[Bug 662604] Review Request: ibus-unikey - A Vietnamese engine for IBus input platform that uses Unikey.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=662604 --- Comment #5 from Truong Anh Tuan tua...@iwayvietnam.com 2010-12-20 03:10:38 EST --- I got response from upstream developer. It could not be compiled for F15 because of some compatibility issues (with ibus 1.3.99) those would be fixed next month. At this time, we should go ahead with F14, then I will follow up with upstream for the next releases. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 188542] Review Request: hylafax
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=188542
--- Comment #114 from Christoph Wickert cwick...@fedoraproject.org 2010-12-20
03:35:41 EST ---
For me the biggest problem is the volation of the FHS, e.g. binaries in
%{faxspool}/bin/.
--
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 662604] Review Request: ibus-unikey - A Vietnamese engine for IBus input platform that uses Unikey.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=662604 --- Comment #6 from Christoph Wickert cwick...@fedoraproject.org 2010-12-20 03:49:48 EST --- (In reply to comment #3) I updated all MUST FIX issues into the spec file; rebuilt the source package and then re-uploaded both onto the same location on FedoraPeople space. Whenever you make changes to a package, you must increase the release, even durign review. You should also note the changes you did in a changelog entry. Please review the updates for me. Tell me anything I should do more. When you give me a -2 package, I will review the remaining points. (In reply to comment #4) Btw, do I need to process N/A issues? Not Applicable = the guideline is does not meet this package, so you don't need to care about it here. (In reply to comment #5) At this time, we should go ahead with F14, then I will follow up with upstream for the next releases. I'm sorry, but this is not possible because we need a clean upgrade path. rawhide always needs to have the highest version, otherwise people cannot upgrade from F14 to rawhide. When you do an update or a new package, you first to it in rawhide, then in F14 and then F13. Maybe you can pick changes from SVN when they are available, but without rawhide I cannot accept the package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 510864] Review Request: colorize - Perl script to colorize logs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=510864 --- Comment #13 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) pa...@hubbitus.info 2010-12-20 04:02:41 EST --- Regardless of review+ flag I wait answer about URL from Manuel. But you are right, I'll go build them - there many time spent... Kevin, thank you for catch. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 662604] Review Request: ibus-unikey - A Vietnamese engine for IBus input platform that uses Unikey.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=662604 --- Comment #7 from Truong Anh Tuan tua...@iwayvietnam.com 2010-12-20 04:15:18 EST --- (In reply to comment #6) I'm sorry, but this is not possible because we need a clean upgrade path. rawhide always needs to have the highest version, otherwise people cannot upgrade from F14 to rawhide. When you do an update or a new package, you first to it in rawhide, then in F14 and then F13. Maybe you can pick changes from SVN when they are available, but without rawhide I cannot accept the package. This made sense to me. So I should wait for changes from upstream to rebuild the package on f15-dist; then the review process would be resumed. Thanks for all. Tuan -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 664111] Review Request: rubygem-boxgrinder-build-s3-delivery-plugin - BoxGrinder plugin to deliver appliances to S3
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=664111 Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||663983 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 663983] Review Request: rubygem-boxgrinder-build-ec2-platform-plugin - BoxGrinder plugin to convert appliances to EC2 format
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=663983 Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||664111 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 663983] Review Request: rubygem-boxgrinder-build-ec2-platform-plugin - BoxGrinder plugin to convert appliances to EC2 format
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=663983 Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||664113 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 510864] Review Request: colorize - Perl script to colorize logs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=510864 --- Comment #14 from manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro 2010-12-20 04:27:00 EST --- Ah, I am sorry. You should not have waited for my reply. I still find a bit odd to use webarchive as upstream, but I I'll leave the decision to your best judgement. Please do go ahead and import it for all distros/releases that you can support. Thank you. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 639638] Review Request: rubygem-rsvg2 - Ruby binding of librsvg-2.x
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=639638 Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||mgold...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mgold...@redhat.com Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 510864] Review Request: colorize - Perl script to colorize logs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=510864 --- Comment #15 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) pa...@hubbitus.info 2010-12-20 04:41:45 EST --- Ok, then I leave it as is. Thank you for the review. Import follow. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 664390] New: Review Request: sams - SQUID Account Management system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: sams - SQUID Account Management system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=664390 Summary: Review Request: sams - SQUID Account Management system Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: alek...@oscada.org.ua QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://aleksey2005.fedorapeople.org/sams.spec SRPM URL: http://aleksey2005.fedorapeople.org/sams-2.0.0-rc1.fc13.src.rpm Description: SQUID Account Management system -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 663653] Review Request: rubygem-warden - Rack middle-ware that provides authentication
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=663653 --- Comment #2 from Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com 2010-12-20 04:44:40 EST --- Thank you for your review. I have uploaded new versions here: Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/vondruch/rubygem-warden.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/vondruch/rubygem-warden-1.0.3-2.fc14.src.rpm However, I did not removed the Requires: rubygem(rack) as you suggested. My reasons are: 1) Warden is Rack middle-ware, therefore it should depend on rack during runtime. Usage of warden without rack doesn't make too much sense. 2) Although there is not explicit require 'rack' in lib folder, there are references on Rack module. Developing some web application, there is high chance that some body did that require before warden had a chance (this might be considered as really minor bug of warden?). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 664391] New: Review Request: libechonest - C++ wrapper for the Echo Nest API
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: libechonest - C++ wrapper for the Echo Nest API https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=664391 Summary: Review Request: libechonest - C++ wrapper for the Echo Nest API Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: oget.fed...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://oget.fedorapeople.org/review/libechonest.spec SRPM URL: http://oget.fedorapeople.org/review/libechonest-1.1.0-1.fc14.src.rpm Description: libechonest is a collection of C++/Qt classes designed to make a developer's life easy when trying to use the APIs provided by The Echo Nest. This package is needed for the new version of clementine, and probably amarok at some 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 664390] Review Request: sams - SQUID Account Management system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=664390 --- Comment #1 from Aleksey Popkov alek...@oscada.org.ua 2010-12-20 04:48:20 EST --- dist-5E-epel http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2676834 dist-6E-epel http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2676884 dist-f13 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2676889 dist-f14 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2676899 dist-f15 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2676907 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 664391] Review Request: libechonest - C++ wrapper for the Echo Nest API
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=664391 Jaroslav Reznik jrez...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||jrez...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jrez...@redhat.com Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 663653] Review Request: rubygem-warden - Rack middle-ware that provides authentication
