[Bug 668836] Review Request: ipa-pki-theme
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=668836 --- Comment #3 from Matthew Harmsen 2011-01-13 02:47:02 EST --- Modified SPEC URL: http://mharmsen.fedorapeople.org/ipa-pki-theme.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 226281] Merge Review: perl-TermReadKey
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226281 Marcela Mašláňová changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Marcela Mašláňová 2011-01-13 02:22:20 EST --- Package Change Request == Package Name: perl-TermReadKey InitialCC: perl-sig Please add into CC perl-sig. -- 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 668836] Review Request: ipa-pki-theme
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=668836
--- Comment #2 from Parag AN(पराग) 2011-01-13 00:39:05 EST
---
Suggestions:
1)Please remove section wise comment style
2)Good to preserve timestamps using
%{__make} install DESTDIR=%{buildroot} INSTALL="install -p"
3)If the packages you are obsoleting are not in Fedora and want to obsolete
internal old versions with this package then mention it in SPEC file.
4) I think %description for main package should contain something like NOTE:
written in 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 649495] Review Request: openstack-nova - OpenStack Compute (nova)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=649495 --- Comment #6 from Silas Sewell 2011-01-12 22:54:04 EST --- Cart, First, thanks for your input! Second, I'm not really sure server components should be required by the package. I think if you ran Nova at any type of scale you're not going to have the AMQP server(s) on any of the Nova servers. >From a packaging standpoint I think it would be similar to something like Wordpress where the product obviously requires it, the package should require the drivers (php-mysql) to configure the application to talk to the service (in our case python-carrot), but assuming the user will want the database and the web server to live on the same machine doesn't seem right. Also, although AMQP in theory should be compatible I haven't had much luck with python-amqplib and qpid, but I also haven't tried in about a year. If we decided to push anything I'd default to what upstream is developing and testing against, which last time I checked was RabbitMQ. Anyway, I haven't had much time in the last month fully test this, but I'm setting aside some next over the next week or two to get it up and running again. Thanks again! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 649495] Review Request: openstack-nova - OpenStack Compute (nova)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=649495 --- Comment #7 from Silas Sewell 2011-01-12 22:56:04 EST --- Cart.. not sure how I missed that typo, sorry, I meant Carl. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 668839] Review Request: pki-core
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=668839 --- Comment #2 from Matthew Harmsen 2011-01-12 22:11:16 EST --- (In reply to comment #0) > Need to get ipa-pki-theme built in koji. Need to get pki-core built in koji. > > Summary: Certificate System - PKI Core Components > > spec file and src.rpm will be posted shortly. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 668834] Review Request: cutecw - CW (Morse Code) training software
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=668834
Ankur Sinha changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #7 from Ankur Sinha 2011-01-12 21:32:11
EST ---
Review:
+ OK
? Issue
- NA
+ Package meets naming and packaging guidelines
+ Spec file matches base package name.
+ Spec has consistant macro usage.
+ Meets Packaging Guidelines.
+ License
+ License field in spec matches
+ License file included in package
+ Spec in American English
+ Spec is legible.
+ Sources match upstream md5sum:
[an...@ankur rpmbuild]$ md5sum cutecw-0.4.tar.gz SOURCES/cutecw-0.4.tar.gz
0e0439ecf047e67e31be6ebacabdf4dd cutecw-0.4.tar.gz
0e0439ecf047e67e31be6ebacabdf4dd SOURCES/cutecw-0.4.tar.gz
+ Package needs ExcludeArch
+ BuildRequires correct
- Spec handles locales/find_lang
- Package is relocatable and has a reason to be.
+ Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good.
+ Package has a correct %clean section.
+ Package has correct buildroot
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
+ Package is code or permissible content.
- Doc subpackage needed/used.
+ Packages %doc files don't affect runtime.
- Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage.
- Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun
- .pc files in -devel subpackage/requires pkgconfig
- .so files in -devel subpackage.
- -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
- .la files are removed.
+ Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file
+ Package compiles and builds on at least one arch.
+ Package has no duplicate files in %files.
+ Package doesn't own any directories other packages own.
+ Package owns all the directories it creates.
+ No rpmlint output.
[an...@ankur SPECS]$ rpmlint cutecw.spec
../RPMS/x86_64/cutecw-0.4-3.fc14.x86_64.rpm ../SRPMS/cutecw-0.4-3.fc15.src.rpm
/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/result/*.rpm
cutecw.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cutecw
cutecw.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cutecw
5 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
[an...@ankur SPECS]$
- final provides and requires are sane:
(include output of for i in *rpm; do echo $i; rpm -qp --provides $i; echo =;
rpm -qp --requires $i; echo; done
manually indented after checking each line. I also remove the rpmlib junk and
anything provided by glibc.)
== cutecw-0.4-3.fc15.i686.rpm ==
Provides:
cutecw = 0.4-3.fc15
cutecw(x86-32) = 0.4-3.fc15
Requires:
/bin/sh
/bin/sh
/bin/sh
libQtCore.so.4
libQtGui.so.4
libQtMultimedia.so.4
...
rtld(GNU_HASH)
== cutecw-0.4-3.fc15.src.rpm ==
Provides:
Requires:
qt-devel >= 4.7
desktop-file-utils
== cutecw-debuginfo-0.4-3.fc15.i686.rpm ==
Provides:
cutecw-debuginfo = 0.4-3.fc15
cutecw-debuginfo(x86-32) = 0.4-3.fc15
SHOULD Items:
+ Should build in mock.
