[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 #83 from Hongli Lai 2011-01-20 03:12:03 EST --- cpg, we now provide third party packages so I believe it's no longer necessary for Fedora to ship Phusion Passenger. Our packages are updated very quickly against official releases too. http://blog.phusion.nl/2011/01/04/phusion-passenger-native-packages-for-redhatfedoracentos/ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 651613] Review Request: haddock - Haskell documentation tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=651613 Jens Petersen changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #8 from Jens Petersen 2011-01-20 03:20:46 EST --- (In reply to comment #6) > [!] MUST: Licensing Guidelines > > Need license in ghc-haddock too. > > Actually this is kind of a ghc-rpm-macros bug/rfe, > so I will see if I can improve it. Sorry this fine in the f14 build and is purely a f15 rawhide regression in ghc-rpm-macros. I would suggest building first for f14 (and f13) until it is clearer how we will do leksah for ghc-7.0.1. Package is APPROVED. Please apply the above patch, before building. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 619355] Review Request: python26-numpy - A fast multidimensional array facility for Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=619355 --- Comment #6 from Steve Traylen 2011-01-20 03:29:17 EST --- Hi Kevin, if you have time to comment that would be great. Steve. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 #14 from Sven Lankes 2011-01-20 03:32:30 EST --- (In reply to comment #13) > 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. The plan is to update the modules and the drupal package at the same time. Also this rename is only for rawhide. There shouldn't be a need for an epoch. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 #12 from Fabio Massimo Di Nitto 2011-01-20 03:28:39 EST --- (In reply to comment #11) > (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. -O2 has changed in time as -O3 did. IME the only real safe option is to disable -O all together (yes I have been hitted several times by -O2 breakage in the past), and this is becoming a very academical discussion as it is clearly senseless to go -O0. If a piece of software is less performant with -O2 (see some crypto implementation for example), with such strong policy in place (the way you interpret it), will make Fedora a distribution I wouldn´t want to see that software distributed. -g is used only to generate debugging information with gdb3 increasing the compatibility of the debugging info with gdb. It shouldn´t have any effect on the final code being executed once the exec is stripped. hardly an issue here. > > => Consistent usage of these flags is vital to a distribution. > > Openly said, I wonder why I have to explain this. I am not asking you to repeat yourself. I am asking you to point me where in the Policy it states that flags *MUST* be treated the way you are suggesting. "Adding to and overriding or filtering parts of these flags is permitted if there's a good reason to do so; the rationale for doing so should be reviewed and documented in the specfile especially in the override and filter cases." What part of "is permitted" am I misinterpreting? > > > > > > > > > > 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. See, I have already fixed several upstreams to behave exactly this way (ship all autogenerated files etc), as I share this exact concerns (including the upstream that libqb used as source for this first upstream cut. libqb hasn´t catch up yet but I know that will happen at somepoint). My point is that from a spec/package review process (since this is what we are doing here), none of the Fedora Policies in place do enforce one way or another. Taking those policy fight on a review is not the right forum or place. Trying to "exploit" a review to leverage a policy change is IMHO not the right way. Fabio -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 670164] Review Request: sonatype-oss-parent - Sonatype OSS Parent
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=670164 --- Comment #3 from Stanislav Ochotnicky 2011-01-20 04:00:12 EST --- * Thu Jan 20 2011 Stanislav Ochotnicky - 6-1 - Update to latest version that includes the license header Spec URL: http://sochotni.fedorapeople.org/packages/sonatype-oss-parent.spec SRPM URL: http://sochotni.fedorapeople.org/packages/sonatype-oss-parent-6-1.fc14.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 671079] New: Review Request: sblim-smis-hba - SBLIM SMIS HBA HDR Providers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: sblim-smis-hba - SBLIM SMIS HBA HDR Providers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=671079 Summary: Review Request: sblim-smis-hba - SBLIM SMIS HBA HDR Providers Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: vcrho...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Target Release: --- Spec URL: http://vcrhonek.fedorapeople.org/sblim-smis-hba/sblim-smis-hba.spec SRPM URL: http://vcrhonek.fedorapeople.org/sblim-smis-hba/sblim-smis-hba-1.0.0-1.fc14.src.rpm Description: SMI-S standards based HBA CMPI Providers. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 #10 from Pierre-YvesChibon 2011-01-20 04:27:38 EST --- dolphin-connector fails to build on koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2732783 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Elwell 2011-01-20 04:23:40 EST --- Upstream released v1.0 on the 17th. Updated spec and srpm available: Spec URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/6594808/Fedora/libfap.spec SRPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/6594808/Fedora/libfap-1.0-1.fc14.src.rpm Mock build OK ... State Changed: build INFO: Done(/home/aelwell/rpmbuild/SRPMS/libfap-1.0-1.fc14.src.rpm) Config(default) 1 minutes 8 seconds INFO: Results and/or logs in: /var/lib/mock/fedora-14-x86_64/result rpmlint output looks OK: [aelwell@pcitgtelwell libfap]$ rpmlint ~/Dropbox/Public/Fedora/libfap-1.0-1.fc14.src.rpm ~/Dropbox/Public/Fedora/libfap.spec 1 packages and 1 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 651613] Review Request: haddock - Haskell documentation tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=651613 --- Comment #9 from Lakshmi Narasimhan 2011-01-20 04:33:13 EST --- Thanks for the review. Yes, I will apply the patch. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 #9 from Martin Gieseking 2011-01-20
04:30:43 EST ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> Thanks for your wondeful feedback!
