[Bug 652396] Review Request: rubygem-boxgrinder-core - Core files required by BoxGrinder
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652396 Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #25 from Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com 2011-01-25 03:01:47 EST --- Package Change Request == Package Name: rubygem-boxgrinder-core New Branches: el5 el6 Owners: goldmann -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 652400] Review Request: rubygem-boxgrinder-build - Creates appliances for various virtual environments
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652400 Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #14 from Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com 2011-01-25 03:02:32 EST --- Package Change Request == Package Name: rubygem-boxgrinder-build New Branches: el5 el6 Owners: goldmann -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 652406] Review Request: rubygem-boxgrinder-build-fedora-os-plugin - BoxGrinder files required to build appliances with Fedora OS
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652406 Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #13 from Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com 2011-01-25 03:03:20 EST --- Package Change Request == Package Name: rubygem-boxgrinder-build-fedora-os-plugin New Branches: el5 el6 Owners: goldmann -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 663983] Review Request: rubygem-boxgrinder-build-ec2-platform-plugin - BoxGrinder plugin to convert appliances to EC2 format
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=663983 Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #14 from Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com 2011-01-25 03:06:04 EST --- Package Change Request == Package Name: rubygem-boxgrinder-build-ec2-platform-plugin New Branches: el5 el6 Owners: goldmann -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 652412] Review Request: rubygem-boxgrinder-build-local-delivery-plugin - BoxGrinder plugin delivering appliance to local filesystem
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652412 Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #14 from Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com 2011-01-25 03:04:57 EST --- Package Change Request == Package Name: rubygem-boxgrinder-build-local-delivery-plugin New Branches: el5 el6 Owners: goldmann -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #17 from Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com 2011-01-25 03:05:22 EST --- Package Change Request == Package Name: rubygem-boxgrinder-build-sftp-delivery-plugin New Branches: el5 el6 Owners: goldmann -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 652403] Review Request: rubygem-boxgrinder-build-rpm-based-os-plugin - Files required to build appliances based on RPMs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652403 Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #18 from Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com 2011-01-25 03:04:19 EST --- Package Change Request == Package Name: rubygem-boxgrinder-build-rpm-based-os-plugin New Branches: el5 el6 Owners: goldmann -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 664113] Review Request: rubygem-boxgrinder-build-ebs-delivery-plugin - BoxGrinder plugin to deliver appliances as EBS AMIs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=664113 Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #11 from Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com 2011-01-25 03:06:18 EST --- Package Change Request == Package Name: rubygem-boxgrinder-build-ebs-delivery-plugin New Branches: el5 el6 Owners: goldmann -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 652408] Review Request: rubygem-boxgrinder-build-vmware-platform-plugin - BoxGrinder files required to convert appliances to VMware format
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652408 Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #10 from Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com 2011-01-25 03:03:47 EST --- Package Change Request == Package Name: rubygem-boxgrinder-build-vmware-platform-plugin New Branches: el5 el6 Owners: goldmann -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 664111] Review Request: rubygem-boxgrinder-build-s3-delivery-plugin - BoxGrinder plugin to deliver appliances to S3
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=664111 Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #11 from Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com 2011-01-25 03:06:38 EST --- Package Change Request == Package Name: rubygem-boxgrinder-build-s3-delivery-plugin New Branches: el5 el6 Owners: goldmann -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 489686] Review Request: armadillo - fast C++ matrix library with interfaces to LAPACK and ATLAS