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=663653 --- Comment #3 from Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com 2010-12-20 05:00:54 EST --- And one additional point is that rack is explicitly specified as runtime dependency by the warden gem (see the warden.gemspec file https://github.com/hassox/warden/blob/v1.0.2/warden.gemspec#L92) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 510864] Review Request: colorize - Perl script to colorize logs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=510864 --- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2010-12-20 05:05:58 EST --- colorize-0.3.4-2.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/colorize-0.3.4-2.el5 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 510864] Review Request: colorize - Perl script to colorize logs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=510864 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2010-12-20 05:04:54 EST --- colorize-0.3.4-2.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/colorize-0.3.4-2.fc14 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 510864] Review Request: colorize - Perl script to colorize logs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=510864 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2010-12-20 05:05:16 EST --- colorize-0.3.4-2.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/colorize-0.3.4-2.fc13 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 510864] Review Request: colorize - Perl script to colorize logs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=510864 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 639638] Review Request: rubygem-rsvg2 - Ruby binding of librsvg-2.x
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=639638 Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com 2010-12-20 05:19:46 EST --- Looks OK. Tested with http://ruby-gnome2.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/ruby-gnome2/ruby-gnome2/tags/0.90.5/rsvg2/sample/svg-viewer.rb?revision=3993view=markup and http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Example.svg file - works. - This package (rubygem-rsvg2) is APPROVED by goldmann - -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 663959] Review Request: httpcomponents-project - Common POM file for HttpComponents
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=663959 Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||akurt...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|akurt...@redhat.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com 2010-12-20 05:26:23 EST --- I'll do this one. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 664391] Review Request: libechonest - C++ wrapper for the Echo Nest API
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=664391
Jaroslav Reznik jrez...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Jaroslav Reznik jrez...@redhat.com 2010-12-20 06:20:31
EST ---
Name: ok
Version: ok
Release: ok
Summary: ok
Group: ok
License: ok, GPLv2+
URL: ok
Source: ok, md5sum 1e7730114952a3163fa2041cbfe523d8
BuildRequires: ok
Description: ok
Devel subpacakge: ok (.so and includes)
Macros consistent usage: ok
Ldconfig: ok
Docs: ok
rpmlint ../rpmbuild/SPECS/libechonest.spec
../rpmbuild/SPECS/libechonest.spec:52: W: macro-in-comment %{_target_platform}
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
ok
rpmlint ../rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/libechonest-1.1.0-1.fc14.x86_64.rpm
libechonest.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.1.0 ['1.1.0-1.fc14',
'1.1.0-1']
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
just a minor issue, please fix to 1.1.0-1 before commiting, not blocking review
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 662604] Review Request: ibus-unikey - A Vietnamese engine for IBus input platform that uses Unikey.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=662604 --- Comment #8 from Christoph Wickert cwick...@fedoraproject.org 2010-12-20 06:30:18 EST --- We can still finish the review but you cannot yet import the package. Please give me a proper ibus-unikey-0.5.1-2.fc14.src.rpm so I can check the last points. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 285801] Review Request: simias - Collection-Oriented Data Storage
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=285801 --- Comment #34 from Ismael Olea ism...@olea.org 2010-12-20 06:31:44 EST --- Expecting a new release from upstream in the coming weeks. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 664417] New: Review Request: spatialite-tools - A set of useful CLI tools for spatialite
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: spatialite-tools - A set of useful CLI tools for spatialite https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=664417 Summary: Review Request: spatialite-tools - A set of useful CLI tools for spatialite Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: volke...@gmx.at QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://www.geofrogger.net/review/spatialite-tools.spec SRPM URL: http://www.geofrogger.net/review/spatialite-tools-2.4.0-0.1.RC4.fc13.src.rpm Description: A set of useful CLI tools for spatialite. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2677066 spatialite-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary spatialite_osm_net spatialite-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary spatialite_osm_map spatialite-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary spatialite_osm_raw spatialite-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary spatialite spatialite-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary exif_loader spatialite-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary spatialite_tool spatialite-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary spatialite_gml spatialite-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary spatialite_network spatialite-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary shp_doctor 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 285801] Review Request: simias - Collection-Oriented Data Storage
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=285801 Ismael Olea ism...@olea.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ism...@olea.org --- Comment #35 from Ismael Olea ism...@olea.org 2010-12-20 06:34:46 EST --- Oh my! My last comment doesn't apply here! Dunno how I wrote here by mistake. My fault. Big sorry. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 561484] Review Request: jruby - Pure Java implementation of the Ruby interpreter
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561484 Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mgold...@redhat.com Bug 561484 depends on bug 646637, which changed state. Bug 646637 Summary: Review Request: jnr-netdb - Network services database access for java https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=646637 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||ERRATA Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Bug 561484 depends on bug 561477, which changed state. Bug 561477 Summary: Review Request: jnr-posix - Java Posix layer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561477 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||ERRATA Status|ON_QA |CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 657577] Review Request: sdlhack - Force full-screen games to minimize
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=657577 --- Comment #15 from Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at 2010-12-20 07:31:44 EST --- Forgot the provides: libsdlhack.so((64bit) sdlhack = 1.1-1.fc13 sdlhack(x86-64) = 1.1-1.fc13 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 657577] Review Request: sdlhack - Force full-screen games to minimize
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=657577 Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #14 from Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at 2010-12-20 07:29:10 EST --- Package approved. Rpmlint: 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Source files match upstream: sha256sum: 785104cb314447be4f3ab2fe13087cc1d6e6ca3bf171bbb57c85b099e977a534 BRs are listed. Compiles and builds on at least x86_64 (EPEL6, F13, 14 and Rawhide) and ppc64 (EPEL6). Package meets naming and versioning guidelines. Specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. License text included in package and open source-compatible; Build root is correct. Package doesn't own files or directories already owned by other packages. %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. No duplicates in %files. Package contains code. No shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. Final provides and requires are sane: /bin/bash libc.so.6()(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4)(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libdl.so.2(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) = 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(FileDigests) = 4.6.0-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) = 4.0-1 rtld(GNU_HASH) rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) = 5.2-1 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 663959] Review Request: httpcomponents-project - Common POM file for HttpComponents
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=663959
Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com 2010-12-20
07:32:31 EST ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x] Rpmlint output:
httpcomponents-project.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
dependant - dependent, defendant, de pendant
httpcomponents-project.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US runtime
- run time, run-time, runtish
httpcomponents-project.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc
/etc/maven/fragments/httpcomponents-project
No problems.
