts  2010-12-14 11:05:12 EST 
---
And spot says this is OK: 
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/legal/2010-December/001476.html

-
The removed sections are the patent grant and the indemnity sections.
Section 8 is still intact, and the relicensing permission is reasonably
clear that anything not waived in the relicensing is still applicable
from SGI, so IMHO, it is safe to migrate this code to FreeB 2.0 (MIT).

I would strongly encourage jogl's upstream to make this change so that
this horrible horrible license can die.

~tom
-

So feel free to move forward.  Unblocking FE-Legal.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 572515] Review Request: jogl - Java bindings for OpenGL

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=572515

--- Comment #39 from Jason Tibbitts  2010-12-14 11:06:54 EST 
---
I should add that adding at least that mailing list link in a comment near the
License: tag (along with the regular explanation of what's what in case your
license tag ends up being complicated) would be appreciated in case someone
comes across this weirdness in the future.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 663058] Review Request: rubygem-rack_restful_submit - Allows RESTful routing without Javascript and multiple submit buttons

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=663058

--- Comment #1 from Michal Fojtik  2010-12-14 10:53:16 EST 
---
Taking this for review:

Overall this package looks safe to me, just one issue, please fix wrong email
in %changelog section.

Formal review:

* Packages that contain Ruby Gems must be called rubygem-%{gemname} where
gemname is the name from the Gem's specification.

 PASS

* The Source of the package must be the full URL to the released Gem archive;
the version of the package must be the Gem's version

FAILED:
Please fix it using: 
http://gems.rubyforge.org/gems/%{gemname}-%{version}.gem

* The package must have a Requires and a BuildRequires on rubygems

   PASS

* The %prep and %build sections of the specfile should be empty.

   PASS

* The Gem must be installed into %{gemdir} defined as 
  %global gemdir %(ruby -rubygems -e 'puts Gem::dir' 2>/dev/null)

  PASS

* The install should be performed with the command
  gem install --local --install-dir %{buildroot}%{gemdir} --force %{SOURCE0}

  PASS

* The package must own the following files and directories: 
  %{gemdir}/gems/%{gemname}-%{version}/
  %{gemdir}/cache/%{gemname}-%{version}.gem
  %{gemdir}/specifications/%{gemname}-%{version}.gemspec

  PASS

* If the Gem only contains pure Ruby code, it must be marked as BuildArch:
noarch. 

  PASS

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 663058] Review Request: rubygem-rack_restful_submit - Allows RESTful routing without Javascript and multiple submit buttons

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=663058

Michal Fojtik  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 663058] Review Request: rubygem-rack_restful_submit - Allows RESTful routing without Javascript and multiple submit buttons

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=663058

Michal Fojtik  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||mfoj...@redhat.com
 AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mfoj...@redhat.com

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 662951] Review Request: perl_checker - Verify Perl code

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=662951

--- Comment #1 from Xavier Bachelot  2010-12-14 10:37:34 
EST ---
I'm not a sponsor but from a quick glance, here are a couple comments that will
hopefully help.
- Don't define version and release twice. Just use plain "Version: 1.2.3", for
example.
- Source0 must be a full URL.
- BuildRequires/Obsolotes/Provides for perl-MDK-Common looks dubious and are
probably uneeded for the Fedora package.
- Why disable AutoReqProv ?
- %defattr should be %defattr(-,root,root,-)
- Watch out for potentially unowned files/dirs or missing Requires
(%{_datadir}/vim/ftplugin ; %{_sysconfdir}/emacs/site-start.d)
- You might want to trim the changelog not too include the full Mandriva
history. It is obviously fine to keep a comment about the source of this spec
though.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 630204] Review Request: ghc-mtlparse - Haskell mtlparse library

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=630204

Lakshmi Narasimhan  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Flag||fedora-review+

--- Comment #7 from Lakshmi Narasimhan  2010-12-14 
10:33:15 EST ---
Here's my review.