+ Should build on all supported archs
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2718322
+ Should function as described.
+ Should have sane scriptlets.
- Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend.
+ Should have dist tag
+ Should package latest version
- check for outstanding bugs on package. (For core merge reviews)
Issues:
1. the buildroot and clean section etc. can be removed
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag
2. Please add a comment describing the patch in the spec
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#All_patches_should_have_an_upstream_bug_link_or_comment
3. Please rename the patch to %{name}-%{reason}.patch.
Please correct issues #2,#3 before you set up the git repository since they are
explicitly required in the guidelines.
Rest of the package looks ok.
+++ 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 666301] Review Request: libLAS - Library and tools for the LAS LiDAR 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=666301 --- Comment #6 from Ed Hill 2011-01-12 20:42:21 EST --- Here's the promised update: http://eh3.com/libLAS-1.6.0-13.fc14.src.rpm It addresses all the following: 0) improved the pkgconfig (multi-lib) situation -- checked into upstream 1) redundant make-verbose flag removed 2) rationale added for $RPMBUILD/usr/share 3) description of %check section added 4) chmod of $RPMBUILD/usr/bin removed and there are a couple of to-do items: + enable -DWITH_GDAL:BOOL=ON as soon as the GDAL 1.8.x dependency is available and then add the necessary GDAL libs to pkgconfig + package the python bindings -- I will very likely need help with the python packaging or perhaps someone else could handle it -- is anyone interested? And thanks again for taking a look! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 663102] Review Request: pyscard - python module adding smart cards 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=663102 --- Comment #5 from Andrew Elwell 2011-01-12 18:01:13 EST --- Some further work: * informal review of bug #668588 (Python26-imaging) * Review Request for libfap (amateur radio APRS parser) in bug #669010 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 668834] Review Request: cutecw - CW (Morse Code) training software
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=668834 --- Comment #6 from Wes Hardaker 2011-01-12 17:52:36 EST --- Ok, admittedly the last time I tried to use mock (back in the FC6 days) it was a pain. It's gotten much better. The above -3 version (I just noticed the link is wrong) builds for me under mock. Spec URL: http://www.hardakers.net/temp/cutecw.spec SRPM URL: http://www.hardakers.net/temp/cutecw-0.4-3.fc15.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 640205] Review Request: visualvm - Lightweight profiler that integrates many command-line JDK tools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=640205 --- Comment #48 from Fedora Update System 2011-01-12 17:36:27 EST --- visualvm-1.3.1-3.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/visualvm-1.3.1-3.fc14 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
Red Hat Bugzilla: confirm account creation
Red Hat Bugzilla has received a request to create a user account using your email address (package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org). To continue creating an account using this email address, visit the following link by January 15, 2011 at 17:25 EST: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=aElfev4jH1&a=request_new_account If you did not receive this email before January 15, 2011 at 17:25 EST or you wish to create an account using a different email address you can begin again by going to: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/createaccount.cgi PRIVACY NOTICE: Red Hat Bugzilla is an open bug tracking system. Activity on most bugs, including email addresses, will be visible to the public. We recommend using a secondary account or free web email service (such as Gmail, Yahoo, Hotmail, or similar) to avoid receiving spam at your primary email address. If you do not wish to create an account, or if this request was made in error you can do nothing or visit the following link: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=aElfev4jH1&a=cancel_new_account If the above links do not work, or you have any other issues regarding your account, please contact administration at bugzilla-ow...@redhat.com. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 668834] Review Request: cutecw - CW (Morse Code) training software
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=668834
--- Comment #5 from Wes Hardaker 2011-01-12 16:17:35
EST ---
Spec URL: http://www.hardakers.net/temp/cutecw.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.hardakers.net/temp/cutecw-0.4-2.fc15.src.rpm
Huh. I suspect the _iconsdir macro must exist only in some versions of RPM
(build) and not others. Anyway, in the above version I set it to using
%{_datadir}/icons which I know will work better.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 669146] Review Request: gnumed-server - medical practice management - server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=669146 --- Comment #1 from Susmit 2011-01-12 14:11:35 EST --- New upstream release. Spec URL: http://susmit.fedorapeople.org/packaging/gnumed-server/gnumed-server.spec SRPM URL: http://susmit.fedorapeople.org/packaging/gnumed-server/gnumed-server-14.6-1.fc14.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 669146] New: Review Request: gnumed-server - medical practice management - server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: gnumed-server - medical practice management - server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=669146 Summary: Review Request: gnumed-server - medical practice management - server Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: thinklinux@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://susmit.fedorapeople.org/packaging/gnumed-server/gnumed-server.spec SRPM URL: http://susmit.fedorapeople.org/packaging/gnumed-server/gnumed-server-14.5-1.fc14.src.rpm Description: GNUmed is suitable for any health care provider interested in keeping a sound and comprehensive medical record. It is currently in use with GPs and physical therapists. GNUmed safely operates on networks of a few to many users, and supports secure, remote access. It does also operate on a single computer, which makes it possible to initially examine the software, and may suit doctors or nurse clinicians serving rural or disadvantaged areas with limited infrastructure. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 666301] Review Request: libLAS - Library and tools for the LAS LiDAR 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=666301 --- Comment #5 from Ed Hill 2011-01-12 13:18:54 EST --- Hi Ralf & Volker, An update is available here: http://eh3.com/libLAS.spec http://eh3.com/libLAS-1.6.0-10.fc14.src.rpm and it addresses most of the above comments. The pkgconfig bits are not yet sorted out but I'll try to have an update soon. Aside from the pkgconfig bits, do you spot any blockers? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 664113] Review Request: rubygem-boxgrinder-build-ebs-delivery-plugin - BoxGrinder plugin to deliver appliances as EBS AMIs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=664113 --- Comment #1 from Marek Goldmann 2011-01-12 13:11:59 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 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 Carl Trieloff changed: What|Removed |Added CC||cctriel...@redhat.com --- Comment #5 from Carl Trieloff 2011-01-12 13:12:45 EST --- I don't see that it picks up the Qpid packages for AMQP correctly which are in Fedora. Can that be fixed before the review request is approved. Qpid 0-8 has been pushed to FC, so test against that version Once this has been fixed, I'll be happy to check it. Carl. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 --- Comment #1 from Marek Goldmann 2011-01-12 13:12:11 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 652414] Review Request: rubygem-boxgrinder-build-sftp-delivery-plugin - BoxGrinder plugin delivering appliances to SFTP servers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652414 --- Comment #7 from Marek Goldmann 2011-01-12 13:12:34 EST --- Ping again -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 668542] Review Request: php-pChart - A PHP class to build charts.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=668542 --- Comment #4 from Jeffrey Ness 2011-01-12 12:44:00 EST --- Hello Jochen, I have spoke in #fedora-devel and do see where you are going with this (the Fonts are not licensed properly for GPL and should not exisit in the Source Tarball). I went ahead and modified the generate-tarball.sh and had it remove the Fonts from source: http://flip-edesign.com/source/php-pChart/generate-tarball.sh -- Spec URL: http://flip-edesign.com/source/php-pChart/php-pChart.spec SRPM URL: http://flip-edesign.com/source/php-pChart/php-pChart-1.27d-7.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 668834] Review Request: cutecw - CW (Morse Code) training software
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=668834
--- Comment #4 from Ankur Sinha 2011-01-12 12:38:54
EST ---
Hi,
Still won't build on mock. :)
DEBUG: + umask 022
DEBUG: + cd /builddir/build/BUILD
DEBUG: + cd cutecw-0.4
DEBUG: +
DOCDIR=/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/cutecw-0.4-2.fc15.i386/usr/share/doc/cutecw-0.4
DEBUG: + export DOCDIR
DEBUG: + rm -rf
/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/cutecw-0.4-2.fc15.i386/usr/share/doc/cutecw-0.4
DEBUG: + /bin/mkdir -p
/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/cutecw-0.4-2.fc15.i386/usr/share/doc/cutecw-0.4
DEBUG: + cp -pr LICENSE README.org
/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/cutecw-0.4-2.fc15.i386/usr/share/doc/cutecw-0.4
DEBUG: + exit 0
DEBUG: RPM build errors:
DEBUG: File must begin with "/": %{_iconsdir}/hicolor/*/apps/*.png
DEBUG: File must begin with "/": %{_iconsdir}/hicolor/*/apps/*.svg
DEBUG: Child returncode was: 1
INFO: EXCEPTION: Command failed. See logs for output.
# ['bash', '--login', '-c', 'rpmbuild -bb --target i686 --nodeps
builddir/build/SPECS/cutecw.spec']
Traceback (most recent call last):
Ankur.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 668542] Review Request: php-pChart - A PHP class to build charts.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=668542 --- Comment #3 from Jochen Schmitt 2011-01-12 11:33:43 EST --- You told, that the fonts are not license properly? In this case you should repackage the source tar ball after removing the Fonts directory. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 649495] Review Request: openstack-nova - OpenStack Compute (nova)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=649495 --- Comment #4 from Fabian Deutsch 2011-01-12 11:22:18 EST --- Just to get started. sphinx is pulling in some external things when the package is beeing build. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 668153] Review Request: openresolv - Management framework for resolv.conf
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=668153 --- Comment #4 from Jiri Popelka 2011-01-12 11:00:38 EST --- (In reply to comment #2) > Does this work exactly like resolvconf? I have no idea, truly said, I have never used resolvconf. > We've had no end of problems with > people using resolvconf with NetworkManager, and it's usually fixed by just > removing resolvconf entirely. I hadn't been aware of this. > Ubuntu doesn't even install resolvconf by default anymore. I know that debian doesn't have resolvconf or openresolv (in unstable) installed by default. And I have no intention pushing openresolv to default install in Fedora. > How is the final resolv.conf generated and what algorithm defines the priority > of nameservers in the final file? I don't know but will try to ask upstream. (In reply to comment #3) > Second, the fact that all resolvconf implementations use the network interface > names as an ordering and tracking mechanism is completely wrong, since what > you > want to do for priority here has nothing to do with the interface name, and > everything to do with the network you're connecting to, which is independent > of > the interface name that's connecting to that network. Plus interface names > can > be anything. Essentially, using a resolvconf framework does not play well > with > an actual dynamic system. > > Third, resolvconf simply cannot handle bad ordering, if a program crashes or > otherwise does not remove its configuration. > > So I'm kind of curious what the motivations for this are, and what problems a > resolvconf implementation would actually solve? Motivations are described in bug Description. My own is bug #551962. I don't expect that anybody using NM will use openresolv. I have been aiming at those not using NM but e.g. DHCPv4+DHCPv6 dhclient. I have been testing it slightly and it seemed to work pretty well (after modifying initscripts and switching selinux off :-). I also build NM with --with-resolvconf=yes and tried with NM. When I had NM_MANAGED eth0 a NOT NM_MANAGED eth1 (dual stack dhclient), 'resolvconf -l' was showing: # resolv.conf from dhclient.v4.eth1 nameserver 192.168.1.132 # resolv.conf from dhclient.v6.eth1 nameserver 3ffe:501::1::131 # resolv.conf from NetworkManager # Generated by NetworkManager nameserver 192.168.0.1 and the resulting resolv.conf: # Generated by resolvconf nameserver 192.168.0.1 nameserver 192.168.1.132 nameserver 3ffe:501::1::131 But thanks for sharing your experience, I'll try to discuss it with upstream first. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 652623] Review Request: erlang-bitcask - Eric Brewer-inspired key/value store