[x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines[1].
[x] Spec file name must match the base package name, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines[2].
[x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms.
[x] Buildroot definition is not present
[x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines[3,4].
[x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type: ASL 2.0
[x] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package is included in %doc.
[-] All independent sub-packages have license of their own
[x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines[5].
[x] Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x] Permissions on files are set properly.
[x] Package does NOT have a %clean section which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}
(or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). (not needed anymore)
[x] Package consistently uses macros (no %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
mixing)
[x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
[x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[-] Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
subpackage
[-] Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlinks)
[x] Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
[-] Javadoc subpackages have Require: jpackage-utils
[-] Package uses %global not %define
[-] If package uses tarball from VCS include comment how to re-create that
tarball (svn export URL, git clone URL, ...)
[-] If source tarball includes bundled jar/class files these need to be
removed prior to building
[x] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
[-] Jar files are installed to %{_javadir}/%{name}.jar (see [6] for details)
[x] If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even when
building with ant
[x] pom files has correct add_to_maven_depmap call which resolves to the pom
file (use JPP. and JPP- correctly)
=== Maven ===
[x] Use %{_mavenpomdir} macro for placing pom files instead of
%{_datadir}/maven2/poms
[-] If package uses -Dmaven.test.skip=true explain why it was needed in a
comment
[-] If package uses custom depmap -Dmaven2.jpp.depmap.file=* explain why
it's needed in a comment
[x] Package uses %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun
[x] Packages have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on jpackage-utils (for
%update_maven_depmap macro)
=== Other suggestions ===
[x] If possible use upstream build method (maven/ant/javac)
[x] Avoid having BuildRequires on exact NVR unless necessary
[x] Package has BuildArch: noarch (if possible)
[x] Latest version is packaged.
[x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
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 663959] Review Request: httpcomponents-project - Common POM file for HttpComponents
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=663959 Stanislav Ochotnicky socho...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Stanislav Ochotnicky socho...@redhat.com 2010-12-20 07:36:38 EST --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: httpcomponents-project Short Description: Common POM file for HttpComponents Owners: sochotni Branches: f14 InitialCC: java-sig f14 branch only as workaround for fedpkg bug -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 657577] Review Request: sdlhack - Force full-screen games to minimize
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=657577 --- Comment #16 from Hicham HAOUARI hicham.haou...@gmail.com 2010-12-20 07:41:53 EST --- thanks for reviewing this package -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 657577] Review Request: sdlhack - Force full-screen games to minimize
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=657577 --- Comment #17 from Hicham HAOUARI hicham.haou...@gmail.com 2010-12-20 07:45:02 EST --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: sdlhack Short Description: Force full-screen games to minimize Owners: hicham Branches: f13 f14 InitialCC: hicham -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 657577] Review Request: sdlhack - Force full-screen games to minimize
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=657577 Hicham HAOUARI hicham.haou...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 657577] Review Request: sdlhack - Force full-screen games to minimize
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=657577 --- Comment #18 from Kevin Kofler ke...@tigcc.ticalc.org 2010-12-20 08:06:42 EST --- About not bumping release number, I don't think it is worth it since we are dealing with trivial issues. It doesn't matter anymore for this particular package since it already passed review, but you're supposed to always bump Release and add a changelog entry for any change made after the initial review submission, no matter how trivial. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 573848] Review Request: perl-NetPacket - Modules to assemble/disassemble network packets at the protocol level
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=573848 Marcela Mašláňová mmasl...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|cw...@alumni.drew.edu |mmasl...@redhat.com Flag|needinfo?(cw...@alumni.drew | |.edu) | --- Comment #8 from Marcela Mašláňová mmasl...@redhat.com 2010-12-20 08:21:30 EST --- Hello Jan, could you provide current version 1.0.1? I'll retake this 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 649495] Review Request: openstack-nova - OpenStack Compute (nova)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=649495 Fabian Deutsch fabian.deut...@gmx.de changed: What|Removed |Added CC||fabian.deut...@gmx.de --- Comment #2 from Fabian Deutsch fabian.deut...@gmx.de 2010-12-20 08:37:44 EST --- You said the package isn't complete yet. So what is open and needs to be done? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 565949] Review Request: perl-VOMS-Lite - Perl extension for VOMS Attribute certificate creation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=565949 Marcela Mašláňová mmasl...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|cw...@alumni.drew.edu |mmasl...@redhat.com --- Comment #18 from Marcela Mašláňová mmasl...@redhat.com 2010-12-20 08:38:44 EST --- Hello Steve, I'll review your package instead of Chris. Marcela -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 664054] Review Request: python-rhsm - Python library to communicate with a Red Hat Unified Entitlement Platform
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=664054
Jordan OMara jom...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Jordan OMara jom...@redhat.com 2010-12-20 08:39:15 EST ---
Looks good! One extremely pedantic comment: the tito build RPM command ( tito
build --tag python-rhsm-%{name}-%{version}-%{release} --tgz) would end up
building python-rhsm-python-rhsm-0.94.9-1.