[+]MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
the review.
rpmlint  -i ghc-mtlparse*.rpm ghc-mtlparse.spec 
ghc-mtlparse.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Haskell -> Gaskell,
Gaitskell, Skellum
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

ghc-mtlparse.src: W: strange-permission mtlparse-0.1.1.tar.gz 0640L
A file that you listed to include in your package has strange permissions.
Usually, a file should have 0644 permissions.

ghc-mtlparse.src: W: strange-permission ghc-mtlparse.spec 0640L
A file that you listed to include in your package has strange permissions.
Usually, a file should have 0644 permissions.

ghc-mtlparse.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Haskell -> Gaskell,
Gaitskell, Skellum
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

ghc-mtlparse-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Haskell -> Gaskell,
Gaitskell, Skellum
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

ghc-mtlparse-prof.x86_64: E: devel-dependency ghc-mtlparse-devel
Your package has a dependency on a devel package but it's not a devel package
itself.

ghc-mtlparse-prof.x86_64: W: no-documentation
The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include
documentation files.

ghc-mtlparse-prof.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/ghc-6.12.3/mtlparse-0.1.1/libHSmtlparse-0.1.1_p.a
A development file (usually source code) is located in a non-devel package. If
you want to include source code in your package, be sure to create a
development package.

4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 7 warnings.

[+]MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+]MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec
[+]MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
Naming-Yes
Version-release - Matches
License - OK, only mentioned in the cabal file
No prebuilt external bits - OK
Spec legibity - OK
Package template - OK
Arch support - OK
Libexecdir - OK
rpmlint - yes
changelogs - OK
Source url tag  - OK, validated.
Buildroot is ignored - present anyway. OK
%clean is ignored - present anyway. OK
Build Requires list - OK
Summary and description - OK
API documentation - OK,present in devel package

[+]MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines .
[+]MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[+]MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package must be included in %doc.
[+]MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+]MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+]MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream
source,as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task.

[~/ghc-mtlparse-0.1.1-1.fc14.src]$ md5sum mtlparse-0.1.1.tar.gz 
f70a187b397aed658321029cffa3513c  mtlparse-0.1.1.tar.gz

[~/ghc-mtlparse-0.1.1-1.fc14.src] md5sum ~/Downloads/mtlparse-0.1.1.tar.gz 
f70a187b397aed658321029cffa3513c  ~/Downloads/mtlparse-0.1.1.tar.gz

[+]MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture.
Built on x86_64
[+]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.
Checked with rpmquery --list
[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.
Checked with 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 sub

[Bug 661810] Review Request: libcacard - Common Access Card emulation library

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=661810

--- Comment #8 from Jason Tibbitts  2010-12-14 10:30:53 EST 
---
Git done (by process-git-requests).

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 592772] Review Request: drobo-utils - Utilities for managing Drobo storage systems

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=592772

Jason Tibbitts  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ti...@math.uh.edu
   Flag||fedora-review?

--- Comment #10 from Jason Tibbitts  2010-12-14 10:26:22 EST 
---
Actually if you use the latest rpmlint you get no complaints from the srpm and
just these from the built rpm:
  drobo-utils-gui.noarch: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag
   /etc/security/console.apps/droboview-root
  drobo-utils-gui.noarch: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag
   /etc/pam.d/droboview-root
  drobo-utils-gui.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary droboview-root
which are all OK.

I'm having trouble figuring out the license.  The code itself doesn't have the
proper license blocks and just refers to the COPYING file.  The COPYING file
just has the generic GPLv3 text, which says (see section 14) that unless the
code specifically indicates a version, you can use any version.  The README
files and upstream web site just say "GPL".  The About dialog for the GUI says:
  license: General Public License (GPL) v3
and you have "GPLv3+" in the spec.

At this point I'd go with the About dialog and use "GPLv3", but you should ask
upstream to clarify and if possible put proper GPL license blocks in their
code.  The COPYING file itself indicates how to do this, down at the bottom
under "How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs".

Other than the license issue I think this is fine.