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652623 Ville-Pekka Vainio changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||vpiva...@cs.helsinki.fi AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|vpiva...@cs.helsinki.fi Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Ville-Pekka Vainio 2011-01-12 10:56:41 EST --- I'll take this. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 668834] Review Request: cutecw - CW (Morse Code) training software
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=668834 --- Comment #3 from Wes Hardaker 2011-01-12 10:55:20 EST --- Spec URL: http://www.hardakers.net/temp/cutecw.spec SRPM URL: http://www.hardakers.net/temp/cutecw-0.4-2.fc15.src.rpm I've added desktop-file-utils to the buildreqs which should fix the mock issue. Yes, I'm already an approved packager. Thanks for asking! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 643199] Review Request: python-pymtp - A Pythonic wrapper around libmtp
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=643199 Ville-Pekka Vainio 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 643199] Review Request: python-pymtp - A Pythonic wrapper around libmtp
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=643199 --- Comment #7 from Ville-Pekka Vainio 2011-01-12 10:52:17 EST --- Thanks, Peter! There are a couple of gPodder people on the CC list, if you want to be co-maintainers, I could add you. Right now I'll just make myself as the owner. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-pymtp Short Description: A Pythonic wrapper around libmtp Owners: vpv Branches: f13 f14 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 669010] Review Request: libfap - C port of Ham::APRS::FAP APRS Parser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=669010 Guido Trentalancia changed: What|Removed |Added CC||gu...@trentalancia.com --- Comment #1 from Guido Trentalancia 2011-01-12 10:35:12 EST --- Here is my advice on possible ways to improve the package: - you should modify the "License" tag to GPLv3 or GPLv3+ (the authors should provide you with further information on whether it's only GPL version 3 or also any later version). Remove Artistic because this is not a Perl module and, as you said, Artistic 1.0 is not allowed in Fedora - permission of libfap.spec is 0664, this should be changed to 0644 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 652623] Review Request: erlang-bitcask - Eric Brewer-inspired key/value store
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652623 --- Comment #1 from Peter Lemenkov 2011-01-12 10:29:23 EST --- Koji scratchbuild for Rawhide (erlang-ebloom was packaged): http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2717015 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 643199] Review Request: python-pymtp - A Pythonic wrapper around libmtp
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=643199
Peter Lemenkov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #6 from Peter Lemenkov 2011-01-12 10:28:04 EST
---
REVIEW:
Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable
+ rpmlint is not silent, but all its messages can be safely ignored:
work ~: rpmlint Desktop/python-pymtp-0.0.4-0.3.fc15.*
python-pymtp.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libmtp -> libation, Liberty,
librate
python-pymtp.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libmtp -> libation,
Liberty, librate
python-pymtp.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libmtp -> libation,
Liberty, librate
python-pymtp.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libmtp ->
libation, Liberty, librate
^^^ These are false positives.
python-pymtp.x86_64: E: no-binary
^^^ This package contains only arch-independent data, but does depends on
arch-dependent stuff. So we can't mark it as noarch.
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings.
work ~:
+ The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
+ The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
+ The package meets the Packaging Guidelines. The situation with ugly
dependency on libmtp.so.8 is explained in the comments above.
+ The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines.
+ The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license (GPLv3
or later).
+ The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included
in %doc.
+ The spec file is written in American English.
+ The spec file for the package is legible.
+ The sources used to build the package, match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: sha256sum pymtp-latest.tar.bz2*
b60d18ffa107a3e2a50a259123f51d81cd097a21e974f12dae84b3215a535f8b
pymtp-latest.tar.bz2
b60d18ffa107a3e2a50a259123f51d81cd097a21e974f12dae84b3215a535f8b
pymtp-latest.tar.bz2.1
sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES:
Unfortunately, no versioned sources provided by upstream.
+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
primary architecture. Koji scratchbuild for Rawhide:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2716996
+ All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
0 No need to handle locales.
0 No shared library files in some of the dynamic linker's default paths.
+ The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
0 The package is not designed to be relocatable.
+ The package owns all directories that it creates.
+ The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files
listings.
+ Permissions on files are set properly.
+ The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ The package consistently uses macros.
+ The package contains code, or permissible content.
0 No extremely large documentation files.
+ Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the
application.
0 No header files.
0 No static libraries.
0 No pkgconfig(.pc) files.
0 The package doesn't contain library files without a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so).
0 No devel sub-package.
+ The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
0 Not a GUI application.
+ The package does not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
+ At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.
