[Bug 665005] Review Request: perl-Server-Starter - Superdaemon for hot-deploying server programs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=665005
--- Comment #6 from Ralf Corsepius 2011-01-20 02:49:49
EST ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> (In reply to comment #4)
> > (In reply to comment #2)
> >
> > > - newer version 0.11 is available
> > ATM, I am tempted to go a step further: Rename the sub package into
> > "start_server" instead of "perl-Start-Server-start_server" ;)
> OK. I think the existing sub-package name is better, though. "start_server"
> seems a little too generic.
Correct, this would expose the quality of upstream's name choice to users.
> > (In reply to comment #3)
> > > And if you keep the sub-package, I think it should explicitly require
> > > perl-Server-Starter = %{version}-%{release}
> > Hmm, I don't see much need to do so
> >
> > * start_server actually is an application, which only happens to be bundled
> > with the Server-Starter-tarball, but otherwise is only loose tied to
> > perl(Server::Starter), just like any other arbitrary perl-application.
> >
> > * start_server originates from the same tarball as perl(Server::Starter),
> > so it
> > will be updated at the same time.
>
> According to guidelines on requiring base package, "It is almost always better
> to over specify the version, so it's best practice to just use a fully
> versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}". Otherwise
> its
Can we have some common sense, please? "almost better" != "is better".
> possible to "yum update perl-Server-Starter" and end up with new module and
> older start_service script.
This would only do harm if perl(Server::Starter)'s API changes.
Openly said, if the start_server script was packaged as a separate source
tarball, we wouldn't be discussing this topic at all.
> APPROVED (with explicit requires in sub-package).
I'll do so under explict *protest*.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 669327] Review Request: drupal6-views_bulk_operations - This module augments Views by allowing bulk operations to be executed
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=669327 --- Comment #5 from Peter Borsa 2011-01-20 02:14:14 EST --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: drupal6-views_bulk_operations Short Description: This module augments Views by allowing bulk operations to be executed. Owners: asrob Branches: f14 el5 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 653805] Review Request: drupal6-ctools - This suite is primarily a set of APIs and tools to improve the developer experience.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=653805 --- Comment #19 from Peter Borsa 2011-01-20 02:11:43 EST --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: drupal6-ctools Short Description: This suite is primarily a set of APIs and tools to improve the developer experience. Owners: asrob Branches: f14 el5 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 669509] Review Request: drupal6-rules - It allows site administrators to define conditionally executed actions
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=669509 --- Comment #4 from Peter Borsa 2011-01-20 02:12:56 EST --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: drupal6-rules Short Description: It allows site administrators to define conditionally executed actions. Owners: asrob Branches: f14 el5 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 517191] Review Request: php-symfony-symfony - Open-Source PHP Web Framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=517191 Christof Damian changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #32 from Christof Damian 2011-01-20 02:05:26 EST --- (In reply to comment #31) > though I can't help but comment on the complete insanity of having multiple > tarballs named the same. How do you know if the one you downloaded was > trojaned somehow? Would they even notice? I know, I will try to tell the symfony guys. > Anyway, upstream stupidity aside, this package looks good. > > APPROVED Thanks New Package SCM Request === Package Name: php-symfony-symfony Short Description: Open-Source PHP Web Framework Owners: cdamian 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 665005] Review Request: perl-Server-Starter - Superdaemon for hot-deploying server programs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=665005
Iain Arnell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Iain Arnell 2011-01-20 02:02:14 EST ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> (In reply to comment #2)
>
> > - newer version 0.11 is available
> Updated.
new source files match upstream:
037d75831a23ca76cd306d678b20332e Server-Starter-0.11.tar.gz
new package builds in mock:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2732540
> > - start_server script shouldn't be in main package's %doc
> Fixed (cf. below)
ack
> > - %files start_server section needs to set %defattr(-,root,root,-)
> Fixed.
ack
> > - spelling in description needs fixing (commenctions -> connections;
> > superdaemon is okay for me)
> cpanspec pulling in upstream text :) Fixed
ack
> > And I'm not entirely convinced that start_server needs its own sub-package,
> > why not just include it in the main package?
>
> I package it separately, because
> a) I consider /usr/bin/start_server to be a very poor choice of script naming,
> which is causing confusions related to start-stop-daemon etc.
>
> Initially, I had tried not to ship it and to move it into %doc instead, until
> I
> subsequently found it is used by another other package. start_server's
> presence
> in %doc was a remnant of these experiments.
>
> ATM, I am tempted to go a step further: Rename the sub package into
> "start_server" instead of "perl-Start-Server-start_server" ;)
>
> b) I wanted to reduce the deps between perl-Start-Server package and other
> packages, because
> - So far, start_server is not used by an run-time package and is only used by
> the testsuite of another package which is currently waiting for review.
>
> - /usr/bin/start_server pulls in additional deps, which are not being used by
> perl-Start-Server itself [ATM all these additional deps happen to be provided
> by the core perl package, so this argument is mostly moot]
OK. I think the existing sub-package name is better, though. "start_server"
seems a little too generic. Since it's not really intended as an end-user
application, it can hide away in perl- package namespace.
> (In reply to comment #3)
> > And if you keep the sub-package, I think it should explicitly require
> > perl-Server-Starter = %{version}-%{release}
> Hmm, I don't see much need to do so
>
> * start_server actually is an application, which only happens to be bundled
> with the Server-Starter-tarball, but otherwise is only loose tied to
> perl(Server::Starter), just like any other arbitrary perl-application.
>
> * start_server originates from the same tarball as perl(Server::Starter), so
> it
> will be updated at the same time.
According to guidelines on requiring base package, "It is almost always better
to over specify the version, so it's best practice to just use a fully
versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}". Otherwise its
possible to "yum update perl-Server-Starter" and end up with new module and
older start_service script.