* source files match upstream.  sha256sum:
  00f2bc162c0050da9630d3134ef4317c042fec22c558f2933c7f936bfea4ebf6
   drobo-utils-0.6.2.2.tgz
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* summaries are OK.
* descriptions are OK.
* dist tag is present.
X license field does not match the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* license text included in package.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64).
* package installs properly.
* rpmlint has acceptable complaints.
* final provides and requires are sane:
  drobo-utils-0.6.2.2-8.fc15.noarch.rpm
   drobo-utils = 0.6.2.2-8.fc15
  =
   /usr/bin/python  
   parted  
   python(abi) = 2.7
   python-ctypes  

  drobo-utils-gui-0.6.2.2-8.fc15.noarch.rpm
   config(drobo-utils-gui) = 0.6.2.2-8.fc15
   drobo-utils-gui = 0.6.2.2-8.fc15
  =
   /bin/sh  
   PyQt4  
   config(drobo-utils-gui) = 0.6.2.2-8.fc15
   drobo-utils  
   usermode  

* no bundled libraries.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* no generically named files
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* desktop files valid and installed properly.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 571416] Review Request: GiGi-0.6.0 - C++ OpenGL GUI library

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=571416

--- Comment #15 from Karel Volný  2010-12-14 10:26:58 EST ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> Wow, you can always count on your upstreams to do completely bizarre things. 

well, seems to me that it is just a matter of changing one line in
http://gigi.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/gigi/trunk/GG/CMakeLists.txt?revision=878&view=markup

I've reported upstream bug, let's see if it gets resolved:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=3137299&group_id=84040&atid=571538

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 663058] New: Review Request: rubygem-rack_restful_submit - Allows RESTful routing without Javascript and multiple submit buttons

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

Summary: Review Request: rubygem-rack_restful_submit - Allows RESTful routing 
without Javascript and multiple submit buttons

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=663058

   Summary: Review Request: rubygem-rack_restful_submit - Allows
RESTful routing without Javascript and multiple submit
buttons
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
  Platform: All
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
 Component: Package Review
AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org
ReportedBy: jzigm...@redhat.com
 QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com
   Estimated Hours: 0.0
Classification: Fedora


Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/jzigmund/rubygem-rack_restful_submit.spec
SRPM URL:
http://people.redhat.com/jzigmund/rubygem-rack-restful_submit-1.1.1-1.fc13.src.rpm
Description: Implements support of RESTful resources with Rails MVC when
Javascript is off and bulk operations are required with multiple submit
buttons.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 572515] Review Request: jogl - Java bindings for OpenGL

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=572515

Jon Ciesla  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||182235(FE-Legal)

--- Comment #37 from Jon Ciesla  2010-12-14 10:04:01 EST ---
Cool, blocking FE-LEGAL.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 661810] Review Request: libcacard - Common Access Card emulation library

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=661810

Alon Levy  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Flag||fedora-cvs?

--- Comment #7 from Alon Levy  2010-12-14 10:07:44 EST ---
New Package SCM Request
===
Package Name: libcacard
Short Description: Common Access Card (CAC) Emulation
Owners: alon
Branches: f14
InitialCC: jwrdegoede

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 572515] Review Request: jogl - Java bindings for OpenGL

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=572515

--- Comment #36 from Aidan Delaney  2010-12-14 
09:52:58 EST ---
Jon, thanks for that.  However, as the orphan is over 3 months old we need to
revalidate the package review.  Furthermore, the package was removed for legal
reasons.

There seems to be a legal issue with jogl.  The SGI Free B 1.1 licence can be
"upgraded" to the MIT-like SGI Free B 2.0 licence.  However, we're unsure if
the Sun derivative of the SGH Free B 1.1 licence can be "upgraded" to the
open-source Free B 2.0.  This is going to fedora-legal for legal eagles to
argue over.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 662951] Review Request: perl_checker - Verify Perl code

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=662951

Xavier Bachelot  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||xav...@bachelot.org
 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 650181] Review Request: tkabber-plugins - Additional plugins for tkabber

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=650181

--- Comment #4 from Peter Lemenkov  2010-12-14 09:08:09 EST 
---
Ok, the situation with licensing is much better now. Ok, here is my 

REVIEW:

Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable

+ rpmlint is silent

sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SPECS: rpmlint
../RPMS/noarch/tkabber-plugins-0.11.1-2.svn1948.fc12.noarch.rpm 
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SPECS:

+ The package is named according to the  Package Naming Guidelines.
+ The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
+ The package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
+ The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines.
+ The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.