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=489686 --- Comment #91 from C Sand conradsand...@gmail.com 2011-01-25 03:13:18 EST --- (In reply to comment #90) Might you be bothered to build for EL5 as well? The rawhide spec builds as is... I don't have access to a RHEL 5 machine, so can't test the library properly. The run-time component might build as is, but that doesn't really test the internals (as Armadillo is a template library). The run-time component is just an alias for LAPACK + BLAS + ATLAS + etc. Also, I don't know what version of GCC is in RHEL 5. The library was only tested with 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4. It should work with 4.0 and 4.1, but I don't have the time to incorporate possible workarounds for earlier compilers (the library hits templates pretty hard). I also don't know what version of ATLAS is in RHEL 5. Anything earlier than 3.8 is full of bugs. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 672246] Review Request: perl-Statistics-Basic - A collection of very basic statistics modules
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=672246 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com 2011-01-25 03:27:23 EST --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: perl-Statistics-Basic Short Description: A collection of very basic statistics modules Owners: ppisar, mmaslano, psabata Branches: 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 670209] Review Request: rubygem-rsolr - A Ruby client for Apache Solr
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=670209 --- Comment #2 from Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com 2011-01-25 03:40:39 EST --- Please see updated specs: Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/vondruch/rubygem-rsolr.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/vondruch/rubygem-rsolr-1.0.0-2.fc14.src.rpm Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2740782 I will see what can I do about the sunspot. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 672284] Review Request: perl-Perl-Metrics-Simple - Count packages, subs, lines, etc. of many files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=672284 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com 2011-01-25 04:08:10 EST --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: perl-Perl-Metrics-Simple Short Description: Count packages, subs, lines, etc. of many files Owners: ppisar, mmaslano, psabata Branches: 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 225888] Merge Review: hsqldb
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225888 --- Comment #6 from Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com 2011-01-25 05:04:17 EST --- (In reply to comment #5) === Issues === 1. re-create init file from scratch? (no use probably, just make sure it works = start/stop actually works correctly start/stop/restart works correctly. I don't plan anymore work. 2. license in demo subpackage Fixed. 3. jpackage-utils requires in javadoc subpackage Fixed. 4. permissions of config file inside srpm Fixed 5. now the javadoc subpackage doesn't have -version but there is no %pre script that will make sure update will work (symlink-dir change). Fixed. 6. servlet symlink It's handled by alternatives and we require a package that provides it so I don't see a problem here. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=215499 -- 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 672395] Review Request: eigen3 - A lightweight C++ template library for vector and matrix math
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=672395 Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jussi.leht...@iki.fi --- Comment #1 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi 2011-01-25 05:22:36 EST --- Don't build against reference BLAS. Use ATLAS instead. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 225644] Merge Review: classpathx-mail
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225644 Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|needinfo?(fnas...@redhat.co | |m) | -- 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 467655] Review Request: yafaray - a raytracer for Blender.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467655
--- Comment #97 from Paulo Roma Cavalcanti pro...@gmail.com 2011-01-25
05:51:11 EST ---
I see what you mean:
YafaRay.x86_64: W: self-obsoletion yafaray = 0.1.1 obsoletes yafaray =
0.1.1-3.fc14
I fixed it this way:
Obsoletes: %{yname} %{version}-%{release}
SRPM: http://roma.fedorapeople.org/srpms/YafaRay-0.1.1-4.fc14.src.rpm
Thanks.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 467655] Review Request: yafaray - a raytracer for Blender.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467655
--- Comment #98 from Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) kwiz...@gmail.com 2011-01-25
06:11:52 EST ---
(In reply to comment #96)
Sorry again: of course I meant:
Obsoletes: %{yname} %{version}
That will not work given that %version-%release of the last %{yname} package to
Obsoletes (0.1.1-3) is higher than %version of the Obsoletes directive (0.1.1).
Usually, it's better to hardcode the Obsoletes field to a value. Specially if
you can consider that no yafaray package will not be created anymore from a
given %version %release.