APPROVED (with explicit requires in sub-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 668243] Review Request: libqb - An IPC library for high performance 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=668243 --- Comment #11 from Ralf Corsepius 2011-01-20 01:37:29 EST --- (In reply to comment #10) > (In reply to comment #9) > > (In reply to comment #8) > > > (In reply to comment #7) > > > > 2 MUSTFIXES: > > > > > > * Package doesn't honor RPM_OPT_FLAGS. > > > > > > > > The configure script plays nasty games with *FLAGS in a way they > > > > overwrite > > > > Fedora's *FLAGS. > > > > > > > > Excerpt from my build.log: > > > > ... gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I../include -I../include -I../include -O2 > > > > -g -pipe > > > > -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector > > > > --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m64 -mtune=generic -O3 -ggdb3 -Wall > > > > > > > > Note: ... "RPM_OPT_FLAGS"... -O3 -ggdb3. > > > > > > > > The later overwrite flags from RPM_OPT_FLAGS. > > > > > > > > One way to fix this is to sed out the stuff which is responsible for > > > > this from > > > > configure.ac: e.g. by adding this before autogen.sh: > > > > > > > > sed -i -e 's,OPT_CFLAGS="-O3",OPT_CFLAGS=,' \ > > > > -e 's,GDB_FLAGS="-ggdb3",GDB_FLAGS=,' configure.ac > > > > > > I disagree with this approach as policy allow flags override. > > > > > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Compiler_flags > > You are mis-interpreting this. > > On what base sorry? Common sense and the fact I know about the intentions behind this paragraph. > None of the gcc security flags are overridden and so far you haven´t given any > technical reason on why optimization flags should not. -OX and -g rsp. -gX are GCC flags which comprise many other GCC flags underneath. What they exactly do changes over time and is machine/archtecture/OS dependent. => Consistent usage of these flags is vital to a distribution. Openly said, I wonder why I have to explain this. > > > > > > Should one of you be upstream, I'd seriously advise you to rework the > > > > configure.ac and to start making "make dist" working to ship proerly > > > > packaged > > > > tar-balls instead of .git snapshots. > > > > > > make dist works just fine upstream, what problem are you experiencing > > > exactly? > > The tarball is improperly packaged - E.g. its lack all auto*generated files, > > which forces the Fedora packager to explictly pull in the autotools. > > Many upstreams do not ship autogenerated files and pull in autotools at build > time. Yes, There are many people who are abusing the autotools, like due to lack of understanding. > If this is an issue please provide a pointer to the Fedora packaging > guideline that enforces upstream to behave as Fedora requires and/or mass-file > bugs after policy has been made clear. This isn't an issue to Fedora - It's an issue to such package's upstreams and to those people who try to maintain such packages in Fedora. Running the autotools during builds simply means exposing people to non-determinisms. In other words, everytime somebody uses a different version of the autotools than upstream, this person is likely to face issues from this. Rest assured, these issues are not of a theoretical nature, they are real. > Fedora Policy has only one draft to address that issue and it is still under > discussion on what the correct behavior should be in those cases. As long the > draft is not approved as official Policy, it cannot be enforced. Not much of a problem - *I* don't have much of a problem with upstream being so rude to expose their user base to avoidable risks nor do I have a problem with fedora maintainers shooting themself into their own foot. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 205062] Review Request: perl-Sub-Install - Install subroutines into packages easily
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=205062 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System 2011-01-20 01:31:22 EST --- perl-Sub-Install-0.924-1.el4.1 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 4 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 656084] Review Request: perl-CDB_File - Perl extension for access to cdb databases
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=656084 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System 2011-01-20 01:30:27 EST --- perl-CDB_File-0.96-2.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 perl-CDB_File'. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-CDB_File-0.96-2.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 670302] Review Request: libbacklight - Linux backlight abstraction 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=670302 Ralf Corsepius changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|rc040...@freenet.de Flag||fedora-review+ --- Comment #7 from Ralf Corsepius 2011-01-20 01:14:07 EST --- I am sure future upstream tarball updates will carry an incremented version and the current tarball furtheron not be replaced ;) md5sum: a04ae7354b0b0176326914e772dbdf11 libbacklight-0.01.tar.gz # rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/*rpm libbacklight-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. 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 670997] Review Request: perl-Data-Type - Validate and convert data types
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=670997 Ralf Corsepius changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rc040...@freenet.de AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|rc040...@freenet.de --- Comment #2 from Ralf Corsepius 2011-01-20 00:47:39 EST --- One issue: Requires: perl(Test::Pod) >= 1.20 is wrong. This package applies Test::Pod only as part of its testsuite. Please remove this line. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 665005] Review Request: perl-Server-Starter - Superdaemon for hot-deploying server programs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=665005
--- Comment #4 from Ralf Corsepius 2011-01-20 00:36:19
EST ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> - newer version 0.11 is available
Updated.
> - start_server script shouldn't be in main package's %doc
Fixed (cf. below)
> - %files start_server section needs to set %defattr(-,root,root,-)
Fixed.
> - spelling in description needs fixing (commenctions -> connections;
> superdaemon is okay for me)
cpanspec pulling in upstream text :) Fixed
> And I'm not entirely convinced that start_server needs its own sub-package,
> why not just include it in the main package?
I package it separately, because
a) I consider /usr/bin/start_server to be a very poor choice of script naming,
which is causing confusions related to start-stop-daemon etc.
Initially, I had tried not to ship it and to move it into %doc instead, until I
subsequently found it is used by another other package. start_server's presence
in %doc was a remnant of these experiments.
ATM, I am tempted to go a step further: Rename the sub package into
"start_server" instead of "perl-Start-Server-start_server" ;)
b) I wanted to reduce the deps between perl-Start-Server package and other
packages, because
- So far, start_server is not used by an run-time package and is only used by
the testsuite of another package which is currently waiting for review.
- /usr/bin/start_server pulls in additional deps, which are not being used by
perl-Start-Server itself [ATM all these additional deps happen to be provided
by the core perl package, so this argument is mostly moot]
(In reply to comment #3)
> And if you keep the sub-package, I think it should explicitly require
> perl-Server-Starter = %{version}-%{release}
Hmm, I don't see much need to do so
* start_server actually is an application, which only happens to be bundled
with the Server-Starter-tarball, but otherwise is only loose tied to
perl(Server::Starter), just like any other arbitrary perl-application.
* start_server originates from the same tarball as perl(Server::Starter), so it
will be updated at the same time.
Update:
Spec URL: http://corsepiu.fedorapeople.org/packages/perl-Server-Starter.spec
SRPM URL:
http://corsepiu.fedorapeople.org/packages/perl-Server-Starter-0.11-1.fc15.src.rpm
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 630282] Review Request: ghc-MonadCatchIO-mtl - Monad-transformer for Control.Exception
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=630282 --- Comment #5 from Shakthi Kannan 2011-01-20 00:29:29 EST --- I have sent an e-mail to the author of the project requesting for license change/clarification from PublicDomain. Awaiting a reply. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 630282] Review Request: ghc-MonadCatchIO-mtl - Monad-transformer for Control.Exception
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=630282 Lakshmi Narasimhan changed: What|Removed |Added CC||lakshminaras2...@gmail.com --- Comment #4 from Lakshmi Narasimhan 2011-01-20 00:15:33 EST --- Hi Shakthi, We had similar issue with ghc-failure regarding the Public Domain license. http://www.mail-archive.com/legal@lists.fedoraproject.org/msg00377.html The resolution was to get the license changed from PublicDomain. Ben had contacted the author and got it changed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 669311] Review Request: mupdf - A lightweight PDF viewer and toolkit written in portable C
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=669311 Pavel Zhukov changed: What|Removed |Added External Bug ID||Ghostscript 691887 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 660617] Review Request: ghc-process-leksah - A library for dealing with system processes in leksah
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=660617
Shakthi Kannan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Shakthi Kannan 2011-01-19 23:53:44
EST ---
+:ok, =:needs attention, -:needs fixing, NA: not applicable
MUST Items:
[+] MUST: rpmlint output
$ rpmlint ghc-process-leksah.spec
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
$ rpmlint ghc-process-leksah-1.0.1.4-1.fc14.src.rpm
ghc-process-leksah.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Haskell -> Harrell,
Rathskeller, Hastily
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
All standard and waived
[+] MUST: Package Naming Guidelines
[+] MUST: spec file name must match base package %{name}
[+] MUST: Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: Licensing Guidelines
[+] MUST: License field in the package spec file must match actual license.