+/- All files, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, must be
included in %doc. So. please, add also *all* license.terms files. I suggest to
rename them in according to particular plugins they corresponds to. 

+ The spec file is written in American English.
+ The spec file for the package is legible.
+ The sources used to build the package, match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.

sulaco ~/rpmbuild/BUILD: diff -ru tkabber-plugins-0.11.1
tkabber-plugins-0.11.1.from_package/
sulaco ~/rpmbuild/BUILD:

+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
primary architecture.
+ All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
0 No need to handle locales.
0 No shared library files.
+ The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
+ The package is not designed to be relocatable.
+ The package owns all directories that it creates.
+ The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files
listings.
+ Permissions on files are set properly.
+ The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ The package consistently uses macros.
+ The package contains code, or permissible content.
0 No extremely large documentation files.
+ Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the
application.
0 No header files.
0 No static libraries.
0 No pkgconfig(.pc) files.
0 The package doesn't contain library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1).
0 No devel sub-package.
+ The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
0 Not a GUI application.
+ The package does not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
+ At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.

Ok, so, please, add the license files and I'll continue.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 661154] Review Request: votca-csg - VOTCA coarse graining engine

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=661154

Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Flag|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+

--- Comment #10 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski  
2010-12-14 09:10:19 EST ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> Fixed 1 and 3. 2 will be fixed when upstream (Christoph) makes a new release.
> 
> http://theory.physics.helsinki.fi/~jzlehtol/rpms/votca-csg.spec
> http://theory.physics.helsinki.fi/~jzlehtol/rpms/votca-csg-1.0.1-2.fc14.src.rpm

Perfect. The packages is now APPROVED.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 661154] Review Request: votca-csg - VOTCA coarse graining engine

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=661154

--- Comment #9 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski  
2010-12-14 09:06:40 EST ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> (In reply to comment #6)
> > 2 ./share/template/template.cc is missing licencing information.
> I added licensing information:

Good, thanks.

> Should it also be added to the Makefile in ./share/template/ ?

I don't think that's necessary.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 572515] Review Request: jogl - Java bindings for OpenGL

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=572515

--- Comment #35 from Jon Ciesla  2010-12-14 08:49:07 EST ---
This is interesting.  There's already an orphaned jogl.

https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/jogl?_csrf_token=3c4d0fa7f43d2fd5da17647f10b89c4ebf55282d

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 663023] New: Review Request: anjuta-extras - Extras plugins for anjuta

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

Summary: Review Request: anjuta-extras - Extras plugins for anjuta

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=663023

   Summary: Review Request: anjuta-extras - Extras plugins for
anjuta
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
  Platform: All
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
 Component: Package Review
AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org
ReportedBy: hicham.haou...@gmail.com
 QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com
   Estimated Hours: 0.0
Classification: Fedora


Fedora 13
---
Spec URL: http://hicham.fedorapeople.org/anjuta-extras/F-13/anjuta-extras.spec
SRPM URL:
http://hicham.fedorapeople.org/anjuta-extras/F-13/anjuta-extras-2.30.1.0-1.fc13.src.rpm
---

Fedora 14
---
Spec URL: http://hicham.fedorapeople.org/anjuta-extras/F-14/anjuta-extras.spec
SRPM URL:
http://hicham.fedorapeople.org/anjuta-extras/F-14/anjuta-extras-2.31.90.0-1.fc14.src.rpm
---

Description:
The following plugins are included:

 * Valgrind Plugin: Powerful debugging tool.
 * Scintilla Editor: An alternate editor based on Scintilla
 * Sample Plugin: Sample Plugin for Anjuta.
 * Profiler: Application performance profiler
 * Scratchbox: Change build commands to use scratchbox 1 or 2

Notes:
- Once anjuta-2.32.1.0-1.fc14 hits stable, this package will be updated
- No rawhide build as there is no build of anjuta3

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 660625] Review Request: techne - A general purpose, programmable physical simulator and renderer

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=660625

--- Comment #4 from Tadej Janež  2010-12-14 
08:36:20 EST ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> > MUST FIX / needs work:
> > - sources match upstream
> > I cannot verify this, please ask upstream to put a pre-release / alpha
> > / beta tarbal somewhere.
> 
> I'm in contact with the upstream author and he'll put a tarball out shortly.