What's important is that I was able to cleanly build a source archive from the
upstream repo, and it's MD5sum matches what you provided in the SRPM. Setting +
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 664298] Review Request: autojump - A fast way to navigate your filesystem from the command line
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=664298
--- Comment #3 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) pa...@hubbitus.info
2010-12-20 08:45:11 EST ---
Legend:
+ - Ok.
- - Error.
+/- - It item acceptable, but I strongly recommend enhancement.
= - N/A.
MUST Items
[+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
the review.
$ rpmlint *
autojump.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) filesystem - file system,
file-system, systematic
autojump.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US filesystem - file
system, file-system, systematic
autojump.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary jumpapplet
autojump.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) filesystem - file system,
file-system, systematic
autojump.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US filesystem - file
system, file-system, systematic
autojump-zsh.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US filesystem - file
system, file-system, systematic
autojump-zsh.noarch: W: no-documentation
3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 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 unless your package has an exemption.
[+/-] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
gzip %{name}.1
is not necessary - mans gzipped automatically.
%{_bindir}/*
I'm prefer exact mention files to avoid acidentally includes in this and next
builds:
%{_bindir}/%{name}
%{_bindir}/jumpapplet
%{_datadir}/%{name}*
In case it globed into %{_datadir}/%{name} its ok, but for whate there
asterisk?? If package name changed directory also changed.
I'm highly recommend replace it by include just one directory:
%{_datadir}/%{name}
%{_mandir}/man1/%{name}*
%{_mandir}/man1/%{name}.1*
also more preferred.
[+] 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.
README.rst stated it should be GPLv3+, not exactly GPLv3.
[+] 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. If no
upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL
Guidelines for how to deal with this.
$ md5sum autojump_v14.tar.gz.downloaded autojump_v14.tar.gz.fromrpm
7c0a41a2d33aee11a844dc17f7825dc9 autojump_v14.tar.gz.downloaded
7c0a41a2d33aee11a844dc17f7825dc9 autojump_v14.tar.gz.fromrpm
[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary 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. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line.
[+] 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. Apply common sense.
[=] 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 (or subpackage) which stores shared library
files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must
call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[+] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[=] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker.
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not
create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
create that directory.
[-] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file's %files listings.
File listed twice:
%{_datadir}/zsh/site-functions/
%{_datadir}/zsh/site-functions/_j
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
%defattr(...) line.
[+] MUST: At the beginning of
[Bug 634909] Review Request: v8 - JavaScript Engine
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=634909 Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #24 from Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk 2010-12-20 08:58:40 EST --- Thanks a lot Alex! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: v8 Short Description: JavaScript Engine Owners: lkundrak Branches: f14 el6 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 664465] Review Request: httpcomponents-core - Set of low level Java HTTP transport components for HTTP services
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=664465 --- Comment #1 from Stanislav Ochotnicky socho...@redhat.com 2010-12-20 09:17:16 EST --- eh, the spec url got 7 attached accidentaly :-) Correct URL: http://sochotni.fedorapeople.org/packages/httpcomponents-core.spec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 664465] New: Review Request: httpcomponents-core - Set of low level Java HTTP transport components for HTTP services
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: httpcomponents-core - Set of low level Java HTTP transport components for HTTP services https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=664465 Summary: Review Request: httpcomponents-core - Set of low level Java HTTP transport components for HTTP services Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: socho...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Target Release: --- Spec URL: http://sochotni.fedorapeople.org/packages/httpcomponents-core.spec7 SRPM URL: http://sochotni.fedorapeople.org/packages/httpcomponents-core-4.1-1.fc14.src.rpm Description: HttpCore is a set of low level HTTP transport components that can be used to build custom client and server side HTTP services with a minimal footprint. HttpCore supports two I/O models: blocking I/O model based on the classic Java I/O and non-blocking, event driven I/O model based on Java NIO. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 664298] Review Request: autojump - A fast way to navigate your filesystem from the command line
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=664298
--- Comment #4 from Thibault North thibault.no...@gmail.com 2010-12-20
09:27:18 EST ---
Thanks a lot for your review. I applied your suggestions and re-uploaded the
package and the spec at the same address.
gzip %{name}.1
is not necessary - mans gzipped automatically.
Right, thanks.
%{_bindir}/*
I'm prefer exact mention files to avoid acidentally includes in this and next
builds:
%{_bindir}/%{name}
%{_bindir}/jumpapplet
Done.
%{_datadir}/%{name}*
In case it globed into %{_datadir}/%{name} its ok, but for whate there
asterisk?? If package name changed directory also changed.
I'm highly recommend replace it by include just one directory:
%{_datadir}/%{name}
Done.
%{_mandir}/man1/%{name}*
%{_mandir}/man1/%{name}.1*
also more preferred.
Done.
[-] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
README.rst stated it should be GPLv3+, not exactly GPLv3.
Right, sorry.
File listed twice:
%{_datadir}/zsh/site-functions/
%{_datadir}/zsh/site-functions/_j
This I forgot to remove :)
Done.
[+/-] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency.
Done.