You're welcome. :)
> 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
This is because upstream doesn't use camel case in the sourceforge project
name.
http://downloads.sourceforge.net/cunit/%{name}-2.1-2-src.tar.bz2
should work.
> 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.
OK, but please don't apply the exit() patch. The rpmlint warning should
encourage you to convince the upstream developer to fix the issue. But don't do
it yourself with a local patch because it changes the behavior of the library.
I also suggest to ask upstream what's the intention of the dash in the version
number. Does the versioning scheme always follow pattern A.B-C or could there
also be an A.B.C-D release? If A.B-C is guaranteed, I recommend to replace the
dash with a dot in the Fedora package (rather than an underscore). Maybe
upstream should also think about using only dots as separators.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on 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 Pierre-YvesChibon changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #11 from Pierre-YvesChibon 2011-01-20 04:38:09 EST --- ok so the flag question is not a review blocker, I therefore will do the review (once it builds on koji) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 448613] Review Request: perl-EV - Wrapper for the libev high-performance event loop 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=448613 Mathieu Bridon changed: What|Removed |Added CC||boche...@fedoraproject.org --- Comment #15 from Mathieu Bridon 2011-01-20 05:02:02 EST --- Nicolas, did you abandon this package? I need it, so I am willing to take over the review request if you won't finish it. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 191494] Review Request: perl-Authen-DigestMD5
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=191494 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System 2011-01-20 05:07:16 EST --- perl-Authen-DigestMD5-0.04-10.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Authen-DigestMD5-0.04-10.el6 -- 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 671095] New: Review Request: rubygem-pr_geohash - GeoHash encode/decode library for pure Ruby
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: rubygem-pr_geohash - GeoHash encode/decode library for pure Ruby https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=671095 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-pr_geohash - GeoHash encode/decode library for pure Ruby Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: vondr...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Target Release: --- Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/vondruch/rubygem-pr_geohash.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/vondruch/rubygem-pr_geohash-1.0.0-1.fc14.src.rpm Description: GeoHash encode/decode library for pure Ruby. It's implementation of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geohash Koji scratch build for rawhide: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2732801 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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
Parag AN(पराग) changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|panem...@gmail.com
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Comment #2 from Parag AN(पराग) 2011-01-20 05:14:44 EST
---
1) Package failed to build as its missing BR: java
2) some packages owns /usr/share/pki and some not. But i think its already
owned by pki-setup now.
3) Add following in %install
chmod 755 %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/pki/tps-ui/cgi-bin/sow/cfg.pl
and remove from %files of dogtag-pki-tps-theme
%attr(00755,root,root) %{_datadir}/pki/tps-ui/cgi-bin/sow/cfg.pl
This will make sure, duplicate files warning will not come in build.log
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 448613] Review Request: perl-EV - Wrapper for the libev high-performance event loop 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=448613 --- Comment #16 from Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) 2011-01-20 05:14:08 EST --- Hi Mathieu! The problem probably remains unsolved in current release. But might have be evolved with the libev update that has appeared in rawhide recently. Your help is welcomed, feel free to takeover. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 499959] Review Request: redmine - redmine
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=499959 Michal Fojtik changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mfoj...@redhat.com --- Comment #36 from Michal Fojtik 2011-01-20 05:20:17 EST --- Is there anything I could help with ? I like Redmine and it will be great to have this app inside Fedora. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 --- Comment #14 from Sven Lankes 2011-01-20 05:32:08 EST --- The obsoletes is wrong: Obsoletes: drupal-views >= 6.x.2.11 We don't want to obsolete future versions of the package but previous ones. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 667171] Review Request: perl-Coro - The only real threads in perl
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=667171 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #8 from Petr Pisar 2011-01-20 05:32:44 EST --- Package Change Request == Package Name: perl-Coro New Branches: el6 Owners: bochecha InitialCC: perl-sig bochecha wants to create and maintain EPEL-6 branch. Let's do it. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 646608] Rename review: drupal-service_links -> drupal6-service_links
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=646608 --- Comment #6 from Sven Lankes 2011-01-20 05:35:07 EST --- As with -views - the obsoletes is the wrong way around: Obsoletes: drupal-service_links >= 6.x.2.0-1 instead of <= -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 646612] Rename review: drupal-date -> drupal6-date
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=646612 --- Comment #5 from Sven Lankes 2011-01-20 05:36:51 EST --- The obsoletes needs to be for <= instead of >= -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 #15 from Volker Fröhlich 2011-01-20 05:49:26 EST --- As Sven pointed out, since it is only for Rawhide, there is no danger of only updating the modules alone. So you can forget about the epoch, but the operator must still be <= instead of >=. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 671106] Review Request: perl-Mail-MboxParser - Read-only access to UNIX-mailboxes
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=671106 Marcela Mašláňová changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||622502 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 671106] New: Review Request: perl-Mail-MboxParser - Read-only access to UNIX-mailboxes
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-Mail-MboxParser - Read-only access to UNIX-mailboxes https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=671106 Summary: Review Request: perl-Mail-MboxParser - Read-only access to UNIX-mailboxes Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: Unspecified OS/Version: Unspecified Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: mmasl...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Target Release: --- SPEC: http://mmaslano.fedorapeople.org/review/perl-Mail-MboxParser.spec SRPM: http://mmaslano.fedorapeople.org/review/perl-Mail-MboxParser-0.55-1.fc14.src.rpm Description: This module attempts to provide a simplified access to standard UNIX- mailboxes. It offers only a subset of methods to get 'straight to the point'. More sophisticated things can still be done by invoking any method from MIME::Tools on the appropriate return values. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 642858] Review Request: drupal6-footnotes - Allows to easily create automatically numbered footnote references