Techne 0.2 has been officially released and is available from
http://download.savannah.gnu.org/releases/techne/techne-0.2.tar.gz

I've put the updated SPEC and SRPMS files at:
http://tadej.fedorapeople.org/techne.spec
http://tadej.fedorapeople.org/techne-0.2-1.fc13.src.rpm

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 661833] Review Request: kdevelop-php - Php language plugin for KDevelop

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=661833

--- Comment #7 from Jaroslav Reznik  2010-12-14 08:22:32 
EST ---
ETA on this?

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 663018] New: Review Request: gnome-guitar - A small suite of applications for the guitarist

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

Summary: Review Request: gnome-guitar - A small suite of applications for the 
guitarist
Alias: gnome-guitar

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=663018

   Summary: Review Request: gnome-guitar - A small suite of
applications for the guitarist
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
  Platform: All
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
 Component: Package Review
AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org
ReportedBy: lakshminaras2...@gmail.com
 QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com
   Estimated Hours: 0.0
Classification: Fedora


SPEC file link :
http://sites.google.com/site/lakshminaras2002/home/gnome-guitar.spec?attredirects=0&d=1

SRPM link :
http://sites.google.com/site/lakshminaras2002/home/gnome-guitar-0.8.1-8.fc15.src.rpm?attredirects=0&d=1

rpmlint  -i gnome-guitar.spec  gnome-guitar-0.8.1-8.fc15.src.rpm
gnome-guitar-0.8.1-8.fc15.x86_64.rpm gnome-guitar-devel-0.8.1-8.fc15.x86_64.rpm 
gnome-guitar.spec: W: invalid-url Source0:
http://downloads.sourceforge.net/gnome-chord/gnome-guitar_cs-0.8.1.tar.gz

The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL.

gnome-guitar.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
http://downloads.sourceforge.net/gnome-chord/gnome-guitar_cs-0.8.1.tar.gz

The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL.

gnome-guitar.x86_64: E: no-binary
The package should be of the noarch architecture because it doesn't contain
any binaries.

gnome-guitar.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
There are only non binary files in /usr/lib so they should be in /usr/share.

gnome-guitar.x86_64: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag
/etc/gconf/schemas/libgnomeguitar.schemas
A configuration file is stored in your package without the noreplace flag. A
way to resolve this is to put the following in your SPEC file:
%config(noreplace) /etc/your_config_file_here

gnome-guitar.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gnome-scale
Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page.

gnome-guitar.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gnome-chord
Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page.

gnome-guitar-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US config ->
con fig, con-fig, configure
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

gnome-guitar-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include
documentation files.

3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 8 warnings.

The links that rpmlint complains about work when I copy paste them into the
browser or when using wget.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 661154] Review Request: votca-csg - VOTCA coarse graining engine

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=661154

--- Comment #8 from Jussi Lehtola  2010-12-14 07:51:02 
EST ---
Fixed 1 and 3. 2 will be fixed when upstream (Christoph) makes a new release.

http://theory.physics.helsinki.fi/~jzlehtol/rpms/votca-csg.spec
http://theory.physics.helsinki.fi/~jzlehtol/rpms/votca-csg-1.0.1-2.fc14.src.rpm

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 545047] Review Request: NearTree - An API for finding nearest neighbors

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=545047

--- Comment #32 from Michal Nowak  2010-12-14 06:44:57 EST 
---
It may be a bad GCC 4.4's guess. Feel free to file it to GCC Bugzilla.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 657519] Review Request: perl-Sys-Statistics-Linux - Front-end module to collect system statistics

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=657519

Lubomir Rintel  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution||NEXTRELEASE
Last Closed||2010-12-14 06:23:09

--- Comment #9 from Lubomir Rintel  2010-12-14 06:23:09 EST ---
Thanks!
Imported and built.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 661154] Review Request: votca-csg - VOTCA coarse graining engine

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=661154

--- Comment #7 from Christoph Junghans  2010-12-14 06:25:21 
EST ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> 2 ./share/template/template.cc is missing licencing information.
I added licensing information:


Should it also be added to the Makefile in ./share/template/ ?