Thank you.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 664465] Review Request: httpcomponents-core - Set of low level Java HTTP transport components for HTTP services
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=664465 Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||akurt...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|akurt...@redhat.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com 2010-12-20 09:33:30 EST --- I'll do this one. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 663959] Review Request: httpcomponents-project - Common POM file for HttpComponents
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=663959 Stanislav Ochotnicky socho...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||664465 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 664465] Review Request: httpcomponents-core - Set of low level Java HTTP transport components for HTTP services
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=664465 Stanislav Ochotnicky socho...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||663959 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 664339] Review Request: zarafa-webaccess-smime - Zarafa Webaccess plugin for S/MIME support
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=664339 --- Comment #2 from Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com 2010-12-20 10:15:27 EST --- Assuming that upstream clearly indicated the license in that e-mail, including a copy of the email as a Source# file (and then later as %doc in the package) should be sufficient in the interim. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 661660] Review Request: metamorphose2 - A cross platform file and folder mass renamer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=661660
--- Comment #5 from Mohamed El Morabity pikachu.2...@gmail.com 2010-12-20
10:18:34 EST ---
* Since wxGTK is already required by wxPython, you don't need to set wxGTK as a
Requires. But python-mutagen is required for multimedia tags support; please
add it as Requires.
* The following files:
- src/operations/greek_numb.py src/EXIF.py
- src/mutagen/__init__.py
are only used as libraries in metamorphose2, so:
- they must not be executable
- their shebang must be removed.
See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Packaging_Tricks#Remove_shebang_from_Python_libraries
* You should not add the .gz extension to man pages listed in %files, you'd
rather use the * joker:
%files -f %{name}.lang
%defattr(-,root,root,-)
[...]
%{_mandir}/man1/%{name}.1.*
[...]
* gettext as BR is not really needed here, it is never called by the build
tools.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 664493] New: Review Request: httpcomponents-client - HTTP agent implementation based on httpcomponents HttpCore
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: httpcomponents-client - HTTP agent implementation based on httpcomponents HttpCore https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=664493 Summary: Review Request: httpcomponents-client - HTTP agent implementation based on httpcomponents HttpCore Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: socho...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Target Release: --- Spec URL: http://sochotni.fedorapeople.org/packages/httpcomponents-client.spec SRPM URL: http://sochotni.fedorapeople.org/packages/httpcomponents-client-4.0.3-1.fc14.src.rpm Description: HttpClient is a HTTP/1.1 compliant HTTP agent implementation based on httpcomponents HttpCore. It also provides reusable components for client-side authentication, HTTP state management, and HTTP connection management. HttpComponents Client is a successor of and replacement for Commons HttpClient 3.x. Users of Commons HttpClient are strongly encouraged to upgrade. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 664493] Review Request: httpcomponents-client - HTTP agent implementation based on httpcomponents HttpCore
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=664493 Stanislav Ochotnicky socho...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||664465 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 664465] Review Request: httpcomponents-core - Set of low level Java HTTP transport components for HTTP services
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=664465 Stanislav Ochotnicky socho...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||664493 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 662604] Review Request: ibus-unikey - A Vietnamese engine for IBus input platform that uses Unikey.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=662604 --- Comment #9 from Truong Anh Tuan tua...@iwayvietnam.com 2010-12-20 10:31:20 EST --- I updated .spec file, rebuilt the .src file and uploaded both. Please review those new ones. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 663737] Review Request: iwl6000g2a-firmware - Firmware for Intel(R) Wireless WiFi Link 6005 Series Adapters
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=663737 John W. Linville linvi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from John W. Linville linvi...@redhat.com 2010-12-20 10:53:48 EST --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: iwl6000g2a-firmware Short Description: Firmware for Intel(R) Wireless WiFi Link 6005 Series Adapters Owners: linville Branches: f14 InitialCC: linville -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 188542] Review Request: hylafax
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=188542
--- Comment #115 from Lee Howard fax...@howardsilvan.com 2010-12-20 10:53:59
EST ---
Christoph,
If I resolve the issue with binaries in %{faxspool}/bin/ are you willing to
sponsor the package for inclusion?
Thanks,
Lee.
--
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 663956] Review Request: python-numexpr - Fast numerical array expression evaluator for Python and NumPy.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=663956
Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jussi.leht...@iki.fi
--- Comment #1 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi 2010-12-20 10:56:59
EST ---
Please get rid of the Mandriva stuff:
%define name python-%{module}
Name: %{name}
is just silly. If you want to use the %{module} definition for something, then
just do
Name: python-%{module}
***
Drop
%if ! (0%{?fedora} 12 || 0%{?rhel} 5)
%{!?python_sitelib: %global python_sitelib %(%{__python} -c from
distutils.sysconfig import get_python_lib; print(get_python_lib()))}
%endif
as you don't use it anywhere.
***
The build system looks a bit odd, since it doesn't print out the command used
to compile the object file:
compiling C sources
C compiler: gcc -pthread -fno-strict-aliasing -O2 -g -pipe -Wall
-Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector
--param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m64 -mtune=generic -D_GNU_SOURCE -fPIC -fwrapv
-DNDEBUG -O2
-g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector
--param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m64 -mtune=generic -D_GNU_SOURCE -fPIC -fwrapv -fPIC
creating build/temp.linux-x86_64-2.7
creating build/temp.linux-x86_64-2.7/numexpr
compile options: '-I/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/numpy/core/include
-I/usr/include/python2.7 -c'
extra options: '-funroll-all-loops'
gcc: numexpr/interpreter.c
gcc -pthread -shared build/temp.linux-x86_64-2.7/numexpr/interpreter.o
-L/usr/lib64 -lpython2.7 -o build/lib.linux-x86_64-2.7/numexpr/interpreter.so
running scons
+ exit 0
***
There's no need to use macros for standard commands, although this is not
disallowed in the guidelines.