So I would suggest that:
#Introduced in F-15, Can be dropped by F-17
Obsoletes: yafray 0.1.0
Provides: yafray = %{version}-%{release}
Obsoletes: %{yname} 0.1.1-4
Provides: %{yname} = %{version}-%{release}
But I would keep the Provides %{yname} = %{version}-%{release} to avoid case
sensitive mess.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on 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 Vitezslav Crhonek vcrho...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2011-01-25 06:50:47 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 652987] Review Request: go - The Go programming language
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652987 Russ Cox r...@swtch.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||r...@swtch.com --- Comment #20 from Russ Cox r...@swtch.com 2011-01-25 07:03:58 EST --- Are you sure the setsebool flip is necessary? I don't know much about that functionality but I have found that on a Fedora system running under Xen (on slicehost.com) the Go installation prints a warning about setsebool but then runs just fine. On that system: $ cat /etc/issue Fedora release 10 (Cambridge) Kernel \r on an \m (\l) $ uname -a Linux [elided] 2.6.24-24-xen #1 SMP Tue Aug 18 18:15:39 UTC 2009 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux $ I've been meaning to find out why the warning gets printed without being necessary, but I haven't had time to dig in. If there are any experts out there, I'd be happy to hear from them. r...@swtch.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 670451] Review Request: async-http-client - Asynchronous Http Client for Java
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=670451 Bug 670451 depends on bug 670164, which changed state. Bug 670164 Summary: Review Request: sonatype-oss-parent - Sonatype OSS Parent https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=670164 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||RAWHIDE Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 Stanislav Ochotnicky socho...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE Last Closed||2011-01-25 07:09:39 --- Comment #7 from Stanislav Ochotnicky socho...@redhat.com 2011-01-25 07:09:39 EST --- Package built. Closing. Again thanks for review and SCM. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2741000 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 670451] Review Request: async-http-client - Asynchronous Http Client for Java
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=670451 --- Comment #3 from Stanislav Ochotnicky socho...@redhat.com 2011-01-25 07:13:33 EST --- David, as Alexander wrote, package is intended for rawhide only. Therefore if you want to test it you'll have to either have rawhide installation somewhere (virtual machine) or use mock. Sonatype review is done, there is already built in rawhide (should be in buildroot shortly), so this package should build without problems for you. You can start the review then. FYI we need this package to update maven 3 to latest version. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 576591] Review Request: iptraf-ng
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=576591
--- Comment #9 from Nikola Pajkovsky npajk...@redhat.com 2011-01-25 08:12:42
EST ---
http://npajkovs.fedorapeople.org/iptraf-ng.spec
http://npajkovs.fedorapeople.org/iptraf-ng-1.0.3.52.gdaa1-1.fc15.src.rpm
got rid of %{__boohoo}, proper Obsoletes/Provides pair. There is a lot of more
under hood.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 225888] Merge Review: hsqldb
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225888 Stanislav Ochotnicky socho...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE Last Closed||2011-01-25 08:33:02 --- Comment #7 from Stanislav Ochotnicky socho...@redhat.com 2011-01-25 08:33:02 EST --- All good or explained. Since this is merge review I am closing this bug. -- 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 467655] Review Request: yafaray - a raytracer for Blender.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467655 Paulo Roma Cavalcanti pro...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|needinfo?(r...@lcg.ufrj.br) | --- Comment #99 from Paulo Roma Cavalcanti pro...@gmail.com 2011-01-25 08:30:05 EST --- 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 652987] Review Request: go - The Go programming language
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652987 --- Comment #21 from Ed Marshall esm+red...@logic.net 2011-01-25 08:39:03 EST --- Russ, sorry for the very rudimentary question, but is SELinux actually enabled on your slice? A quick /usr/sbin/selinuxenabled echo enabled ought to confirm. (I spent a bit of time trying to get SELinux working with Slicehost's kernels a year or two ago with the assistance of their support team, but without success. These days, you can run your own kernel, but it looks like you're running one of theirs with F10 right now.) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 590305] Review Request: vile - VI Like Emacs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=590305
--- Comment #5 from Martin Gieseking martin.giesek...@uos.de 2011-01-25
08:42:22 EST ---
Hi Mark,
here are some notes on your package:
- The .desktop file isn't installed. See here how to do it:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Desktop_files
- I recommend to use fully versioned dependencies on vile-common
Requires: common = %{version}-%{release}
- please replace the icon file vile.xbm with file vile.xpm as the xbm format is
not supported in desktop files (only png, svg and xpm work)
- replace %{_datarootdir} with %{_datadir} to be consistent
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 652396] Review Request: rubygem-boxgrinder-core - Core files required by BoxGrinder