I can't find any issues here, so this package
APPROVED.
p.s. I would like you to review this package in return:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652623
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 668959] Review Request: jbig2dec - A decoder implementation of the JBIG2 image compression 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=668959 Pavel Zhukov changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Pavel Zhukov 2011-01-12 10:26:30 EST --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: jbig2dec Short Description: A decoder implementation of the JBIG2 image compression format system Owners: landgraf Branches: F-13 F-14 F-15 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 668834] Review Request: cutecw - CW (Morse Code) training software
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=668834
Ankur Sinha changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|sanjay.an...@gmail.com
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Ankur Sinha 2011-01-12 10:07:20
EST ---
Fails to build on mock
DEBUG: install -m 644 -p
/builddir/build/BUILD/cutecw-0.4/icons/64x64/cutecw.png
/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/cutecw-0.4-1.fc15.i386/usr/share/icons/hic
olor/64x64/apps/
DEBUG: + /bin/mkdir -p
'/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/cutecw-0.4-1.fc15.i386/%{_iconsdir}/hicolor/scalable/apps/'
DEBUG: + /bin/cp icons/cutecw.svg
'/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/cutecw-0.4-1.fc15.i386/%{_iconsdir}/hicolor/scalable/apps/'
DEBUG: + desktop-file-install
--dir=/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/cutecw-0.4-1.fc15.i386/usr/share/applications
/builddir/build/SOURCES/cutecw.desktop
DEBUG: /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.BxWPS4: line 42: desktop-file-install: command not
found
DEBUG: error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.BxWPS4 (%install)
DEBUG: RPM build errors:
DEBUG: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.BxWPS4 (%install)
DEBUG: Child returncode was: 1
INFO: EXCEPTION: Command failed. See logs for output.
# ['bash', '--login', '-c', 'rpmbuild -bb --target i686 --nodeps
builddir/build/SPECS/cutecw.spec']
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/mock/trace_decorator.py", line 70, in
trace
result = func(*args, **kw)
File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/mock/util.py", line 317, in do
raise mock.exception.Error, ("Command failed. See logs for output.\n # %s"
% (command,), child.returncode)
Error: Command failed. See logs for output.
# ['bash', '--login', '-c', 'rpmbuild -bb --target i686 --nodeps
builddir/build/SPECS/cutecw.spec']
INFO: LEAVE do --> EXCEPTION RAISED
Please correct this, I'll do a complete review.
You need a
Requires: desktop-file-utils
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Desktop_files
iirc
Thanks,
Ankur
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 643199] Review Request: python-pymtp - A Pythonic wrapper around libmtp
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=643199 Peter Lemenkov changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||lemen...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|lemen...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #5 from Peter Lemenkov 2011-01-12 10:03:49 EST --- I'll review it -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 668834] Review Request: cutecw - CW (Morse Code) training software
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=668834 --- Comment #2 from Ankur Sinha 2011-01-12 10:08:07 EST --- Another thing: Are you a sponsored packager already Wes? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 666455] Review Request: sdcv - Console version of StarDict 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=666455 --- Comment #4 from Pavel Zhukov 2011-01-12 10:03:00 EST --- - rename patchs for better legibity - fixed doc section - fixed spec errors SPEC: http://repo.pclinuxos.su/fedora/rpm/sdcv.spec SRPMS: http://repo.pclinuxos.su/fedora/rpm/sdcv-0.4.2-3.fc14.src.rpm mock: ok koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2716991 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 668959] Review Request: jbig2dec - A decoder implementation of the JBIG2 image compression 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=668959 Jason Tibbitts changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request jbig2dec :: |Review Request: jbig2dec - |A decoder implementation of |A decoder implementation of |the JBIG2 image compression |the JBIG2 image compression |format |format -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 666763] Review Request: ax_emergency_listen - monitors APRS emergency packets
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=666763 Andrew Elwell changed: What|Removed |Added CC||andrew.elw...@gmail.com --- Comment #21 from Andrew Elwell 2011-01-12 09:29:35 EST --- Hi Guido, I spotted this Review Request while I was adding another one of mine to the list. (I'm working on some APRS tool packaging too) -- Have a look at bug #669010 and the soon-to-be-submitted aprsg package (am just working on that now). Also are you aware of http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/AmateurRadio Good luck with your sponsorship request! Andrew -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 668959] Review Request jbig2dec :: A decoder implementation of the JBIG2 image compression 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=668959 Peter Lemenkov changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Peter Lemenkov 2011-01-12 09:24:01 EST --- Good. Here is the Koji scratchbuild of the latest Pavel's package: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2716958 Ok, I don't see any other issues, so this package is APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 668588] Review python26-imaging - Python's own image processing library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=668588
Andrew Elwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andrew.elw...@gmail.com
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Elwell 2011-01-12 09:15:54
EST ---
Informal review (as I'm still awaiting sponsorship):
MUST Items:
* rpmlint
[aelw...@pcitgtelwell pil]$ rpmlint python26-imaging*
python26-imaging.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US devel -> delve,
devil, revel
python26-imaging.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tk -> kt, t, k
1 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
-- false warning. OK
OK - Package named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
-- hard coded python version is there for an explained reason
OK - Spec file in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
WARN - The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
-- "All patches should have an upstream bug link or comment" -- they don't (but
it's only a SHOULD)
OK - Package licensed with a Fedora approved license.