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=642858 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System 2011-01-20 07:07:01 EST --- drupal6-footnotes-2.5-1.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/drupal6-footnotes-2.5-1.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 642858] Review Request: drupal6-footnotes - Allows to easily create automatically numbered footnote references
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=642858 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 642857] Review Request: drupal6-advanced-help - Allows module developers to store their help outside the module system in html
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=642857 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System 2011-01-20 07:10:14 EST --- drupal6-advanced-help-1.2-2.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/drupal6-advanced-help-1.2-2.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 671079] Review Request: sblim-smis-hba - SBLIM SMIS HBA HDR Providers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=671079 Ondrej Vasik changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||ova...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ova...@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 652414] Review Request: rubygem-boxgrinder-build-sftp-delivery-plugin - BoxGrinder plugin delivering appliances to SFTP servers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652414 Mamoru Tasaka changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|b...@serpentine.com |mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp --- Comment #9 from Mamoru Tasaka 2011-01-20 07:42:18 EST --- I will take a look at this. By the way I would appreciate it if you would review my review request (bug 669902) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 670365] Review Request: perl-IO-Any - Read or write anything
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=670365 Ralf Corsepius changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|rc040...@freenet.de Flag||fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Ralf Corsepius 2011-01-20 07:40:08 EST --- md5sum: eb8d75819dc1b78febd487cb8d9dae12 IO-Any-0.04.tar.gz Testsuite results: ./Build test t/01_IO-Any.t ... ok t/02_IO-Any_AnyEvent.t .. ok t/03_DATA.t . ok t/distribution.t ok t/fixme.t ... skipped: requires Test::Fixme to run t/pod-coverage.t ok t/pod-spell.t ... skipped: Set the environment variable TEST_SPELLING to enable this test. t/pod.t . ok All tests successful. Files=8, Tests=52, 1 wallclock secs ( 0.04 usr 0.01 sys + 0.50 cusr 0.09 csys = 0.64 CPU) Result: PASS => Can all be ignored. # rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/*rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 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 670755] Review Request: neso - Standalone Client/Server for the Tryton Application Platform
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=670755 Tim Lauridsen changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||t...@rasmil.dk AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|t...@rasmil.dk Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Tim Lauridsen 2011-01-20 07:48:27 EST --- I will review this one -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 651613] Review Request: haddock - Haskell documentation tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=651613 --- Comment #10 from Jens Petersen 2011-01-20 07:53:29 EST --- (I note for the record that haddock-2.9(.1) is out, which is compatible with ghc-7.0.1 haddock. One could hope that leksah-0.9 will work with it.) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 #12 from William Lima 2011-01-20 07:59:22 EST --- (In reply to comment #10) > dolphin-connector fails to build on koji: > http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2732783 fixed. Spec URL: http://poetinha.fedorapeople.org/dolphin-connector.spec SRPM URL: http://poetinha.fedorapeople.org/dolphin-connector-1.0-2.fc13.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 665995] Review Request: fmit - Free Music Instrument Tuner
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=665995 Volker Fröhlich changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review+ --- Comment #19 from Volker Fröhlich 2011-01-20 08:18:30 EST --- OK, all issues besides the crash are addressed now. If you want to, you can put FMIT into Rawhide. Or wait for Upstream to solve the problem -- as you like! 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 658942] Review Request: drupal6-schema - The Schema API allows modules to declare their database tables in a structured array and provides API functions
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=658942 Volker Fröhlich changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 670755] Review Request: neso - Standalone Client/Server for the Tryton Application Platform
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=670755 Tim Lauridsen changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 670755] Review Request: neso - Standalone Client/Server for the Tryton Application Platform
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=670755
--- Comment #2 from Tim Lauridsen 2011-01-20 08:19:09 EST ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [1]
[x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x] Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x] Spec uses macros instead of hard-coded directory names.
[x] Package consistently uses macros.
[x] Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x] PreReq is not used.
[x] Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [2]
[x] Buildroot is correct
(%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)).
[x] Package run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) and the beginning of
%install.
[x] Package use %makeinstall only when ``make install DESTDIR=...'' doesn't
work.
[x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
[-] The spec file handles locales properly.
[x] Changelog in prescribed format.
[x] Rpmlint output is silent.
rpmlint neso-1.8.0-2.fc15.src.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
rpmlint ~/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/neso-1.8.0-2.f6.noarch.rpm
neso.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.8.0-2 ['1.8.0-2.f6',
'1.8.0-2.f6']
neso.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary neso
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
[x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package is included in %doc.
[-] License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
[3,4]
[x] Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
MD5SUM this package : 385488dc4b23f5be3af670e6b0c36a3c
neso-1.8.0.tar.gz
MD5SUM upstream package : 385488dc4b23f5be3af670e6b0c36a3c
neso-1.8.0.tar.gz
[-] Compiler flags are appropriate.