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652396 --- Comment #26 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2011-01-25 09:08:10 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 652403] Review Request: rubygem-boxgrinder-build-rpm-based-os-plugin - Files required to build appliances based on RPMs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652403 --- Comment #19 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2011-01-25 09:08:35 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 672246] Review Request: perl-Statistics-Basic - A collection of very basic statistics modules
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=672246 --- Comment #5 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2011-01-25 09:10:52 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 652406] Review Request: rubygem-boxgrinder-build-fedora-os-plugin - BoxGrinder files required to build appliances with Fedora OS
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652406 --- Comment #14 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2011-01-25 09:08:48 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 652400] Review Request: rubygem-boxgrinder-build - Creates appliances for various virtual environments
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652400 --- Comment #15 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2011-01-25 09:08:23 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 664113] Review Request: rubygem-boxgrinder-build-ebs-delivery-plugin - BoxGrinder plugin to deliver appliances as EBS AMIs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=664113 --- Comment #12 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2011-01-25 09:10:28 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 652414] Review Request: rubygem-boxgrinder-build-sftp-delivery-plugin - BoxGrinder plugin delivering appliances to SFTP servers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652414 --- Comment #18 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2011-01-25 09:09:29 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 663983] Review Request: rubygem-boxgrinder-build-ec2-platform-plugin - BoxGrinder plugin to convert appliances to EC2 format
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=663983 --- Comment #15 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2011-01-25 09:09:41 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 652408] Review Request: rubygem-boxgrinder-build-vmware-platform-plugin - BoxGrinder files required to convert appliances to VMware format
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652408 --- Comment #11 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2011-01-25 09:09:00 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 652412] Review Request: rubygem-boxgrinder-build-local-delivery-plugin - BoxGrinder plugin delivering appliance to local filesystem
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652412 --- Comment #15 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2011-01-25 09:09:17 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 664111] Review Request: rubygem-boxgrinder-build-s3-delivery-plugin - BoxGrinder plugin to deliver appliances to S3
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=664111 --- Comment #12 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2011-01-25 09:10:15 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 225888] Merge Review: hsqldb
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225888 Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|652183(FE-JAVASIG) | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 231830] Review Request: python-inotify - Monitor filesystem events with Python under Linux
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=231830 --- Comment #5 from Terje Røsten terje...@phys.ntnu.no 2011-01-25 09:20:53 EST --- Not really, you can co-maintain fedora branches too if you like :-) -- 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 672543] New: Review Request: perl-Test-DistManifest - Author test that validates a package MANIFEST
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-Test-DistManifest - Author test that validates a package MANIFEST https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=672543 Summary: Review Request: perl-Test-DistManifest - Author test that validates a package MANIFEST Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: ppi...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/perl-Test-DistManifest/perl-Test-DistManifest.spec SRPM URL: http://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/perl-Test-DistManifest/perl-Test-DistManifest-1.009-1.fc15.src.rpm Description: This module provides a simple method of testing that a MANIFEST matches the distribution. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 590305] Review Request: vile - VI Like Emacs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=590305
--- Comment #6 from Martin Gieseking martin.giesek...@uos.de 2011-01-25
09:36:36 EST ---
(In reply to comment #5)
Requires: common = %{version}-%{release}
Sorry, it should be
Requires: %{name}-common = %{version}-%{release}
of course.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 665853] Review Request: h5py - A Python interface to the HDF5 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=665853 --- Comment #5 from Terje Røsten terje...@phys.ntnu.no 2011-01-25 09:45:43 EST --- I don't what the open security issue is, might have to ping Jason. Hm, I must recheck the license issue, I did not see any GPL stuff. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 672284] Review Request: perl-Perl-Metrics-Simple - Count packages, subs, lines, etc. of many files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=672284 Bug 672284 depends on bug 672246, which changed state. Bug 672246 Summary: Review Request: perl-Statistics-Basic - A collection of very basic statistics modules https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=672246 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||RAWHIDE Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 672246] Review Request: perl-Statistics-Basic - A collection of very basic statistics modules