[+] MUST: include license files in %doc if available in source
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English and be legible.
[+] MUST: source md5sum matches upstream release
$ md5sum process-leksah-1.0.1.3.tar.gz
5b1f20ec7045dc585b025e410f05d24d process-leksah-1.0.1.3.tar.gz
[+] MUST: must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on one main arch
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2731847
[+] MUST: if necessary use ExcludeArch for other archs
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires
[NA] MUST: packages which store shared library files in the dynamic linker's
default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[+] 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 package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, for example.
[+] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros
section of Packaging Guidelines.
Only minimal differences to cabal2spec template.
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application.
[+] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[NA] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[NA] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g.
libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in
a -devel package.
[+] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release}
[+] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be
removed in the spec.
[+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
[+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
SHOULD Items:
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[+] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane.
[+] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency.
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 670354] Review Request: perl-String-Similarity - Calculates the similarity of two strings
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=670354 Ruediger Landmann 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 665005] Review Request: perl-Server-Starter - Superdaemon for hot-deploying server programs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=665005
--- Comment #3 from Iain Arnell 2011-01-19 23:34:33 EST ---
And if you keep the sub-package, I think it should explicitly require
perl-Server-Starter = %{version}-%{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 665005] Review Request: perl-Server-Starter - Superdaemon for hot-deploying server programs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=665005 Iain Arnell changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||iarn...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|iarn...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Iain Arnell 2011-01-19 23:31:29 EST --- + source files match upstream. f3a89be749127dcf5b46b97befbfc916 Server-Starter-0.09.tar.gz + package meets naming and versioning guidelines. + specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. + summary is OK. + description is OK. + dist tag is present. + build root is OK. + license field matches the actual license. GPL+ or Artistic + license is open source-compatible. + license text not included upstream. - latest version is being packaged. 0.11 is available now + BuildRequires are proper. + compiler flags are appropriate. + %clean is present. + package builds in mock http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2732539 + package installs properly. - rpmlint has no complaints: perl-Server-Starter.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Superdaemon -> Super daemon, Super-daemon, Superdominant perl-Server-Starter.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US superdaemon -> super daemon, super-daemon, superdominant perl-Server-Starter.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US commenctions -> commendations, commensuration, commendation perl-Server-Starter.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/perl-Server-Starter-0.09/start_server perl-Server-Starter.noarch: W: doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/perl-Server-Starter-0.09/start_server perl(Getopt::Long) perl-Server-Starter.noarch: W: doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/perl-Server-Starter-0.09/start_server /usr/bin/perl perl-Server-Starter.noarch: W: doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/perl-Server-Starter-0.09/start_server perl(Pod::Usage) perl-Server-Starter.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Superdaemon -> Super daemon, Super-daemon, Superdominant perl-Server-Starter.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US superdaemon -> super daemon, super-daemon, superdominant perl-Server-Starter.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US commenctions -> commendations, commensuration, commendation perl-Server-Starter.src:67: E: files-attr-not-set perl-Server-Starter.src:68: E: files-attr-not-set perl-Server-Starter-start_server.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C perl-Server-Starter start_server script - final provides and requires are sane: $ rpm -qp --provides perl-Server-Starter-0.09-2.fc15.noarch.rpm perl(Server::Starter) = 0.09 perl-Server-Starter = 0.09-2.fc15 $ rpm -qp --provides perl-Server-Starter-start_server-0.09-2.fc15.noarch.rpm perl-Server-Starter-start_server = 0.09-2.fc15 = $ rpm -qp --requires perl-Server-Starter-0.09-2.fc15.noarch.rpm /usr/bin/perl perl >= 0:5.008 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.12.2) perl(Carp) perl(Exporter) perl(Fcntl) perl(Getopt::Long) perl(IO::Handle) perl(IO::Socket::INET) perl(List::MoreUtils) perl(POSIX) perl(Pod::Usage) perl(Proc::Wait3) perl(Scope::Guard) perl(Server::Starter) perl(strict) perl(warnings) $ rpm -qp --requires ./perl-Server-Starter-start_server-0.09-2.fc15.noarch.rpm |sort perl(Getopt::Long) perl(Pod::Usage) perl(Server::Starter) perl(strict) perl(warnings) + %check is present and all tests pass. PERL_DL_NONLAZY=1 /usr/bin/perl "-MExtUtils::Command::MM" "-e" "test_harness(0, 'inc', 'blib/lib', 'blib/arch')" t/00-base.t t/01-starter.t t/02-startfail.t t/00-base.t ... ok start_server (pid:24883) starting now... starting new worker 24886 received HUP, spawning a new worker starting new worker 25823 new worker is now running, sending TERM to old workers:24886 old worker 24886 died, status:0 received TERM, sending TERM to all workers:25823 worker 25823 died, status:0 exitting start_server (pid:30769) starting now... starting new worker 30770 received HUP, spawning a new worker starting new worker 32375 new worker is now running, sending USR1 to old workers:30770 old worker 30770 died, status:0 received TERM, sending TERM to all workers:32375 worker 32375 died, status:0 exitting t/01-starter.t ok start_server (pid:5389) starting now... starting new worker 5390 new worker 5390 seems to have failed to start, exit status:256 starting new worker 5690 received HUP, spawning a new worker star
[Bug 669874] Review Request: perl-Sub-Exporter-GlobExporter - Export shared globs with Sub::Exporter collectors
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=669874 Iain Arnell changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #8 from Iain Arnell 2011-01-19 22:57:35 EST --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: perl-Sub-Exporter-GlobExporter Short Description: Export shared globs with Sub::Exporter collectors Owners: iarnell Branches: f13 f14 InitialCC: perl-sig -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 670090] Review Request: bicon - Bidirectional Console
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=670090 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System 2011-01-19 22:49:53 EST --- bicon-0.2.0-1.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/bicon-0.2.0-1.fc14 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 670090] Review Request: bicon - Bidirectional Console
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=670090 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System 2011-01-19 22:50:00 EST --- bicon-0.2.0-1.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/bicon-0.2.0-1.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 552113] Review Request: libwiiuse - library to use wiiremotes via bluetooth
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=552113 Jason Tibbitts changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #20 from Jason Tibbitts 2011-01-19 22:21:12 EST --- OK, these install and the rpmlint complaints are no more. Looks good to me. 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 670090] Review Request: bicon - Bidirectional Console
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=670090 fujiwara changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED --- Comment #8 from fujiwara 2011-01-19 22:22:40 EST --- http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=214933 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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
--- Comment #13 from Volker Fröhlich 2011-01-19 21:57:59 EST
---
Here we go:
The original drupal package has a provide called drupal6. As the cck spec file
only requires drupal6, that won't work properly. If you only decide to update
cck, but leave drupal as it is, the update will run and install cck into
/usr/share/drupal6. I assume it would also delete the original module from
/usr/share/drupal.