**
Please use the standard install command from the Python guidelines
python setup.py install -O1 --skip-build --root %{buildroot}
**
rpmlint output is not clean:
python-numexpr.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US runtime - run
time, run-time, runtish
python-numexpr.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
http://numexpr.googlecode.com/files/numexpr-1.4.1.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not
Found
python-numexpr.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US runtime - run
time, run-time, runtish
python-numexpr.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm
/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/numexpr/interpreter.so 0775L
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings.
**
I'm not fond of using wildcards when they are not needed, as they can lead you
to trouble such as owning something you're not supposed to, or not finding out
if there are files missing from the release. Please be more explicit and change
%{python_sitearch}/*
to
%{python_sitearch}/numexpr/
%{python_sitearch}/numexpr-%{version}-py*.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 663653] Review Request: rubygem-warden - Rack middle-ware that provides authentication
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=663653 --- Comment #4 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2010-12-20 11:21:44 EST --- (In reply to comment #2) However, I did not removed the Requires: rubygem(rack) as you suggested. My Sorry, I meant Requires: rubygem(rspec) is not needed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 664515] New: Review Request: wl6000g2b-firmware - Firmware for Intel(R) Wireless WiFi Link 6030 Series Adapters
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: wl6000g2b-firmware - Firmware for Intel(R) Wireless WiFi Link 6030 Series Adapters https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=664515 Summary: Review Request: wl6000g2b-firmware - Firmware for Intel(R) Wireless WiFi Link 6030 Series Adapters Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: linvi...@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://linville.fedorapeople.org/iwl6000g2b-firmware.spec SRPM URL: http://linville.fedorapeople.org/iwl6000g2b-firmware-17.168.5.1-1.fc14.src.rpm Description: This package contains the firmware required by the iwlagn driver for Linux to support the iwl6000g2b hardware. Usage of the firmware is subject to the terms and conditions contained inside the provided LICENSE file. Please read it carefully. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 664515] Review Request: iwl6000g2b-firmware - Firmware for Intel(R) Wireless WiFi Link 6030 Series Adapters
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=664515 John W. Linville linvi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |wl6000g2b-firmware -|iwl6000g2b-firmware - |Firmware for Intel(R) |Firmware for Intel(R) |Wireless WiFi Link 6030 |Wireless WiFi Link 6030 |Series Adapters |Series Adapters -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 663653] Review Request: rubygem-warden - Rack middle-ware that provides authentication
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=663653 --- Comment #5 from Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com 2010-12-20 11:35:46 EST --- Ah, Ok. Please find the updated files bellow: Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/vondruch/rubygem-warden.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/vondruch/rubygem-warden-1.0.3-3.fc14.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 573910] Review Request: dcmtk - Offis DICOM Toolkit
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=573910 --- Comment #16 from Mario Ceresa mrcer...@gmail.com 2010-12-20 12:19:44 EST --- Hello Andreas! at last we discovered a nice github code with a lot of interesting fixes (https://github.com/commontk/DCMTK). One of them was the use of Cmake! Now I finally got proper soname libs so we should be able to finish it soon :) The new code is in: https://github.com/mrceresa/DCMTK Mario -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 645760] Review Request: django-ajax-selects - Enables editing of ForeignKey, ManyToMany and simple text fields
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=645760 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2010-12-20 12:30:14 EST --- django-ajax-selects-1.1.4-3.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 645764] Review Request: django-addons - to add plugging functionality in your projects easier
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=645764 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||django-addons-0.6.4-4.el5 Resolution||ERRATA Last Closed||2010-12-20 12:28:24 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 645760] Review Request: django-ajax-selects - Enables editing of ForeignKey, ManyToMany and simple text fields
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=645760 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||django-ajax-selects-1.1.4-3 ||.el5 Resolution||ERRATA Last Closed||2010-12-20 12:30:19 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 645762] Review Request: django-staticfiles - A Django app that provides helpers for serving static files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=645762 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||django-staticfiles-0.3.2-3. ||el5 Resolution||ERRATA Last Closed||2010-12-20 12:30:07 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 510864] Review Request: colorize - Perl script to colorize logs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=510864 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2010-12-20 12:29:45 EST --- colorize-0.3.4-2.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update colorize'. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/colorize-0.3.4-2.el5 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 645764] Review Request: django-addons - to add plugging functionality in your projects easier
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=645764 --- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2010-12-20 12:28:18 EST --- django-addons-0.6.4-4.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 645762] Review Request: django-staticfiles - A Django app that provides helpers for serving static files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=645762 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2010-12-20 12:30:02 EST --- django-staticfiles-0.3.2-3.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 645761] Review Request: django-threadedcomments - a simple yet flexible threaded commenting system for Django
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=645761 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2010-12-20 12:29:19 EST --- django-threadedcomments-0.5.3-2.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 645761] Review Request: django-threadedcomments - a simple yet flexible threaded commenting system for Django
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=645761 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||django-threadedcomments-0.5 ||.3-2.el5 Resolution||ERRATA Last Closed||2010-12-20 12:29:24 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 573910] Review Request: dcmtk - Offis DICOM Toolkit
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=573910 Mario Ceresa mrcer...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 226345] Merge Review: python-numeric
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226345 Alex Lancaster al...@users.sourceforge.net changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #14 from Alex Lancaster al...@users.sourceforge.net 2010-12-20 12:46:22 EST --- (In reply to comment #13) Can we get an ack from a Fedora maintainer? Re-requesting SCM branch, see bug #664399 comment #1 for ack. Package Change Request == Package Name: python-numeric New Branches: el5 el6 Owners: alexlan -- 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 664054] Review Request: python-rhsm - Python library to communicate with a Red Hat Unified Entitlement Platform
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=664054
--- Comment #5 from Jesus M. Rodriguez jes...@redhat.com 2010-12-20 13:02:45
EST ---
(In reply to comment #4)
Looks good! One extremely pedantic comment: the tito build RPM command ( tito
build --tag python-rhsm-%{name}-%{version}-%{release} --tgz) would end up
building python-rhsm-python-rhsm-0.94.9-1.