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=672246 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Fixed In Version||perl-Statistics-Basic-1.660 ||2-1.fc15 Resolution||RAWHIDE Last Closed||2011-01-25 09:46:16 --- Comment #6 from Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com 2011-01-25 09:46:16 EST --- Thank you for review and repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 665853] Review Request: h5py - A Python interface to the HDF5 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=665853 --- Comment #6 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2011-01-25 09:55:48 EST --- Honestly I can't remember what it was. I think there was an issue with decompression of large files, probably fixed with 1.4. In any case, bundling libraries is expressly forbidden without an exemption these days, so that point is academic. Bundling lzf is right out anyway. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 652987] Review Request: go - The Go programming language
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652987 --- Comment #22 from Russ Cox r...@swtch.com 2011-01-25 09:55:28 EST --- Ed, thanks for the note. I've never used SELinux so I didn't know even that much. The current build script uses [ -d /selinux -a -f /selinux/booleans/allow_execstack ] to decide whether to print the warning. I will change it to also test the exit status of selinuxenabled. Thanks again. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 665853] Review Request: h5py - A Python interface to the HDF5 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=665853 --- Comment #7 from Steve Traylen steve.tray...@cern.ch 2011-01-25 10:07:06 EST --- In any case, bundling libraries is expressly forbidden without an exemption these days, so that point is academic. Bundling lzf is right out anyway. http://oldhome.schmorp.de/marc/liblzf.html looks to be the upstream. 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 672284] Review Request: perl-Perl-Metrics-Simple - Count packages, subs, lines, etc. of many files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=672284 --- Comment #3 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2011-01-25 10:09:21 EST --- This ticket is not assigned to anyone. Please fix and re-raise the fedora-cvs flag. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 672136] Review Request: rubygem-multimap - Ruby multimap implementation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=672136 --- Comment #4 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2011-01-25 10:08:51 EST --- This ticket is not assigned to anyone. Please fix a nd re-raise the fedora-cvs flag. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 214024] Review Request: perl-Net-DBus - Net::DBus Perl module
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=214024 --- Comment #13 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2011-01-25 10:08:26 EST --- We need an ack from the Fedora maintainer here, or reference to somewhere that he's granted some kind of blanket permission. He's not listed on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/ContributorStatusNo but I see plenty of requests to branch his packages. If he stated his wishes there things would be a bit simpler. -- 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 672284] Review Request: perl-Perl-Metrics-Simple - Count packages, subs, lines, etc. of many files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=672284 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mmasl...@redhat.com Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com 2011-01-25 10:18:03 EST --- Assigned to reviewer. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 652582] Review Request: pandoc - Markdown markup converter
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652582 --- Comment #2 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com 2011-01-25 10:14:35 EST --- http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2741385 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 652582] Review Request: pandoc - Markdown markup converter
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652582 Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||617282(F15Target) Status Whiteboard||ready -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 231830] Review Request: python-inotify - Monitor filesystem events with Python under Linux
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=231830 Steve Traylen steve.tray...@cern.ch changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Steve Traylen steve.tray...@cern.ch 2011-01-25 10:14:22 EST --- Package Change Request == Package Name: python-inotify New Branches: el5 el6 Owners: stevetraylen terjeros -- 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 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 #7 from Marcela Mašláňová mmasl...@redhat.com 2011-01-25 10:26:12 EST --- It's dependent on in EL branches on update of https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/search/perl-Mail-Mbox-MessageParser -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 672555] Review Request: openicc-data - The Color Management Data (CMD)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=672555 Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) kwiz...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||k...@gmx.de Blocks||182235(FE-Legal) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 672555] New: Review Request: openicc-data - The Color Management Data (CMD)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: openicc-data - The Color Management Data (CMD) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=672555 Summary: Review Request: openicc-data - The Color Management Data (CMD) Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: kwiz...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://kwizart.fedorapeople.org/review/openicc-data.spec SRPM URL: http://kwizart.fedorapeople.org/review/openicc-data-1.1.0-1.fc14.src.rpm Description: The Color Management Data (CMD) It may have an unsafe License status about PhotoGamutRGB_avg6c.icc according to default_profiles/base/COPYING: Group C PhotoGamutRGB_avg6c.icc is licensed to be distributed freely. Modifications are not allowed. Blocking FE-Legal for that. But Kai-Uwe Behrmann may already have sent an email there. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 672561] New: Review Request: perl-Perl-Critic-Pulp - Some add-on perlcritic policies