OK - License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
OK (it's in the README) - If source includes the text of the license(s) package
it in %{doc}.
OK - The spec file must be written in American English.
OK - The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
OK (fc14a54e1ce02a0225be8854bfba478e) - The sources must match the upstream
source URL md5sum.
OK (tested on RHEL5 + EPEL python26) - Package MUST successfully compile and
build into binary rpms
- unsucessful compile, build or work on an architecture should be listed
ExcludeArch.
-- each ExcludeArch has corresponding bugzilla no in comment adjacent.
OK - Build dependencies listed in BuildRequires.
OK - Spec file using the %find_lang macro for locales (not using
%{_datadir}/locale/*).
OK - If shared library files (not just symlinks), call ldconfig in %post and
%postun.
OK - Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
OK - if relocatable, must be stared with rationalization
-- without this use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker.
OK - A package must own all directories that it creates, or require a package
which creates that directory.
OK - No duplicates in the spec file's %files listings. (Notable exception:
license texts in specific situations)[14]
OK - Permissions on files must be set properly.
OK -- Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example.
OK -- Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line.
OK - Each package must consistently use macros.
OK - The package must contain code, or permissable content.
OK - Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
OK - things in %doc must not affect the runtime of the application.
OK - Header files must be in a -devel package.
N/A - Static libraries must be in a -static package.
N/A - If library files with a suffix (libfoo.so.1.1), then plain .so in a
-devel package.
OK - -devel packages need fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release}
OK - Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives,
-- these must be removed in the spec if they are built.
OK - GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file,
-- installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section.
-- or explain why exempt in a comment in the spec file.
OK - Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
OK - All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
SHOULD Items:
Items below are things that the package (or reviewer) SHOULD do, but is not
required to do.
N/A - query upstream if the source does not include license text(s) as a
separate file.
NO - description and summary in spec file should contain translations, if
available.
N/A (awaiting sponsorship) - The reviewer should test that the package builds
in mock.
Not Tested - The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all
supported architectures.
PARTIALLY DONE - The reviewer should test that the package functions as
described.
OK - If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane.
YES - Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package
using a fully versioned dependency.
- The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and this is
usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg. A
reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a devel tool not installed
in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb. [30]
- If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of
the file itself.
- your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it doesn't,
work with upstream to add them where they make sense.
Tested on a RHEL5 (clo
[Bug 668959] Review Request jbig2dec :: A decoder implementation of the JBIG2 image compression 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=668959 --- Comment #4 from Pavel Zhukov 2011-01-12 08:55:36 EST --- Fixed (except spelling warnings) SPEC: http://repo.pclinuxos.su/fedora/rpm/jbig2dec.spec SRPM: http://repo.pclinuxos.su/fedora/rpm/jbig2dec-0.11-2.fc14.src.rpm mock: ok koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2716911 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 665544] Review Request: ini4j - Java API for handling files in Window .ini 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=665544
--- Comment #4 from Stanislav Ochotnicky 2011-01-12
08:22:08 EST ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[!] Rpmlint output:
ini4j.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) ini -> uni, in, ii
ini4j.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ini -> uni, in, ii
ini4j.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/maven/fragments/ini4j
ini4j.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) ini -> uni, in, ii
ini4j.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ini -> uni, in, ii
no problem
ini4j-javadoc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) doccumentation ->
documentation, instrumentation, argumentation
"cc"->"c"
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings.
[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] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
MD5SUM : 73f7c4a5f010d5b968425b8415132eb1
[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.
[x] 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.
[x] Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
subpackage
[x] Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlinks)
[x] Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
Although javadoc subpackage has Requires both on main package and
jpackage-utils. If you don't have strong reason to depend on main package it
might be good idea to drop that dependency. If you decide to keep main package
Requires then jpackage-utils is not necessary since main package already
requires it.
[x] 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)
Please no -%{version}.jar files. Current guidelines have versionless jars.
[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 it's possible prefer to use -Dmaven.test.failure.ignore=true instead of
test.skip. This is useful if tests compile but fail to run correctly. We can
still see the output in the build.log. In both cases please explain why
test.skip was used so that it can be removed in the future when the reason is
gone.
[!] If package uses custom depmap "-Dmaven2.jpp.depmap.file=*" explain why
it's needed in a comment
Removing activation is OK, but please file a bug for plexus-mail-sender to
provide correct depmap. I'll work on fixing it in the meantime :-)
[x] Package uses %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun
[!] Packages have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on jpackage-utils (for
%update_maven_depmap macro)
You are missing proper requires post/postun on jpackage-utils
=== Other suggesti
[Bug 668959] Review Request jbig2dec :: A decoder implementation of the JBIG2 image compression 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=668959
--- Comment #3 from Peter Lemenkov 2011-01-12 08:00:23 EST
---
REVIEW:
Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable
- rpmlint is NOT silent, and some of its messages should be suppressed:
work ~: rpmlint Desktop/jbig2dec-*
jbig2dec.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lossy -> loss, glossy,
flossy
jbig2dec.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lossless -> loss less,
loss-less, massless
jbig2dec.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bilevel -> bi level,
bi-level, bile vel
jbig2dec.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lossy -> loss, glossy,
flossy
jbig2dec.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lossless -> loss less,
loss-less, massless
jbig2dec.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bilevel -> bi level,
bi-level, bile vel
^^^ False positives. No need to take care of them.