The way out might be declaring an epoch in the drupal6 package and require that
in cck.
By the way, there is a new version of cck!
If you can find the time, please align the columns!
drupal6.spec
...
Epoch: 1
Obsoletes: drupal <= 6.20
...
drupal6-cck.spec
...
Requires: drupal6 >= 2:6.20
Obsoletes: drupal-cck <= 6.x.2.8
...
Please also notice the operator <= instead of >=! The operators are also wrong
in the other renamed packages, I think.
Please always write detailed changelogs for the spec file.
The review so far:
[+] Good
[x] Needs work
[0] Does not apply
MUST:
=
[+] Naming according to the Package Naming Guidelines
[+] Spec file matches base package name
[x] Packaging guidelines met: See comments on obsoletes
[+] License approved for Fedora
[+] License field in spec matches
[+] License file included, if source package includes it
[+] Spec in American English
[+] Spec is legible (but please align!)
[+] Sources match upstream md5sum: b4ee90587dacefcb290f7f9bbf49ea40
[+] Builds into binary RPMs on at least one primary architecture:
[0] ExcludeArch is specified and commented:
[0] All build dependencies listed
[0] Calls ldconfig for its shared libraries:
[0] No bundled system libraries
[0] Stated as relocatable package
[+] Owns all its directories or requires package that does
[+] No file listing duplicates
[+] File permissions correct
[+] Consistent use of macros
[+] Code or permissible content
[0] Large documentation in -doc subpackage
[+] No runtime dependency of files listed as %doc
[0] Header files in -devel subpackage
[0] Static files in -static subpackage
[0] Library files without suffix in -devel subpackage
[0] Devel-package requires base package
[0] No .la libtool archives
[0] GUI application includes properly installed %{name}.desktop file
[0] No files or directories owned, that other packages own
[+] Filenames in packages are UTF-8
SHOULD:
===
[0] Query upstream if no license text is included
[+] Package builds in mock: (tested fedora-rawhide-x86_64)
[0] Scriptlets are sane, if used
[0] Subpackages other than -devel should require base package (versioned)
[0] pkgconfig files in -devel subpackage
[0] Dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider
requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself
[0] Contain man pages, where they make sense
I didn't try whether it works, but can't see a reason why it shouldn't.
MISSING
===
[] rpmlint: (will run it on the final file):
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 669874] Review Request: perl-Sub-Exporter-GlobExporter - Export shared globs with Sub::Exporter collectors
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=669874 --- Comment #7 from Jason Tibbitts 2011-01-19 21:05:39 EST --- Yeah, it switches the state to "ASSIGNED" but doesn't actually assign the ticket. And conversely, using the "take" link at the top doesn't change the state from "NEW". I'm sure there's a reason for all of that, but I certainly can't figure out what it might be. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 669874] Review Request: perl-Sub-Exporter-GlobExporter - Export shared globs with Sub::Exporter collectors
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=669874 Ralf Corsepius changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|rc040...@freenet.de --- Comment #6 from Ralf Corsepius 2011-01-19 20:42:55 EST --- (In reply to comment #5) > This ticket is not assigned to anyone. Interesting - Apparently assigning by using the "assign" button on the bottom of the bugzilla form doesn't work. Seems as if assigning requires to utilize the "assign (take)" button on top of the form ;) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 517191] Review Request: php-symfony-symfony - Open-Source PHP Web Framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=517191 Jason Tibbitts changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #31 from Jason Tibbitts 2011-01-19 20:34:47 EST --- Note that the SRPM URL is incorrect; seems it was built on f14 so the s/13/14/. Everything looks good to me; building is much quieter due to the timezone fix though I still get some of those when installing (though I'm not sure that's fixable, and at least some of it is coming from the dependencies). The source also matches what's downloaded: 58f71c2b8f7e72573a25d67f2b9af7af5536f873a98e8e74d9b6a8e9dddbe458 symfony-1.4.8.tgz though I can't help but comment on the complete insanity of having multiple tarballs named the same. How do you know if the one you downloaded was trojaned somehow? Would they even notice? Anyway, upstream stupidity aside, this package looks good. 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 671030] Review Request: dogtag-pki-theme - Certificate System, Dogtag PKI Theme Components
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=671030 Kevin Wright changed: What|Removed |Added CC||panem...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Kevin Wright 2011-01-19 20:31:45 EST --- Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/~kwright/dogtag-pki-theme/dogtag-pki-theme.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/~kwright/dogtag-pki-theme/dogtag-pki-theme-9.0.0-1.fc13.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 --- Comment #12 from Volker Fröhlich 2011-01-19 20:19:58 EST --- I just wrote you an e-mail. I fear that all Provides/Obsoletes in the renamed packages are wrong. Even in the base 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 574586] Review Request: python26-psycopg2 : psycopg2 Postgres client code for python26 on EPEL5
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=574586 --- Comment #4 from Jason Tibbitts 2011-01-19 20:14:17 EST --- Any update here? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 513320] Review Request: boxbackup - A fast, secure and automatic online backup 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=513320 --- Comment #22 from Jason Tibbitts 2011-01-19 20:13:55 EST --- Any update here? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 --- Comment #11 from Paul W. Frields 2011-01-19 20:11:19 EST --- Awesome. I've finished the reviews for all the other pending blockers on our InsightReviews tracker, so much appreciated for taking this one on Volker. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 669509] Review Request: drupal6-rules - It allows site administrators to define conditionally executed actions
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=669509
Paul W. Frields changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Paul W. Frields 2011-01-19 20:10:33
EST ---
[ O K ] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted
in the review.
$ rpmlint rpmbuild/SPECS/drupal6-rules.spec
rpmbuild/SRPMS/drupal6-rules-1.4-2.fc14.src.rpm
rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/drupal6-rules-1.4-2.fc14.noarch.rpm
drupal6-rules.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US workflow -> work
flow, work-flow, workfare
drupal6-rules.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ng -> mg, n, g
drupal6-rules.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US workflow -> work
flow, work-flow, workfare
drupal6-rules.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ng -> mg, n, g
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
All these spelling warnings can be ignored.