What's important is that I was able to cleanly build a source archive from the
upstream repo, and it's MD5sum matches what you provided in the SRPM. Setting
+
Oops my typo. Sorry.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 664054] Review Request: python-rhsm - Python library to communicate with a Red Hat Unified Entitlement Platform
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=664054 Jesus M. Rodriguez jes...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 561477] Review Request: jnr-posix - Java Posix layer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561477 Mat Booth fed...@matbooth.co.uk changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|652183(FE-JAVASIG) | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 226345] Merge Review: python-numeric
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226345 --- Comment #15 from Matthew Barnes mbar...@redhat.com 2010-12-20 13:31:29 EST --- This is okay by me (maintainer), go ahead with it. -- 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 664054] Review Request: python-rhsm - Python library to communicate with a Red Hat Unified Entitlement Platform
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=664054 --- Comment #6 from Devan Goodwin dgood...@rm-rf.ca 2010-12-20 13:36:16 EST --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-rhsm Short Description: Small Python library for communicating with a Red Hat Unified Entitlement Platform. Owners: dgoodwin jmrodri Branches: f14 el6 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 663956] Review Request: python-numexpr - Fast numerical array expression evaluator for Python and NumPy.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=663956 --- Comment #2 from Thibault North thibault.no...@gmail.com 2010-12-20 13:37:16 EST --- Hi Jussy, Thanks for your comments. I have indeed requested a review a bit quickly, because I have been working on that package for my own use and wanted to commit it at some point. Please bear with me. Here are some changes, and the spec + srpm have been updated. I don't get the warning: python-numexpr.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/numexpr/interpreter.so 0775L And the URL is valid (there may be a redirection at some point which perturbs rpmlint). Thanks, Thibault -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 664391] Review Request: libechonest - C++ wrapper for the Echo Nest API
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=664391 Orcan Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Orcan Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com 2010-12-20 13:37:01 EST --- Thank you for the quick review Jaroslav. I'll fix the %changelog New Package SCM Request === Package Name: libechonest Short Description: C++ wrapper for the Echo Nest API Owners: oget 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 663956] Review Request: python-numexpr - Fast numerical array expression evaluator for Python and NumPy.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=663956 --- Comment #3 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi 2010-12-20 13:40:39 EST --- Please bump the release and make a changelog entry whenever you make changes to the spec file. Otherwise it's impossible for others to see what has been done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 659856] Review Request:eclipse-vrapper - Vim-like editing in Eclipse
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=659856 --- Comment #7 from Jesse Keating jkeat...@redhat.com 2010-12-20 13:50:20 EST --- ping? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 663956] Review Request: python-numexpr - Fast numerical array expression evaluator for Python and NumPy.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=663956 --- Comment #4 from Thibault North thibault.no...@gmail.com 2010-12-20 13:55:48 EST --- Please bump the release and make a changelog entry whenever you make changes to the spec file. Otherwise it's impossible for others to see what has been done. Ok... well anyway the spec is not versionned yet, and the spec will certainly be removed soon after the review. Plus, you gave the changes in your comment. I'll do that next time 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 664298] Review Request: autojump - A fast way to navigate your filesystem from the command line
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=664298 --- Comment #5 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) pa...@hubbitus.info 2010-12-20 14:23:58 EST --- Please post new spec and src.rpm files to 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 573910] Review Request: dcmtk - Offis DICOM Toolkit
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=573910 --- Comment #17 from Per Inge Mathisen per.mathi...@gmail.com 2010-12-20 14:34:55 EST --- The people behind DCMTK are currently in the process of releasing the next version (3.6.0 -- see http://support.dcmtk.org/wiki/dcmtk/notes/releaseplan360). I believe a snapshot of that is what you are seeing at commontk. At this point (since this has taken so long already), it might be just as well to wait for that release. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 646611] Rename review: drupal-cck - drupal6-cck
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=646611 Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at changed: What|Removed |Added CC||volke...@gmx.at AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|volke...@gmx.at 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 639638] Review Request: rubygem-rsvg2 - Ruby binding of librsvg-2.x
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=639638 Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2010-12-20 14:45:01 EST --- Thank you again! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: rubygem-rsvg2 Short Description: Ruby binding of librsvg-2.x Owners: mtasaka Branches: f13 f14 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 652257] Review Request: focuswriter - A fullscreen, distraction-free writing program
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652257
Golo Fuchert packa...@golotop.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Golo Fuchert packa...@golotop.de 2010-12-20 14:45:38 EST
---
It took me a little longer to review this package because there seem to be some
stability issues. However, a F13 64-bit KDE-spin computer was the only case
where focuswriter crashed reproduceably, so maybe it's not focuswriter's fault.
I will investigate on this further, but because focuswriter seems to run on
most machines and the crash maybe caused by an external library here is the
official review:
$ rpmlint RPMS/x86_64/focuswriter-1.3.1-2.fc13.x86_64.rpm
SRPMS/focuswriter-1.3.1-2.fc13.src.rpm SPECS/focuswriter.spec
focuswriter.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) fullscreen - full screen,
full-screen, firescreen
focuswriter.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US fullscreen - full
screen, full-screen, firescreen
- false positives
focuswriter.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary focuswriter
- maybe something for the future?
focuswriter.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) fullscreen - full screen,
full-screen, firescreen
focuswriter.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US fullscreen - full
screen, full-screen, firescreen
- same false positives again
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
So nothing serious here.
key:
[+] = ok
[.] = not applicable
[X] = needs work
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}.
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license.
GPLv3+ according to the source file headers
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[+] MUST: The file containing the text of the license(s) for the package must
be included in %doc.
COPYING is present
[+] 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.