[-] %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x] Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x] Permissions on files are set properly.
[x] Each %files section contains %defattr.
[x] No %config files under /usr.
[-] %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[x] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop using
desktop-file-install file if it is a GUI application. [5]
[x] Package contains a valid .desktop file.
[x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[-] Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one.
[x] File names are valid UTF-8.
[-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x] Package contains no bundled libraries.
[-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Static libraries in -static subpackage, if present.
[x] Package contains no static executables.
[-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present.
[-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[-] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
[x] Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x] Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x] Package does not genrate any conflict.
[x] Package does not contains kernel modules.
[x] Package is not relocatable.
[x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture.
[x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x] Package installs properly.
[x] Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines. [6]
=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
[?] Package functions as described.
[x] Latest version is packaged.
[-] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-] If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[!] Description and summary sections in the package sp
[Bug 579925] Review Request: tcl-tclreadline - GNU Readline extension for Tcl/Tk
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=579925 Jason Tibbitts changed: What|Removed |Added Status Whiteboard||StalledSubmitter -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 Fabian Affolter changed: What|Removed |Added CC||fab...@bernewireless.net --- Comment #1 from Fabian Affolter 2011-01-20 08:27:12 EST --- Just a first quick comment, please just 'global' instead of 'define' (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#.25global_preferred_over_.25define) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 #7 from Ralf Corsepius 2011-01-20 08:24:36 EST --- Anyway, thanks for the review. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: perl-Server-Starter Short Description: Superdaemon for hot-deploying server programs Owners: corsepiu 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 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 #13 from William Lima 2011-01-20 08:34:54 EST --- updated. Spec URL: http://poetinha.fedorapeople.org/dolphin-connector.spec SRPM URL: http://poetinha.fedorapeople.org/dolphin-connector-1.0-3.fc13.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 670755] Review Request: neso - Standalone Client/Server for the Tryton Application Platform
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=670755 --- Comment #3 from Dan Horák 2011-01-20 08:38:44 EST --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: neso Short Description: Standalone Client/Server for the Tryton Application Platform Owners: sharkcz Branches: f13 f14 el6 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 670755] Review Request: neso - Standalone Client/Server for the Tryton Application Platform
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=670755 Dan Horák 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 670755] Review Request: neso - Standalone Client/Server for the Tryton Application Platform
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=670755 --- Comment #4 from Dan Horák 2011-01-20 08:47:39 EST --- (In reply to comment #2) Thanks for review, Tim. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 --- Comment #2 from Dan Horák 2011-01-20 08:44:01 EST --- Thanks, Fabian, the template and specs at http://fedora.danny.cz/tryton/modules/ are updated. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 664924] Review Request: perl-Plack-Middleware-Test-StashWarnings - Test your application's warnings
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=664924 --- Comment #2 from Ralf Corsepius 2011-01-20 08:51:05 EST --- (In reply to comment #1) > Warning: the following files are missing in your kit: > xt/synopsis.t Done - You should have received a BCC:'ed copy of the mail I sent. Besides this, this warning is harmless and can safely ignored. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 671106] Review Request: perl-Mail-MboxParser - Read-only access to UNIX-mailboxes
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=671106
Matej Cepl changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mc...@redhat.com
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Matej Cepl 2011-01-20 08:54:27 EST ---
For consideration:
***
You don't have Mail::Mbox::MessageParser installed. If you want to get
significantly faster parsing, you should install this module from the CPAN.
If you do so, you are advised to do it before issuing 'make test' on this
module because otherwise the new parsing routines can't be tested on your
platform.
***
Shouldn't we pull in Mail::Mbox::MessageParser as well?
+ GOOD: rpmlint is happy
jakoubek:build $ rpmlint -i SRPMS/perl-Mail-MboxParser-0.55-1.fc15.src.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
jakoubek:build $ rpmlint -i
RPMS/noarch/perl-Mail-MboxParser-0.55-1.fc15.noarch.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
jakoubek:build $
+ GOOD: The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
+ GOOD: The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
+ GOOD: The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines.
+ GOOD: The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Actually it should be GPLv2 only (not GPLv2+ ... cannot find anywhere "or
later").
+ GOOD: COPYRIGHT file is in %doc.
No problem, it is not included in the tarball either.
+ GOOD: The spec file is written in American English.
+ GOOD: The spec file for the package is legible.
+ GOOD: The sources used to build the package matches the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL.
MD5: 1b9fdb367db36ec94e7b5c6721f11221
+ GOOD: The package successfully compiles and build into binary rpms on at
least one supported architecture.
yes, builds in koji http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2733008
+ GOOD: it's noarch so no issues with other architectures.
+ GOOD: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
+ GOOD: The spec file MUST handle locales properly.
No locale support.
+ GOOD: %post and %postun scripts OK
no scripts
+ GOOD: not relocatable
+ GOOD: A package owns all directories that it creates.
+ GOOD: A package does not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
+ GOOD: Permissions on files are set automatically.
+ GOOD: Each package have a %clean section.
+ GOOD: Each package consistently use macros.
+ GOOD: The package contains code, or permissible content.
+ GOOD: No large documentation files, so no a -doc subpackage.
+ GOOD: Files registered in %doc does not affect the runtime of the
application.
+ GOOD: No header files.