[ O K ] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming
Guidelines.
[ O K ] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the
format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
[ O K ] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[ O K ] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and
meet the Licensing Guidelines.
[ O K ] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[ O K ] 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.
[ O K ] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[ O K ] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[ O K ] 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 rpmbuild/SOURCES/drupal6-rules-1.4/rules-6.x-1.4.tar.gz ; curl -s -o -
http://ftp.drupal.org/files/projects/rules-6.x-1.4.tar.gz | md5sum
-00d7543f88421950f5b123bf09a7008c
rpmbuild/SOURCES/drupal6-rules-1.4/rules-6.x-1.4.tar.gz
00d7543f88421950f5b123bf09a7008c -
[ O K ] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms
on at least one primary architecture.
[ O K ] 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.
[ O K ] 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.
[ O K ] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using
the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
[ N/A ] 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.
[ O K ] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[ N/A ] 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.
[ O K ] 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.
[ O K ] 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)
[ O K ] 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.
[ O K ] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[ O K ] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[ N/A ] 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).
[ O K ] 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
[Bug 669327] Review Request: drupal6-views_bulk_operations - This module augments Views by allowing bulk operations to be executed
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=669327
Paul W. Frields changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Paul W. Frields 2011-01-19 20:03:09
EST ---
[ O K ] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted
in the review.
$ rpmlint rpmbuild/SPECS/drupal6-views_bulk_operations.spec
rpmbuild/SRPMS/drupal6-views_bulk_operations-1.10-2.fc14.src.rpm
rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/drupal6-views_bulk_operations-1.10-2.fc14.noarch.rpm
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[ O K ] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming
Guidelines.
[ O K ] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the
format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
[ O K ] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[ O K ] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and
meet the Licensing Guidelines.
[ O K ] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[ O K ] 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.
[ O K ] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[ O K ] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[ O K ] 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
rpmbuild/SOURCES/drupal6-views_bulk_operations-1.10/views_bulk_operations-6.x-1.10.tar.gz
; curl -s -o -
http://ftp.drupal.org/files/projects/views_bulk_operations-6.x-1.10.tar.gz |
md5sum -
dbe3f88c08acdbb50fda331e496bfc3e
rpmbuild/SOURCES/drupal6-views_bulk_operations-1.10/views_bulk_operations-6.x-1.10.tar.gz
dbe3f88c08acdbb50fda331e496bfc3e -
[ O K ] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms
on at least one primary architecture.
[ N/A ] 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.
[ O K ] 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.
[ O K ] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using
the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
[ N/A ] 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.
[ O K ] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[ N/A ] 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.
[ O K ] 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.
[ O K ] 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)
[ O K ] 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.
[ O K ] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[ O K ] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[ N/A ] 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).
[ O K ] 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.
[ N/A ] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[ N/A ] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[ N/A ] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g.
libfoo.so.1.1), then library files tha
[Bug 653805] Review Request: drupal6-ctools - This suite is primarily a set of APIs and tools to improve the developer experience.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=653805
Paul W. Frields changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Comment #18 from Paul W. Frields 2011-01-19 19:46:33
EST ---
[ O K ] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted
in the review.
$ rpmlint rpmbuild/SPECS/drupal6-ctools.spec
rpmbuild/SRPMS/drupal6-ctools-1.8-3.fc14.src.rpm
rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/drupal6-ctools-1.8-3.fc14.noarch.rpm
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[ O K ] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming
Guidelines.
[ O K ] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the
format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
[ O K ] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[ O K ] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and
meet the Licensing Guidelines.
[ O K ] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[ O K ] 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.
[ O K ] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[ O K ] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[ O K ] 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 rpmbuild/SOURCES/drupal6-ctools-1.8/ctools-6.x-1.8.tar.gz ; curl -s -o
- http://ftp.drupal.org/files/projects/ctools-6.x-1.8.tar.gz | md5sum -
d05eae72c6c93a9e8a4aeba9da5c20c6
rpmbuild/SOURCES/drupal6-ctools-1.8/ctools-6.x-1.8.tar.gz
d05eae72c6c93a9e8a4aeba9da5c20c6 -
[ O K ] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms
on at least one primary architecture.
[ N/A ] 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.
[ O K ] 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.
[ O K ] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using
the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
[ N/A ] 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.
[ O K ] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[ N/A ] 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.
[ O K ] 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.
[ O K ] 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)
[ O K ] 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.
[ O K ] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[ O K ] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[ N/A ] 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).
[ O K ] 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.
[ N/A ] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[ N/A ] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[ N/A ] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g.
libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in
a -devel package.
[ N/A ] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must
[Bug 634911] Review Request: nodejs - Evented I/O for v8 JavaScript
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=634911 --- Comment #13 from Patrice FERLET 2011-01-19 19:43:29 EST --- Excuse me to ping again... I am in discussion with node.js admins and devs. This is a new package proposition I can make with recomandations. Note that there is a last correction to make: every python files have shebangs but this is not a good deal while they are mainly imported from 2 python scripts (rpmlint is clear, I have to remove shebangs) I am speaking about this with the nodejs Mailing List. Note: "node" name is already taken for another package. The better name to use is "nodejs" or "node-js" Spec file and src.rpm: http://www.metal3d.org/rpms/nodejs.spec http://www.metal3d.org/rpms/nodejs-0.2.6-3.fc14.src.rpm If someone is following this ticket, please answer :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 470696] Review Request: rubygem-passenger - Passenger Ruby on Rails deployment 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=470696 --- Comment #82 from Jason Tibbitts 2011-01-19 19:27:28 EST --- The instructions are at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries Please be sure you answer all of the questions presented there. It is wise to avoid hyperbole such as "Fedora is going down the drain". -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 470696] Review Request: rubygem-passenger - Passenger Ruby on Rails deployment 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=470696 --- Comment #81 from cpg 2011-01-19 19:22:16 EST --- Who has the technology to "put in a request to the FPC to grant an exception for this package to bundle libraries" ? Can I do it, if so can someone explain how? Things are getting to the point that Fedora is going down the drain ... we cannot even purchase VPS servers with Fedora on them due to the lack of long term support, fast cycles and lack of proper support for things like RoR, in most part due to this very issue with passenger. Thanks the unwise people upstream that are dragging their feet. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 Paul W. Frields changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #13 from Paul W. Frields 2011-01-19 19:17:52 EST --- $ rpmlint rpmbuild/SPECS/drupal6-views.spec rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/drupal6-views-2.12-1.fc14.noarch.rpm rpmbuild/SRPMS/drupal6-views-2.12-1.fc14.src.rpm drupal6-views.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided drupal-views drupal6-views.src: W: strange-permission views-6.x-2.12.tar.gz 0444L 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Writing this for posterity... Our renaming is meant to migrate toward parallel installable drupal 6/7. It would probably be unsafe to provide drupal-views=6.x.2.12 because that would confuse (and drag in the whole D6 stack) for a user who has drupal7 installed and then mistakenly tries to 'yum install drupal-views' instead of 'yum install drupal7-views'. It's safer to ignore the first warning I think. The second warning can be safely ignored -- the FIX notation above is mistaking permissions on the tarball for permissions on the installed files. * * * $ md5sum rpmbuild/SOURCES/drupal6-views-2.12/views-6.x-2.12.tar.gz ; curl -s -o - http://ftp.drupal.org/files/projects/views-6.x-2.12.tar.gz | md5sum - 2b666d68e8566f14b85cf546d643e3e5 rpmbuild/SOURCES/drupal6-views-2.12/views-6.x-2.12.tar.gz 2b666d68e8566f14b85cf546d643e3e5 - * * * Build is successful (makes noarch on x86_64). 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 470696] Review Request: rubygem-passenger - Passenger Ruby on Rails deployment 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=470696 Jason Tibbitts changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||658489(FE-BUNDLEDLIBS) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 470696] Review Request: rubygem-passenger - Passenger Ruby on Rails deployment 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=470696 Bernie Innocenti changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ber...@codewiz.org --- Comment #79 from Bernie Innocenti 2011-01-19 18:41:24 EST --- Can someone please clarify why this review is stuck? Does the packager need to take action? Or does the reviewer need to analyze again the package after the licencing issue has been resolved? Thanks, -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 656084] Review Request: perl-CDB_File - Perl extension for access to cdb databases
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=656084 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System 2011-01-19 19:07:56 EST --- perl-CDB_File-0.96-2.el4 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 4. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-CDB_File-0.96-2.el4 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 656084] Review Request: perl-CDB_File - Perl extension for access to cdb databases
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=656084 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System 2011-01-19 19:07:49 EST --- perl-CDB_File-0.96-2.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-CDB_File-0.96-2.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 656084] Review Request: perl-CDB_File - Perl extension for access to cdb databases
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=656084 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System 2011-01-19 19:07:29 EST --- perl-CDB_File-0.96-2.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-CDB_File-0.96-2.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 656084] Review Request: perl-CDB_File - Perl extension for access to cdb databases
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=656084 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System 2011-01-19 19:07:43 EST --- perl-CDB_File-0.96-2.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-CDB_File-0.96-2.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 656084] Review Request: perl-CDB_File - Perl extension for access to cdb databases
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=656084 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System 2011-01-19 19:07:36 EST --- perl-CDB_File-0.96-2.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-CDB_File-0.96-2.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 656084] Review Request: perl-CDB_File - Perl extension for access to cdb databases
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=656084 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 470696] Review Request: rubygem-passenger - Passenger Ruby on Rails deployment 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=470696 Nick Bebout changed: What|Removed |Added CC||n...@fedoraproject.org Blocks||182235(FE-Legal) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 663244] Review Request: CUnit - A unit testing framework for C
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=663244 --- Comment #8 from Shakthi Kannan 2011-01-19 18:56:11 EST --- $ rpmlint ../SRPMS/CUnit-2.1_2-4.fc14.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 663244] Review Request: CUnit - A unit testing framework for C
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=663244
--- Comment #7 from Shakthi Kannan 2011-01-19 18:54:40
EST ---
Thanks for your wondeful feedback!
- Updated to license LGPLv2+. I checked the COPYING file for LGPLv2 and hence
had used it. The code mentions also higher versions.
- Changed to use BuildRoot.
- Added comments for inclusion of patches.
- Removed inconsistent macro usage.
- Moved man page, HTML documentation to devel package.
- Added AUTHORS, COPYING, README, TODO to doc in base package.
- Used * in man, library inclusion.
I haven't changed Source0 because I get a 404 error if I use Source0 as:
http://downloads.sourceforge.net/%{name}/%{name}-2.1-2-src.tar.bz2
I have pushed the patches upstream for inclusion in the project repo, and
retaining it in the .spec file since rpmlint warns about calling exit()
function in a library.
SPEC: http://shakthimaan.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/CUnit.spec
SRPM: http://shakthimaan.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/CUnit-2.1_2-4.fc14.src.rpm
$ rpmlint CUnit.spec
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
$ rpmlint CUnit-2.1_2-4.fc14.i686.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
$ rpmlint CUnit-devel-2.1_2-4.fc14.i686.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Successful Koji builds for F-13, F-14, EL-6 respectively:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2732327
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2732331
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2732336
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 470696] Review Request: rubygem-passenger - Passenger Ruby on Rails deployment 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=470696 --- Comment #80 from Toshio Ernie Kuratomi 2011-01-19 18:57:06 EST --- The package contains a bundled library and upstream is unwilling to have it unbundled and still use the passenger trademark. No one has put in a request to the FPC to grant an exception for this package to bundle libraries so that's still a possibility to resolve the bundled library issue but there doesn't seem to be any good exception material here so I'm unsure that it would pass. Another option would be to fork the code and unbundle using a non-trademarked name. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 671030] New: Review Request: dogtag-pki-theme - Certificate System, Dogtag PKI Theme Components
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: dogtag-pki-theme - Certificate System, Dogtag PKI Theme Components https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=671030 Summary: Review Request: dogtag-pki-theme - Certificate System, Dogtag PKI Theme Components Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: Unspecified OS/Version: Unspecified Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: kwri...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Blocks: 520534 Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Target Release: --- Need to get dogtag-pki-theme built in koji. Summary: Certificate System - Dogtag PKI Theme 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 670354] Review Request: perl-String-Similarity - Calculates the similarity of two strings
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=670354 --- Comment #4 from Ruediger Landmann 2011-01-19 18:05:28 EST --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: perl-String-Similarity Short Description: Calculates the similarity of two strings Owners: rlandmann Branches: f13 f14 InitialCC: perl-sig -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 671024] Review Request: wallpaperd - Background setter supporting random images and per-workspace images
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=671024 Mohamed El Morabity changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||pikachu.2...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|pikachu.2...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Mohamed El Morabity 2011-01-19 18:01:38 EST --- I will review 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 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 Jason Tibbitts changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ti...@math.uh.edu --- Comment #8 from Jason Tibbitts 2011-01-19 17:59:25 EST --- I will work through a couple of your submissions, though it may take me a little while. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 Jason Tibbitts changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ti...@math.uh.edu -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 667416] Review Request: util-linux