jbig2dec.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.11 ['0.11-1.fc14',
'0.11-1']
^^^ This should be fixed (easyfix).
jbig2dec-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lossy -> loss,
glossy, flossy
jbig2dec-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lossless -> loss
less, loss-less, massless
jbig2dec-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bilevel -> bi
level, bi-level, bile vel
^^^ False positives. No need to take care of them.
jbig2dec-devel.x86_64: E: useless-provides jbig2dec-devel
^^^ This should be fixed (easyfix). Just drop explicit "Provides:
jbig2dec-devel = %{version}-%{release}"
jbig2dec-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
^^^ Ok for now.
jbig2dec-libs.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lossy -> loss,
glossy, flossy
jbig2dec-libs.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lossless -> loss
less, loss-less, massless
jbig2dec-libs.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bilevel -> bi
level, bi-level, bile vel
^^^ False positives. No need to take care of them.
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 14 warnings.
work ~:
+ The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
+ The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
+/- The package ALMOST meets the Packaging Guidelines.
* You really need to suppress two rpmlint warnings, mentioned by me (see
above).
* Also I advice you to drop "Requires: %{name}-libs = %{version}-%{release}"
line. This sort of dependencies (dependency on libraries) should be picked up
by rpmbuild automatically.
* Drop empty "%doc" line from the %files section.
Otherwise the package looks good.
+ The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines.
- The License field in the package spec file MUST match the actual license.
Proper license tag is "GPLv2+ with exceptions". Contents of files, licensed
under Public Domain License (sha1.h and sha1.c), under BSD (snprintf.c)m under
GPL w/o explicit version (getopt1.c, getopt.c and getopt.h) are relicensed
under GPLv2+ during linking stage.
+ The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included
in %doc.
+ The spec file is written in American English.
+ The spec file for the package is legible.
+ The sources used to build the package, match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: sha256sum jbig2dec-0.11.tar.gz*
7e2d8330b36f2765da22043d174827bee0f30db8d78c330904f363275c7dd0b9
jbig2dec-0.11.tar.gz
7e2d8330b36f2765da22043d174827bee0f30db8d78c330904f363275c7dd0b9
jbig2dec-0.11.tar.gz.1
sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES:
+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
primary architecture. Koji scratchbuild for F-14:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2716806
+ All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
0 No need to handle locales.
+ The package stores shared library files in some of the dynamic linker's
default paths, and it calls ldconfig in %post and %postun.
+ The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
0 The package is not designed to be relocatable.
+ The package owns all directories that it creates.
+ The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files
listings.
+ Permissions on files are set properly.
0 The package doesn't have a %clean section, so it won't build cleanly on some
systems with old rpm version (EL-4 and EL-5, not sure about EL-6). Beware.
+ The package consistently uses macros.
+ The package contains code, or permissible content.
0 No extremely large documentation files.
+ Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the
application.
+ Header files are stored in a -devel package.
0 No static libraries.
0 No pkgconfig(.pc) files.
+ The library file(s) that end in .so (without suffix) is(are) stored in a
-devel package.
- The -devel package MUST require the lib sub-package u
[Bug 669010] Review Request: libfap - C port of Ham::APRS::FAP APRS Parser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=669010 Andrew Elwell changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 669010] New: Review Request: libfap - C port of Ham::APRS::FAP APRS Parser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: libfap - C port of Ham::APRS::FAP APRS Parser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=669010 Summary: Review Request: libfap - C port of Ham::APRS::FAP APRS Parser Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: andrew.elw...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/6594808/Fedora/libfap.spec SRPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/6594808/Fedora/libfap-0.9-1.fc14.src.rpm Description: libfap is a C port of the Ham::APRS::FAP Finnish APRS Parser (Fabulous APRS Parser) Perl module. As the original Perl code, libfap parses normal, mic-e and compressed location packets, NMEA location packets, objects, items, messages, telemetry and most weather packets. For more description, see the Perl module. Notes 1) It's a dual licenced library (Artistic or GPL) -- Although Artistic 1.0 is NOT allowed as a fedora licence on its own, but IS allowed as a Perl licence (from the table https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main#Good_Licenses ) I have asked upstream (Tapio Aaltonen) to clarify this but no email response yet (only sent today) as they state in COPYING "Libfap may be copied only under the terms of either the Artistic License or the GNU General Public License. These licenses can be found in the licences directory of this package." without explicitly mentioning modification. 2) not all the text files included with the source are packaged (NEWS provides no information and INSTALL is the generic one -- as per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Documentation) 3) there is a test application 'smoketest' that is optional (make check) -- again should this be packaged with the relevant parts of the Makefile? It doesn't look like its a useful standalone application. 4) rpmlint output: $ rpmlint libfap* 1 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. I am still looking for a sponsor. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 666455] Review Request: sdcv - Console version of StarDict 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=666455 Peter Lemenkov changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|lemen...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #3 from Peter Lemenkov 2011-01-12 07:24:41 EST --- I'll review it -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 668959] Review Request jbig2dec :: A decoder implementation of the JBIG2 image compression 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=668959 Peter Lemenkov changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|lemen...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Peter Lemenkov 2011-01-12 07:24:21 EST --- I'll review it -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 666572] Review Request: zyGrib - Visualization of meteo data from files in GRIB 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=666572 Peter Lemenkov changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|lemen...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #8 from Peter Lemenkov 2011-01-12 07:24:07 EST --- I'll review it -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 666455] Review Request: sdcv - Console version of StarDict 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=666455 Peter Lemenkov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||lemen...