$ md5sum focuswriter-1.3.1-src.tar.bz2.*
c245fbe9d8cf102c6648e1aac4d4b326 focuswriter-1.3.1-src.tar.bz2.packaged
c245fbe9d8cf102c6648e1aac4d4b326 focuswriter-1.3.1-src.tar.bz2.upstream
[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
koji scratch build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2675584
[.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work ...
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.
[.] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly.
[.] MUST: Packages storing shared library files (not just symlinks) must call
ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[+] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[.] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, ...
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates.
[+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in %files.
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[.] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
[+] MUST: Files in %doc 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: library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), must go in a -devel
package.
[.] MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned
dependency
[+] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
[+] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file
[+] MUST: .desktop files must be properly installed with
desktop-file-install/-validate in the %install section.
[+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
[+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
[.] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file ...
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[+] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all
supported architectures.
[X] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described.
I can crash focuswriter on my F13 64-bit KDE-spin machine by typing too
fast or just holding an arbitrary key.
[+] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane.
[.] SHOULD:
[Bug 650744] Review Request: spor - Store file modes (permission/ownership) recursively
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=650744
Markus Mayer lotharl...@gmx.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lotharl...@gmx.de
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|lotharl...@gmx.de
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Markus Mayer lotharl...@gmx.de 2010-12-20 15:03:42 EST ---
Hi Rafael,
I am doing a formal review...
Just one thing to change:
- Change 'Source0' to
'http://code.google.com/p/spor/downloads/detail?name=%{name}-%{version}.tar.bz2'.
This is just to get rid of an rpmlint warning.
The following review is done with the change from above.
OK: MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build
produces. The output should be posted in the review.
OK: MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
OK: MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
OK: MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
OK: MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines.
OK: MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
OK: MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package must be included in %doc.
OK: MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
OK: MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
OK: 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. If no
upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL
Guidelines for how to deal with this.
OK: MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
OK: 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. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line.
OK: 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. Apply common sense.
OK: MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
OK: MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library
files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must
call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
OK: MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
OK: MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker.
OK: MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not
create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
create that directory.
OK: MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific
situations)
OK: MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
%defattr(...) line.
OK: MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
OK: MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
OK: MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The
definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not
restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity).
OK: MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must
run properly if it is not present.
OK: MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
OK: MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
OK: 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.
OK: MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release}
OK: MUST: Packages must NOT contain
[Bug 661436] Review Request: rubygem-heroku - deploy apps to Heroku
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=661436 --- Comment #25 from Minnikhanov minnikha...@gmail.com 2010-12-20 15:22:24 EST --- (In reply to comment #23) Does not build... http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2675006 I see build.log of this task - build failed. I place /.yardoc into -doc subpackage - I was not right :-( I improve that, shift '/.yardoc' into main package and create next release (rubygem-heroku-1.14.10-3.fc14.src.rpm) http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2678768 - this I build from my old 1st spec, without doc-subpackage. No error. I try to check 'rpmbuild bb ...' by interupted (Ctrl-C) - '/.yardoc' disappeared. When I exclude '/.yardoc' from %files, 'rpmbuild bb ...' interupted by error. Something wrong on define doc-subpackage. 'rpmbuild bb ...' clear all subfolder ~/rpmbuild. I don't find options for prevent this clear. Do you know about that? Will you route me to right way. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 661660] Review Request: metamorphose2 - A cross platform file and folder mass renamer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=661660 --- Comment #6 from Pierre-YvesChibon pin...@pingoured.fr 2010-12-20 15:38:52 EST --- Changelog: * Tue Dec 20 2010 pingou pin...@pingoured.fr 0.7.1-3 - Remove wxGTK from Requires - Use wildcard for the man pages - Remove gettext from BuildRequires - Remove shebang from non-script files Spec URL: http://pingou.fedorapeople.org/RPMs/metamorphose2.spec SRPM URL: http://pingou.fedorapeople.org/RPMs/metamorphose2-0.7.1-3.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 664298] Review Request: autojump - A fast way to navigate your filesystem from the command line
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=664298 --- Comment #6 from Thibault North thibault.no...@gmail.com 2010-12-20 15:57:29 EST --- Here you go. Spec URL: http://tnorth.fedorapeople.org/autojump.spec SRPM URL: http://tnorth.fedorapeople.org/autojump-14-2.fc14.src.rpm Thanks, Thibault -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 646663] Rename review: drupal - drupal6, F15+
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=646663 Sven Lankes s...@lank.es 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 646610] Rename review: drupal-views - drupal6-views
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=646610 Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at changed: What|Removed |Added CC||volke...@gmx.at --- Comment #4 from Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at 2010-12-20 16:53:29 EST --- Please see my comment on the cck package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 652571] Review Request: ghc-digest - cryptographic hashes of bytestrings
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652571 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2010-12-20 17:03:25 EST --- ghc-digest-0.0.0.8-1.fc14 has been pushed to the Fedora 14 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 645760] Review Request: django-ajax-selects - Enables editing of ForeignKey, ManyToMany and simple text fields
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=645760 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2010-12-20 17:03:56 EST --- django-ajax-selects-1.1.4-3.fc14 has been pushed to the Fedora 14 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 645761] Review Request: django-threadedcomments - a simple yet flexible threaded commenting system for Django
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=645761 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2010-12-20 17:04:37 EST --- django-threadedcomments-0.5.3-2.fc13 has been pushed to the Fedora 13 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 645760] Review Request: django-ajax-selects - Enables editing of ForeignKey, ManyToMany and simple text fields
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=645760 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|django-ajax-selects-1.1.4-3 |django-ajax-selects-1.1.4-3 |.fc13 |.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 645761] Review Request: django-threadedcomments - a simple yet flexible threaded commenting system for Django
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=645761 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|django-threadedcomments-0.5 |django-threadedcomments-0.5 |.3-2.fc14 |.3-2.fc13 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