+ GOOD: No static libraries.
+ GOOD: No pkgconfig(.pc) files.
+ GOOD: .so file is provided in -devel package.
no .so outside of Perllands
+ GOOD: Correct Requires in -devel subpackage.
no -devel package
+ GOOD: No .la libtool archives.
+ GOOD: Packages does not contain GUI applications.
+ GOOD: Packages does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
- BAD : Runs rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT in %install
No, why?
+ GOOD: All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.
+ GOOD: Includes license text.
Please, fix %install section. With that
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 671106] Review Request: perl-Mail-MboxParser - Read-only access to UNIX-mailboxes
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=671106 --- Comment #2 from Matej Cepl 2011-01-20 09:02:44 EST --- (explanation: I would like to have this package for EL-5, so an explicit BuildRoot would be helpful). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 #14 from William Lima 2011-01-20 09:02:30 EST --- fixed build requires. Spec URL: http://poetinha.fedorapeople.org/dolphin-connector.spec SRPM URL: http://poetinha.fedorapeople.org/dolphin-connector-1.0-4.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 670834] Review Request: python-proteus - Library to access Tryton's internal objects
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=670834 Tim Lauridsen changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||t...@rasmil.dk AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|t...@rasmil.dk Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Tim Lauridsen 2011-01-20 09:06:48 EST --- I will take this one -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 #3 from Michal Ingeli 2011-01-20 09:09:01 EST --- (In reply to comment #2) > Requires: perl(Test::Pod) >= 1.20 > is wrong. > > This package applies Test::Pod only as part of its testsuite. > Please remove this line. Thanks. Removed, updated. spec: http://v3.sk/~xyzz/rpm/perl-Data-Types.spec srpm: http://v3.sk/~xyzz/rpm/perl-Data-Types-0.08-2.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 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 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE Last Closed||2011-01-20 09:13:10 --- Comment #7 from Michael Schwendt 2011-01-20 09:13:10 EST --- https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/4352 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=11446 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 671079] Review Request: sblim-smis-hba - SBLIM SMIS HBA HDR Providers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=671079 --- Comment #1 from Ondrej Vasik 2011-01-20 09:17:52 EST --- First iteration of review: please, use %global instead of %define macros - see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#.25global_preferred_over_.25define you could drop BuildRoot, it is no longer necessary... comment about Patch4 but no Patch4 ... cleanup neeeded? I see only AUTHORS COPYING and README - why you don't use %doc macro for them? It would give user a chance to install rpm without documentation. .c/.h files in srpm have strange permissions 755. Have you considered -devel subpackage? Or it is not expected someone except IBM could use the API for development? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 670834] Review Request: python-proteus - Library to access Tryton's internal objects
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=670834
Tim Lauridsen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Tim Lauridsen 2011-01-20 09:22:33 EST ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [1]
[x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x] Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x] Spec uses macros instead of hard-coded directory names.
[x] Package consistently uses macros.
[x] Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x] PreReq is not used.
[x] Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [2]
[x] Buildroot is correct
(%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)).
[x] Package run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) and the beginning of
%install.
[x] Package use %makeinstall only when ``make install DESTDIR=...'' doesn't
work.
[x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
[-] The spec file handles locales properly.
[x] Changelog in prescribed format.
[x] Rpmlint output is silent.
rpmlint python-proteus-1.8.0-2.fc15.src.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
rpmlint ~/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/python-proteus-1.8.0-2.f6.noarch.rpm
python-proteus.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.8.0-2
['1.8.0-2.f6', '1.8.0-2.f6']
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
[x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package is included in %doc.
[-] License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
[3,4]
[x] Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
MD5SUM this package : 0a1d2d26061dfe62586a1b649db92e2c
proteus-1.8.0.tar.gz
MD5SUM upstream package : 0a1d2d26061dfe62586a1b649db92e2c
proteus-1.8.0.tar.gz
[-] Compiler flags are appropriate.
[-] %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x] Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x] Permissions on files are set properly.
[x] Each %files section contains %defattr.
[x] No %config files under /usr.
[-] %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop using
desktop-file-install file if it is a GUI application. [5]
[-] Package contains a valid .desktop file.
[x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[-] Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one.
[x] File names are valid UTF-8.
[-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x] Package contains no bundled libraries.
[-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Static libraries in -static subpackage, if present.
[x] Package contains no static executables.
[-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present.
[-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
[x] Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x] Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x] Package does not genrate any conflict.
[x] Package does not contains kernel modules.
[x] Package is not relocatable.
[x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture.
[x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x] Package installs properly.
[x] Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines. [6]
=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
[?] Package functions as described.
[x] Latest version is packaged.