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 661154] Review Request: votca-csg - VOTCA coarse graining engine

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=661154

Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|r...@greysector.net
   Flag||fedora-review?

--- Comment #5 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski  
2010-12-14 05:58:36 EST ---
Source matches upstream:

$ md5sum votca-csg-1.0.1.tar.gz*
855fec6510665d45d81c4987f62b95b2  votca-csg-1.0.1.tar.gz
855fec6510665d45d81c4987f62b95b2  votca-csg-1.0.1.tar.gz.1

Comments:

1. Typo:
%package devel
...
Requires:   votka-tools-devel

./share/template/template.cc is missing licencing information

2. Timestamps are not preserved in make install.

Otherwise the package looks fine.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 661154] Review Request: votca-csg - VOTCA coarse graining engine

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=661154

--- Comment #6 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski  
2010-12-14 06:00:27 EST ---
Ahem, it should be:

2 ./share/template/template.cc is missing licencing information.

3. Timestamps are not preserved in make install.

of course. :)

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 661143] Review Request: votca-tools - VOTCA tools library

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=661143

--- Comment #8 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski  
2010-12-14 05:39:52 EST ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> (In reply to comment #4)
> > 2. "install -p" should be used instead of plain install to preserve 
> > timestamps,
> > please override that with INSTALL="install -p"
> Is this a problem in our build system or in autotools?

autotools don't use -p by default.

> I forgot to add 'Doxyfile' to EXTA_DIST (fixed in the next release). 
> In case you still want it, it can be found here:
> http://tools.votca.googlecode.com/hg/share/doc/Doxyfile
> But I think it is not necessary due to the fact that one can browse the
> documentation at http://doc.votca.org

Indeed.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 661143] Review Request: votca-tools - VOTCA tools library

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=661143

Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Flag|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+

--- Comment #7 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski  
2010-12-14 05:37:49 EST ---
Excellent.

This package is APPROVED.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 545047] Review Request: NearTree - An API for finding nearest neighbors

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=545047

--- Comment #31 from Takanori MATSUURA  2010-12-14 05:06:22 
EST ---
Please ignore comment #26.

After CVector has been updated to 1.0.3.1 and NearTree to 2.3.2, comment #23 is
still reproduced.

%check successful:
f14: gcc-4.5.1, glibc-2.12.90
f15: gcc-4.5.1, glibc-2.12.90
el5: gcc-4.1.2, glibc-2.5
(el4: gcc-3.4.6, glibc-2.3.4)

%check failed only on i686 (successful on other architectures):
f13: gcc-4.4.5, glibc-2.12.1
el6: gcc-4.4.4, glibc-2.12.1
(f12: gcc-4.4.4, glibc-2.11.2)


And I finally found that this issue has been fixed by adding
"-fno-caller-saves" to CFLAGS in %check.
Is this a bug in gcc-4.4.x?

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 639369] Review Request: gfs2-utils - Fileysystem utilities for the GFS2 Filesystem

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=639369

Steve Whitehouse  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution||CURRENTRELEASE
Last Closed||2010-12-14 04:42:19

--- Comment #32 from Steve Whitehouse  2010-12-14 04:42:19 
EST ---
This seems to be all ok now and the updates have all been pushed to f13/f14, so
I think we can close this now unless anybody has any objections.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 661143] Review Request: votca-tools - VOTCA tools library

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=661143

--- Comment #6 from Christoph Junghans  2010-12-14 03:59:50 
EST ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> 2. "install -p" should be used instead of plain install to preserve 
> timestamps,
> please override that with INSTALL="install -p"
Is this a problem in our build system or in autotools?

> (In reply to comment #2)
> > - there is doxygen documentation through 'make html'
> Doesn't work:
> make[2]: *** No rule to make target `Doxyfile', needed by `html'.  Stop.
I forgot to add 'Doxyfile' to EXTA_DIST (fixed in the next release). 
In case you still want it, it can be found here:
http://tools.votca.googlecode.com/hg/share/doc/Doxyfile
But I think it is not necessary due to the fact that one can browse the
documentation at http://doc.votca.org

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review