@gmail.com Blocks|177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | --- Comment #2 from Peter Lemenkov 2011-01-12 07:23:31 EST --- Unblocking FE-NEEDSPONSOR - I just sponsored Pavel. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 666572] Review Request: zyGrib - Visualization of meteo data from files in GRIB 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=666572 Peter Lemenkov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||lemen...@gmail.com Blocks|177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | --- Comment #7 from Peter Lemenkov 2011-01-12 07:23:18 EST --- Unblocking FE-NEEDSPONSOR - I just sponsored Pavel. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 668959] Review Request jbig2dec :: A decoder implementation of the JBIG2 image compression 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=668959 Peter Lemenkov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||lemen...@gmail.com Blocks|177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | --- Comment #1 from Peter Lemenkov 2011-01-12 07:23:06 EST --- Unblocking FE-NEEDSPONSOR - I just sponsored Pavel. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 668959] Review Request jbig2dec :: A decoder implementation of the JBIG2 image compression 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=668959 Pavel Zhukov changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|jbig2dec :: A decoder |Review Request jbig2dec :: |implementation of the JBIG2 |A decoder implementation of |image compression format|the JBIG2 image compression ||format -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 220979] Review Request: tesseract - Raw OCR 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=220979 Simon Wesp changed: What|Removed |Added CC||cassmod...@fedoraproject.or ||g --- Comment #18 from Simon Wesp 2011-01-12 06:57:23 EST --- Karol, can you please provide tesseract for EPEL-6? Maybe you won't maintain tesseract on EPEL-6, so I can do it. Just add my fasname (cassmodiah) in the request of the new branch. It's currently a missing dep for tucan. -- 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 665544] Review Request: ini4j - Java API for handling files in Window .ini 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=665544 Stanislav Ochotnicky changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||socho...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|socho...@redhat.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #3 from Stanislav Ochotnicky 2011-01-12 06:13:37 EST --- OK. I'll do the review -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 472229] Review Request: PyQwt - Python bindings for Qwt
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472229 Tadej Janež changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #17 from Tadej Janež 2011-01-12 05:33:35 EST --- Package Change Request == Package Name: PyQwt New Branches: el6 Owners: tadej -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 604031] Review Request: kde-plasma-kprayertime - Displays Islamic prayer Time
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=604031 --- Comment #3 from Volker Fröhlich 2011-01-12 05:37:16 EST --- Are you still interested in packaging this? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 666190] Reviews Request: libofetion - Library files of Openfetion
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=666190 --- Comment #4 from Liang Suilong 2011-01-12 04:14:50 EST --- I uploaded a new spec and SRPM. SRPM: http://liangsuilong.fedorapeople.org/libofetion-2.1.0-3.hg20110111.fc13.src.rpm SPEC: http://liangsuilong.fedorapeople.org/libofetion.spec And koji result is here: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2716474 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 668959] New: jbig2dec :: A decoder implementation of the JBIG2 image compression format
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: jbig2dec :: A decoder implementation of the JBIG2 image compression format https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=668959 Summary: jbig2dec :: A decoder implementation of the JBIG2 image compression format Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: Unspecified OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: pa...@zhukoff.net QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora That this is one of my first packages and I need a sponsor. Spec: http://repo.pclinuxos.su/fedora/rpm/jbig2dec.spec SRPM: http://repo.pclinuxos.su/fedora/rpm/jbig2dec-0.11-1.fc14.src.rpm Description: jbig2dec is a decoder implementation of the JBIG2 image compression format. JBIG2 is designed for lossy or lossless encoding of 'bilevel' (1-bit monochrome) images at moderately high resolution, and in particular scanned paper documents. In this domain it is very efficient, offering compression ratios on the order of 100:1. Project home: http://jbig2dec.sourceforge.net/ mock build: ok koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2716450 rpmlint output: jbig2dec.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lossy -> loss, glossy, flossy jbig2dec.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lossless -> loss less, loss-less, glassless jbig2dec.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bilevel -> bi level, bi-level, bile vel 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 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 668959] jbig2dec :: A decoder implementation of the JBIG2 image compression 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=668959 Pavel Zhukov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pa...@zhukoff.net 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 666572] Review Request: zyGrib - Visualization of meteo data from files in GRIB 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=666572 --- Comment #6 from Pavel Zhukov 2011-01-12 03:11:48 EST --- zyGryb-3.9.9-2 - Replace patch to sed - Remove %clean and BuildRoot mock: ok koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2716450 rpmlint output: zyGrib.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) meteo -> metro, mete, meteor zyGrib.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US meteo -> metro, mete, meteor zyGrib.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gzip -> zip, grip, g zip zyGrib.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gz -> g, z, gaz zyGrib.src: W: invalid-url Source0: zyGrib-3.9.9.tgz 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 658420] Review Request: zorba - General purpose XQuery processor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=658420 Bug 658420 depends on bug 655866, which changed state. Bug 655866 Summary: Review Request: xqc - C/C++ API for interfacing with XQuery processors https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=655866 What|Old Value |New Value Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Status|MODIFIED|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 655866] Review Request: xqc - C/C++ API for interfacing with XQuery processors
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=655866 Martin Gieseking changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2011-01-12 03:03:45 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