[x] Package does not include license text files separate from up
[Bug 667155] Review Request: python26-httplib2 - A comprehensive HTTP client 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=667155 --- Comment #2 from Jeffrey Ness 2011-01-20 09:27:47 EST --- Jochen, This package is geared toward EPEL and currently the only version of Python maintained in EPEL is Python26, in the future if additional versions are added it shouldn't be to hard to port this package over (This however relies on my getting sponsored): http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/epel/5/x86_64/repoview/letter_p.group.html -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 671079] Review Request: sblim-smis-hba - SBLIM SMIS HBA HDR Providers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=671079 Ondrej Vasik changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 670755] Review Request: neso - Standalone Client/Server for the Tryton Application Platform
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=670755 --- Comment #5 from Jason Tibbitts 2011-01-20 09:40:20 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 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 --- Comment #33 from Jason Tibbitts 2011-01-20 09:39:04 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 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 #9 from Jason Tibbitts 2011-01-20 09:39:45 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 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 #5 from Jason Tibbitts 2011-01-20 09:39:59 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 667171] Review Request: perl-Coro - The only real threads in perl
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=667171 --- Comment #9 from Jason Tibbitts 2011-01-20 09:39:30 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 on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 670834] Review Request: python-proteus - Library to access Tryton's internal objects
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=670834 --- Comment #4 from Dan Horák 2011-01-20 09:42:28 EST --- (In reply to comment #2) Thanks for review, Tim. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 670834] Review Request: python-proteus - Library to access Tryton's internal objects
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=670834 Dan Horák changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Dan Horák 2011-01-20 09:41:29 EST --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-proteus Short Description: Library to access Tryton's internal objects Owners: sharkcz Branches: f13 f14 el6 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 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
Pierre-YvesChibon changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #15 from Pierre-YvesChibon 2011-01-20
09:46:49 EST ---
Legend:
* OK
! Not OK
- Not Applicable
* rpmlint must be run on every package.
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
* The package follows the Package Naming Guidelines.
* The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec
* The package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
* The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing
Guidelines.
License BSD
* The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
* The source package includes the text of the license(s)and the package
includes it in %doc.
* The spec file is written in American English.
* The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
- The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
source from the src.rpm: c02c178324466f6054e5893d0cac251d
Procedure described to generate the sources is clean
* The package successfully compiles and build into binary rpms on at least one
primary architecture.
koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2733125
- If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch.
* 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.
- The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
* 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.
* Packages do NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
- 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.
* 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.
* Package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files
listings.
* Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with
executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
%defattr(...) line.
* Each package consistently uses macros.
* The package contains code, or permissable content.
- Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
* Files included something as %doc, do not affect the runtime of the
application.
* Header files are in a -devel package.
- Static libraries must be in a -static package.
* Package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), library
files that end in .so (without suffix) are in a -devel package.
* Devel packages requires the base package using a fully versioned dependency:
Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}.
* Packages do NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
- Packages containing GUI applications includes a %{name}.desktop file, and
that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the
%install section.
* Packages do not own files or directories already owned by other packages.
* All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
So this package is APPROVED.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 #16 from Pierre-YvesChibon 2011-01-20 09:51:11 EST --- btw http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Compiler_flags mentions that the rational to change the compipler flags should be documented in the spec. I trust you can do this before importing into git :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 --- Comment #15 from Paul W. Frields 2011-01-20 09:54:41 EST --- Wouldn't future versions of this package be "drupal6-views," not "drupal-views"? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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
Tim Lauridsen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||t...@rasmil.dk
--- Comment #3 from Tim Lauridsen 2011-01-20 09:56:14 EST ---
I have reviewed the template
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
Template:
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [1]
[x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x] Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x] Spec uses macros instead of hard-coded directory names.
[x] Package consistently uses macros.
[x] Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x] PreReq is not used.
[x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [2]
[x] Buildroot is correct
(%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)).
[x] Package run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) and the beginning of
%install.
[x] Package use %makeinstall only when ``make install DESTDIR=...'' doesn't
work.
[x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
[-] The spec file handles locales properly.
[x] Changelog in prescribed format.
[x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package is included in %doc.
[-] License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
[3,4]
[x] Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-] Compiler flags are appropriate.
[-] %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x] Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x] Permissions on files are set properly.
[x] Each %files section contains %defattr.
[x] No %config files under /usr.
[-] %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop using
desktop-file-install file if it is a GUI application. [5]
[-] Package contains a valid .desktop file.
[x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[-] Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one.
[x] File names are valid UTF-8.
[-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x] Package contains no bundled libraries.
[-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Static libraries in -static subpackage, if present.
[x] Package contains no static executables.
[-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present.
[-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
[x] Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x] Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x] Package does not genrate any conflict.
[x] Package does not contains kernel modules.
[x] Package is not relocatable.
[x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x] Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines. [6]
=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
[?] Package functions as described.
[x] Latest version is packaged.
[x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-] If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[!] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x] SourceX is a working URL.
[x] SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
[?] Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[!] %check is present and all tests pass.
[-] Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package
using a fully versioned dependency.
[?] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[?] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x] Dist tag is present.