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=667416 Karel Zak changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2011-01-19 17:54:10 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 671024] New: Review Request: wallpaperd - Background setter supporting random images and per-workspace images
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: wallpaperd - Background setter supporting random images and per-workspace images https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=671024 Summary: Review Request: wallpaperd - Background setter supporting random images and per-workspace images Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: gra...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec: http://skytux.fedorapeople.org/packages/wallpaperd.spec SRPM: http://skytux.fedorapeople.org/packages/wallpaperd-0.2.0-1.fc14.src.rpm Description: Wallpaperd is a small application that takes care of setting the background image. Wallpaperd was created due to a friend requesting to have different wallpapers on the different workspaces in Pekwm. Wallpaperd now supports: * Changing wallpaper on workspace change. * Changing wallpaper every X amount of time. * Changing wallpaper based on a GNOME background.xml file. * Support for specifying centered, zoomed, tiled and fill image modes. * Selecting wallpaper based on workspace number. * Selecting wallpaper based on workspace name. * RANDR support setting the wallpaper on each screen. * RANDR support re-setting the wallpaper on screen resolution changes. * Setting background Atom hint. rpmlint output: Checking RPM package (wallpaperd-0.2.0-1.fc14.i686.rpm) wallpaperd.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xml -> XML, cml, ml wallpaperd.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary wallpaperd 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Checking SPEC file (wallpaperd.spec) -- 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Checking SRPM package (wallpaperd-0.2.0-1.fc14.src.rpm) - wallpaperd.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xml -> XML, cml, ml 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. koji builds from scratch: F13: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2732226 F14: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2732252 F15: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2732269 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 597596] Review Request: alsa-patch-bay - Simple GUI for ALSA sequencers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=597596 Jason Tibbitts changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Blocks|177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |201449(FE-DEADREVIEW) Resolution||NOTABUG Status Whiteboard|StalledSubmitter| Last Closed||2011-01-19 17:50:30 --- Comment #6 from Jason Tibbitts 2011-01-19 17:50:30 EST --- No response in two months; closing. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 600517] Review Request: R-coda - coda: Output analysis and diagnostics for MCMC
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=600517 Jason Tibbitts changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Blocks|177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |201449(FE-DEADREVIEW) Resolution||NOTABUG Status Whiteboard|StalledSubmitter| Last Closed||2011-01-19 17:47:32 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 600529] Review Request: R-rjags - Bayesian graphical models using MCMC
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=600529 Jason Tibbitts changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Blocks|177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |201449(FE-DEADREVIEW) Resolution||NOTABUG Last Closed||2011-01-19 17:47:51 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 629324] Review Request: python-zc-buildout - System for managing development buildouts
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=629324
--- Comment #2 from Jason Tibbitts 2011-01-19 17:28:36 EST
---
Are you sure this shouldn't be named python-zc.buildout? (I'm not sure myself;
the egg is named with a ot but I'm not sure how you import the package.)
The current version seems to be 1.5.2.
Source0: http://pypi.python.org/packages/source/%(echo %{modname} | sed -r
's|^(.).*|\1|')/%{modname}/%{modname}-%{version}.tar.gz
Is that really better than just dispensing with the macros? At least, just
using 'z' seems significantly shorter and it's closer to being readable as
well.
Also, there's no point in keeping anything for F12's sake as F12 is no longer
supported.
What are the txt files doing down with the python source files? They look like
documentation.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 598688] Review Request: archivemount - FUSE based filesystem for mounting compressed archives
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=598688 Tomas Mraz changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|tm...@redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 655599] Review Request: remmina-plugins - Plugins for Remmina Remote Desktop Client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=655599 --- Comment #14 from Jason Tibbitts 2011-01-19 16:59:08 EST --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 668836] Review Request: ipa-pki-theme - Certificate System, IPA PKI Theme Components
Please do not reply directly 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 #8 from Jason Tibbitts 2011-01-19 17:00:03 EST --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 655496] Review Request: cambozola - A viewer for multipart jpeg streams
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=655496 --- Comment #11 from Jason Tibbitts 2011-01-19 16:58:53 EST --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 598688] Review Request: archivemount - FUSE based filesystem for mounting compressed archives
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=598688 --- Comment #18 from Jason Tibbitts 2011-01-19 16:58:37 EST --- This ticket is not assigned to anyone. Please fix and re-raise the fedora-cvs flag. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 669874] Review Request: perl-Sub-Exporter-GlobExporter - Export shared globs with Sub::Exporter collectors
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=669874 --- Comment #5 from Jason Tibbitts 2011-01-19 17:00:28 EST --- This ticket is not assigned to anyone. Please fix and re-raise the fedora-cvs flag. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 664963] Rename Request: libmcs - Configuration file abstraction 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=664963 --- Comment #6 from Jason Tibbitts 2011-01-19 16:59:45 EST --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 253757] Review Request: tesseract-langpack - Langpacks for tesseract
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=253757 --- Comment #9 from Jason Tibbitts 2011-01-19 16:57:04 EST --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 418671] Review Request: ruby-libvirt - Ruby bindings for libvirt
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=418671 --- Comment #8 from Jason Tibbitts 2011-01-19 16:58:14 EST --- EL-5 and EL-6 branches already exist for 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 226190] Merge Review: netatalk
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226190 --- Comment #19 from Jason Tibbitts 2011-01-19 16:56:50 EST --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact 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 --- Comment #20 from Jason Tibbitts 2011-01-19 16:56:30 EST --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 253757] Review Request: tesseract-langpack - Langpacks for tesseract
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=253757 Karol Trzcionka changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #8 from Karol Trzcionka 2011-01-19 16:47:03 EST --- Package Change Request == Package Name: tesseract-langpack New Branches: el6 Owners: karlik cassmodiah -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 664963] Rename Request: libmcs - Configuration file abstraction 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=664963 Michael Schwendt changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Michael Schwendt 2011-01-19 16:41:57 EST --- Thank you very much, Martin! I will add the doxygen stuff (already have it added to my local copy). New Package SCM Request === Package Name: libmcs Short Description: Configuration file abstraction library Owners: mschwendt 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 253757] Review Request: tesseract-langpack - Langpacks for tesseract
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=253757 Simon Wesp changed: What|Removed |Added CC||cassmod...@fedoraproject.or ||g --- Comment #7 from Simon Wesp 2011-01-19 16:33:48 EST --- Karol, please add a SCM request for EL-6 as well like in tesseract. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=220979#c19 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 655599] Review Request: remmina-plugins - Plugins for Remmina Remote Desktop Client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=655599 Christoph Wickert changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #13 from Christoph Wickert 2011-01-19 16:26:05 EST --- OK, the bundled library thing was resolved. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: remmina-plugins Short Description: Plugins for Remmina Remote Desktop Client Owners: cwickert Branches: 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 670999] Review Request: perl-MongoDB - Database driver