[x] Spec use %
[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 --- Comment #4 from Tim Lauridsen 2011-01-20 09:56:59 EST --- These MUSTS needs to be checked for each module: [?] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. [?] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. MD5SUM this package : MD5SUM upstream package : [?] Rpmlint output is silent. [?] Requires correct, justified where necessary. [?] Package installs properly. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 #16 from Paul W. Frields 2011-01-20 09:58:22 EST --- About the Obsoletes, I thought a little more about this: 1. Aren't future versions of the module still going to be called "drupal6-cck"? Wouldn't obsoleting the old name "drupal-cck," even with the larger EVR, work OK? 2. What about people who are upgrading from F14 to F15? Wouldn't this obsolete be necessary since they'd be moving from a package named "drupal" using /usr/share/drupal to "drupal6" using /usr/share/drupal6? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 --- Comment #5 from Tim Lauridsen 2011-01-20 10:01:10 EST --- I am unsure who to handle it. Do we need a full review for each module ? or can we just make a partial review for each module for the points in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=670860#c4 and link to this report. Comments please -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 --- Comment #16 from Sven Lankes 2011-01-20 10:09:49 EST --- (In reply to comment #15) > Wouldn't future versions of this package be "drupal6-views," not > "drupal-views"? Yes. But how is that related to the obsoletes? Obsoletes are for upgrades - if someone updates from f14 to f15 that obsoletes is needed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 #17 from Sven Lankes 2011-01-20 10:16:37 EST --- Here is an example: I have drupal-cck-6.x.2.7-1.fc14.noarch.rpm installed on my F14 box. On upgrading to F15, when the spec file has Obsoletes: drupal-cck >= 6.x.2.8-1 then nothing will happen because 6.x.2.7-1 is not >= 2.x.2.8-1 But if the specfile reads: Obsoletes: drupal-cck <= 6.x.2.8-1 magic will happen and yum/packagekit/whatever will install drupal6-cck. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 #9 from Chris Lalancette 2011-01-20 10:24:58 EST --- You are right, of course. Sorry for the noise. Chris Lalancette -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 #17 from William Lima 2011-01-20 10:24:18 EST --- (In reply to comment #16) > btw http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Compiler_flags mentions > that the rational to change the compipler flags should be documented in the > spec. I trust you can do this before importing into git :) sure! :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 --- Comment #6 from Dan Horák 2011-01-20 10:25:35 EST --- I've opened the question how to deal with the modules on packaging list and Jason's opinion is to open a new request for each module. It works fine for me, I only need to prepare few helper scripts to automatize the usually manual steps. I think no one will object if the review comment for the modules will consist of a pointer to the template review here and the part from comment #4. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 Flag||fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Ralf Corsepius 2011-01-20 10:29:02 EST --- OK, package now is clean: md5sum: bc11a94c234ad9592094b4f6770aa787 Data-Types-0.08.tar.gz # rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/*rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 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 664924] Review Request: perl-Plack-Middleware-Test-StashWarnings - Test your application's warnings
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=664924 --- Comment #3 from Marcela Mašláňová 2011-01-20 10:34:04 EST --- Yes, it is harmless. I've already accepted your review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 #18 from William Lima 2011-01-20 10:43:33 EST --- I'll compile with '-fexceptions'. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 485401] Review Request: KyaPanel - Servers Manager The easy way to admin Postfix and Samba 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=485401 Jason Tibbitts changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||NOTABUG Last Closed||2011-01-20 10:48:29 Bug 485401 depends on bug 485403, which changed state. Bug 485403 Summary: Review Request: ytnef - Yerase's TNEF Stream Reader. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485403 What|Old Value |New Value Status|ASSIGNED|ON_QA Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution||ERRATA --- Comment #2 from Jason Tibbitts 2011-01-20 10:48:29 EST --- Still no packages after nearly two years; 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 619355] Review Request: python26-numpy - A fast multidimensional array facility for Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=619355 --- Comment #7 from Jason Tibbitts 2011-01-20 10:48:58 EST --- Actually I wrote up most of a review that I just need to paste in here. Hopefully I'll find sufficient time today to get that done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 664982] Review Request: perl-Parallel-Prefork - Simple prefork server 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=664982 --- Comment #1 from Ralf Corsepius 2011-01-20 10:57:12 EST --- Update: Spec URL: http://corsepiu.fedorapeople.org/packages/perl-Parallel-Prefork.spec SRPM URL: http://corsepiu.fedorapeople.org/packages/perl-Parallel-Prefork-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 664924] Review Request: perl-Plack-Middleware-Test-StashWarnings - Test your application's warnings
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=664924 Ralf Corsepius changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #4 from Ralf Corsepius 2011-01-20 10:55:08 EST --- (In reply to comment #3) > I've already accepted your review. Ah OK, thanks, again - I couldn't spot any "APPROVED" in the text and missed the "fedora-review+" flag (The corresponding mail seems to have gone lost in the flood of VCS-mails I am currently receiving). New Package SCM Request === Package Name: perl-Plack-Middleware-Test-StashWarnings Short Description: Test your application's warnings Owners: corsepiu 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 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 --- Comment #17 from Jon Ciesla 2011-01-20 10:53:59 EST --- Corrected obsoletes direction. SRPM: http://zanoni.jcomserv.net/fedora/drupal6-views/drupal6-views-2.12-2.fc14.src.rpm SPEC: http://zanoni.jcomserv.net/fedora/drupal6-views/drupal6-views.spec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 #18 from Jon Ciesla 2011-01-20 10:58:25 EST --- We need to do them together because of the path change, an orthogonal problem to the RPM Requires. Corrected obsoletes direction, updated to new version. SRPMS: http://zanoni.jcomserv.net/fedora/drupal6-cck/drupal6-cck-2.9-1.fc14.src.rpm SPEC: http://zanoni.jcomserv.net/fedora/drupal6-cck/drupal6-cck.spec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 671106] Review Request: perl-Mail-MboxParser - Read-only access to UNIX-mailboxes
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=671106 --- Comment #3 from Marcela Mašláňová 2011-01-20 11:02:48 EST --- rm -rf it's also not needed with new rpm. I will create different spec for EL-5 and add the mentioned requirement. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 646612] Rename review: drupal-date -> drupal6-date
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=646612 --- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla 2011-01-20 11:03:43 EST --- SRPMS: http://zanoni.jcomserv.net/fedora/drupal6-date/drupal6-date-2.4-2.fc14.src.rpm SPEC: http://zanoni.jcomserv.net/fedora/drupal6-date/drupal6-date.spec Corrected obsoletes direction. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 646608] Rename review: drupal-service_links -> drupal6-service_links
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=646608 --- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla 2011-01-20 11:07:41 EST --- SRPM: http://zanoni.jcomserv.net/fedora/drupal6-service_links/drupal6-service_links-2.0-2.fc14.src.rpm SPEC: http://zanoni.jcomserv.net/fedora/drupal6-service_links/drupal6-service_links.spec Corrected obsoletes direction. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 671106] Review Request: perl-Mail-MboxParser - Read-only access to UNIX-mailboxes
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=671106 Matej Cepl changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Matej Cepl 2011-01-20 11:12:56 EST --- APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 671106] Review Request: perl-Mail-MboxParser - Read-only access to UNIX-mailboxes
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=671106 Marcela Mašláňová changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Marcela Mašláňová 2011-01-20 11:13:45 EST --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: perl-Mail-MboxParser Short Description: Read-only access to UNIX-mailboxes Owners: mmaslano psabata ppisar Branches: F-13 F-14 EL-5 EL-6 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 671106] Review Request: perl-Mail-MboxParser - Read-only access to UNIX-mailboxes
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=671106 --- Comment #6 from Jason Tibbitts 2011-01-20 11:22:09 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 670834] Review Request: python-proteus - Library to access Tryton's internal objects
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=670834 --- Comment #5 from Jason Tibbitts 2011-01-20 11:21:35 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 664812] Review Request: perl-HTML-Quoted - Extract structure of quoted HTML mail message
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=664812
--- Comment #2 from Ralf Corsepius 2011-01-20 11:25:34
EST ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> TODO: Add full stop on the end of Description. You can use %{summary} macro to
> refer the text.
Done.
> FIX: BuildRequire perl(Data::Dumper) (t/lines.t) as it can dual-live in the
> future (http://search.cpan.org/~smueller/Data-Dumper/)
I don't have much of a problem in making this implict deps explicit, except
that I do not agree with your rationale and except that it's currently
technically not required:
- In general, we can not take into account any module which may be split out
from the core perl-package at some point in more or less distant future.
- When a module is actually being split out, building packages which depend
upon such module will break and make this change explicit.
Update:
Spec URL: http://corsepiu.fedorapeople.org/packages/perl-HTML-Quoted.spec
SRPM URL:
http://corsepiu.fedorapeople.org/packages/perl-HTML-Quoted-0.03-1.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 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 #84 from Greg Swift 2011-01-20 11:31:40 EST --- Hongli, those of us that need this for clean RoR installations in our RH based environment will take those and suffer through, but at the end of the day I'm sure many of us would rather the packages were actually capable of being provided by Fedora/CentOS/EPEL. The points behind the No Bundled Libraries restriction are very valid, and speaking from experience I can say we've been burned over the long run by vendors with good intentions and poor follow through on staying up with changes. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 #19 from Frank Ch. Eigler 2011-01-20 11:41:17 EST --- Under http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines, "Legal", it says: # Packages which are not useful without external bits [...] # This also means that packages which are not functional or useful without code # or packages from third-party sources are not acceptable for inclusion in # Fedora. Does this mean that a library without actual applications/users is not itself eligible for fedora? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 669902] Review Request: rubygem-net-http-persistent - Persistent connections using Net::HTTP plus a speed fix
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=669902 Marek Goldmann changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mgold...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mgold...@redhat.com Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 #85 from Hongli Lai 2011-01-20 11:53:43 EST --- Greg, if you look at our reputation we have a very strong follow through of staying up with security updates. Organizations like New York Times, Wikipedia, Pixar etc don't use our stuff for no reason. On top of that, trying seeing our use of Boost in perspective. We pretty much only use the threading and smart pointer stuff. The former is a thin wrapper around the OS APIs. Neither of them are responsible for processing user or network input. I would be very surprised if they even make vulnerabilities possible, ever. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 Iain Arnell changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2011-01-20 12:18:19 --- Comment #10 from Iain Arnell 2011-01-20 12:18:19 EST --- Imported and built for rawhide. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=214995 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 #10 from Shakthi Kannan 2011-01-20 12:15:47 EST --- I haven't got a reply from upstream yet. - Updated Source0 to use Fedora sourceforge.net URL. - Removed exit from library patch. - Used A.B.C version. SPEC: http://shakthimaan.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/CUnit.spec SRPM: http://shakthimaan.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/CUnit-2.1.2-5.fc14.src.rpm $ rpmlint CUnit.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint CUnit-2.1.2-5.fc14.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint CUnit-2.1.2-5.fc14.i686.rpm CUnit.i686: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib/libcunit.so.1.0.1 exit@GLIBC_2.0 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. $ rpmlint CUnit-devel-2.1.2-5.fc14.i686.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Successful Koji builds for F-14 and EL-6 respectively: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2733597 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2733600 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 #20 from Jason Tibbitts 2011-01-20 12:19:20 EST --- Only if you try to twist the words into meaning that. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