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=670999 Michal Ingeli changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||670997 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 670997] Review Request: perl-Data-Type - Validate and convert data types
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=670997 Michal Ingeli changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||670999 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 670999] New: Review Request: perl-MongoDB - Database driver
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: perl-MongoDB - Database driver https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=670999 Summary: Review Request: perl-MongoDB - Database driver Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: m...@v3.sk QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://v3.sk/~xyzz/rpm/perl-MongoDB.spec SRPM URL: http://v3.sk/~xyzz/rpm/perl-MongoDB-0.41-1.fc14.src.rpm Description: The perl database access module for MongoDB. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 612768] Review Request: holland - Pluggable Backup Framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=612768 BJ Dierkes changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed||2011-01-19 16:17:25 --- Comment #10 from BJ Dierkes 2011-01-19 16:17:25 EST --- This was already pushed to Fedora/EPEL stable, though forgot to link the bug to bodhi. Closing. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 670997] New: Review Request: perl-Data-Type - Validate and convert data types
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: perl-Data-Type - Validate and convert data types https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=670997 Summary: Review Request: perl-Data-Type - Validate and convert data types Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: m...@v3.sk QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://v3.sk/~xyzz/rpm/perl-Data-Types.spec SRPM URL: http://v3.sk/~xyzz/rpm/perl-Data-Types-0.08-1.fc14.src.rpm Description: This module exports a number of functions that are useful for validating and converting data types. It is intended for use in applications where data types are more important than they typically are in Perl -- e.g., database applications. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 670997] Review Request: perl-Data-Type - Validate and convert data types
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=670997 --- Comment #1 from Michal Ingeli 2011-01-19 16:13:38 EST --- Builds in koji [1], rpmlint silent. [1] http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2732130 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 669869] Review Request: perl-Convert-Bencode - Functions for converting to/from bencoded strings
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=669869 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System 2011-01-19 16:03:45 EST --- perl-Convert-Bencode-1.03-1.fc13 has been pushed to the Fedora 13 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 perl-Convert-Bencode'. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Convert-Bencode-1.03-1.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 669872] Review Request: perl-Convert-Bencode_XS - Faster conversions to/from Bencode 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=669872 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System 2011-01-19 16:02:50 EST --- perl-Convert-Bencode_XS-0.06-1.fc13 has been pushed to the Fedora 13 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 perl-Convert-Bencode_XS'. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Convert-Bencode_XS-0.06-1.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 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 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System 2011-01-19 16:02:55 EST --- rubygem-boxgrinder-build-ebs-delivery-plugin-0.0.4-1.fc14 has been pushed to the Fedora 14 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 rubygem-boxgrinder-build-ebs-delivery-plugin'. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rubygem-boxgrinder-build-ebs-delivery-plugin-0.0.4-1.fc14 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System 2011-01-19 16:00:59 EST --- rubygem-boxgrinder-build-s3-delivery-plugin-0.0.5-2.fc14 has been pushed to the Fedora 14 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 rubygem-boxgrinder-build-s3-delivery-plugin'. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rubygem-boxgrinder-build-s3-delivery-plugin-0.0.5-2.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 592772] Review Request: drobo-utils - Utilities for managing Drobo storage systems
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=592772 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System 2011-01-19 16:02:29 EST --- drobo-utils-0.6.2.2-9.fc14 has been pushed to the Fedora 14 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 drobo-utils'. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/drobo-utils-0.6.2.2-9.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 669868] Review Request: perl-Bencode - BitTorrent serialization 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=669868 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System 2011-01-19 16:01:14 EST --- perl-Bencode-1.4-1.fc13 has been pushed to the Fedora 13 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 perl-Bencode'. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Bencode-1.4-1.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 532402] Review Request: APF - Advanced Policy Firewall
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=532402 Jason Tibbitts changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Blocks||201449(FE-DEADREVIEW) Resolution||NOTABUG Last Closed||2011-01-19 15:48:12 --- Comment #13 from Jason Tibbitts 2011-01-19 15:48:12 EST --- No problem, I'll close this out. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 670860] Review Request: trytond-modules - Modules for Tryton
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=670860 Jason Tibbitts changed: What|Removed |Added Status Whiteboard||NotReady -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 Karol Trzcionka changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|needinfo?(karl...@gmail.com |fedora-cvs? |), fedora-cvs+ | --- Comment #19 from Karol Trzcionka 2011-01-19 15:21:01 EST --- Package Change Request == Package Name: tesseract New Branches: el6 Owners: karlik cassmodiah -- 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 641271] Review Request: openerp-client - Open Source ERP Client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=641271 --- Comment #10 from Andrea V. 2011-01-19 13:49:28 EST --- It seems to me that in the development version Openerp-*-6.0-rc2 the licence problem has been solved, at the moment I'm not able to package it so I hope that someone will look at the integration of this software... thanks -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 665168] Review Request: nautilus-sendto-trac - Nautilus context menu for sending files to Trac
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=665168 --- Comment #7 from Mat Booth 2011-01-19 13:51:10 EST --- Spec URL: http://mbooth.fedorapeople.org/reviews/nautilus-sendto-trac.spec SRPM URL: http://mbooth.fedorapeople.org/reviews/nautilus-sendto-trac-0.3.1-2.fc14.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 660617] Review Request: ghc-process-leksah - A library for dealing with system processes in leksah
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=660617 --- Comment #3 from Lakshmi Narasimhan 2011-01-19 13:14:22 EST --- Fedora 14: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2731847 EPEL 6: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2731854 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 660617] Review Request: ghc-process-leksah - A library for dealing with system processes in leksah
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=660617 Lakshmi Narasimhan changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |ghc-process-leksah - A |ghc-process-leksah - A |package libraries for |library for dealing with |dealing with system |system processes in leksah |processes in leksah | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 652987] Review Request: go - The Go programming language
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652987 Tom "spot" Callaway changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|182235(FE-Legal)| --- Comment #11 from Tom "spot" Callaway 2011-01-19 12:22:52 EST --- Lifting FE-Legal -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 668863] Review Request: dolphin-connector - Simple MySQL C API wrapper for C++
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=668863 --- Comment #9 from Pierre-YvesChibon 2011-01-19 12:22:05 EST --- (In reply to comment #8) > (In reply to comment #7) > > (In reply to comment #2) > > > Pierre-Yves: if you are reviewing, please set the fedora review flag to ? > > > and > > > the bug status to ASSIGNED. > > > > I normally do that when I am actually doing the review, here I only looked > > at > > the spec and the flag question. > > are you going to review? That was my idea, unless somebody takes it. But I wanted to learn first about the flag question. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 226190] Merge Review: netatalk
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226190 --- Comment #18 from Steffan 2011-01-19 12:14:09 EST --- Forgive my ignorance of process, but, where does it go from here? Is it a complete build and package or is it some kind of simple addition to another repo? -- 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