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-Perl-Critic-Pulp - Some add-on perlcritic policies https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=672561 Summary: Review Request: perl-Perl-Critic-Pulp - Some add-on perlcritic policies Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: ppi...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/perl-Perl-Critic-Pulp/perl-Perl-Critic-Pulp.spec SRPM URL: http://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/perl-Perl-Critic-Pulp/perl-Perl-Critic-Pulp-46-1.fc15.src.rpm Description: This is a collection of add-on policies for Perl::Critic. They're under a pulp theme plus other themes according to their purpose (see POLICY THEMES in Perl::Critic). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 214024] Review Request: perl-Net-DBus - Net::DBus Perl module
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=214024 Marcela Mašláňová mmasl...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #14 from Marcela Mašláňová mmasl...@redhat.com 2011-01-25 10:52:25 EST --- Hm, I forgot mentioned that maintainer of this package is not around and we (Perl SIG) are taking care about his packages: https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/507#comment:7 Sadly, there's no chance maintain it as a group, so we solved it this way. -- 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 671883] Review Request: v4l-utils - Utilities for video4linux and DVB devices
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=671883 --- Comment #4 from Hans de Goede hdego...@redhat.com 2011-01-25 10:58:36 EST --- Hi All, Here is a new version, based on the just released official 0.8.2 release, fixing the issues mentioned in comment #1. Spec URL: http://people.fedoraproject.org/~jwrdegoede/v4l-utils.spec SRPM URL: http://people.fedoraproject.org/~jwrdegoede/v4l-utils-0.8.2-2.fc15.src.rpm A note about the rpmlint output wrt missing manpages we are working on this upstream (for example we added a ir-keytable manpage yesterday). Regards, Hans -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 672136] Review Request: rubygem-multimap - Ruby multimap implementation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=672136 Mohammed Morsi mmo...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|vondr...@redhat.com 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 672574] New: Review Request: perl-Perl-Critic-Storable - Policy for Storable.pm
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-Perl-Critic-Storable - Policy for Storable.pm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=672574 Summary: Review Request: perl-Perl-Critic-Storable - Policy for Storable.pm Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: ppi...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/perl-Perl-Critic-Storable/perl-Perl-Critic-Storable.spec SRPM URL: http://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/perl-Perl-Critic-Storable/perl-Perl-Critic-Storable-0.01-1.fc15.src.rpm Description: An additional Perl::Critic policy for using the Storable module. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 664932] Review Request: perl-HTML-Mason-PSGIHandler - PSGI handler for HTML::Mason
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=664932
Marcela Mašláňová mmasl...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mmasl...@redhat.com
Flag||fedora-review+
Bug 664932 depends on bug 664910, which changed state.
Bug 664910 Summary: Review Request: perl-Plack - Perl Superglue for Web
frameworks and Web Servers (PSGI toolkit)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=664910
What|Old Value |New Value
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
Resolution||ERRATA
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
--- Comment #1 from Marcela Mašláňová mmasl...@redhat.com 2011-01-25 11:17:46
EST ---
- rpmlint OK
- package must be named according to Guidelines OK
- spec file name must match the base package %{name} OK
- package must meet the Packaging Guidelines OK
- package must be licensed with Fedora approved license OK
- license field must match actual license OK
- text of the license in its own file must be included in %doc OK
- sources must match the upstream source OK
- package MUST successfully compile and build OK
^ http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2741515
- architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in bugzilla OK
- build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires OK
- handle locales properly with %find_lang macro OK
- shared library files must call ldconfig in %post(un) OK
- packages must NOT bundle system libraries OK
- package must own all directories that it creates OK
- permissions on files must be set properly OK
- package must consistently use macros OK
- package must contain code, or permissable content OK
- large documentation must go in a -doc OK
- %doc must not affect the runtime of the application OK
- header files must be in a -devel package OK
- static libraries must be in a -static package OK
- library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel OK
- devel package usually require base package OK
- packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives OK
- GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file OK
- packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages OK
rpm -q --provides perl-HTML-Mason-PSGIHandler
perl(HTML::Mason::PSGIHandler) = 0.52
perl(HTML::Mason::PSGIHandler::Streamy) = 0.52
perl(HTML::Mason::Request::PSGI) = 0.52
perl-HTML-Mason-PSGIHandler = 0.52-1.fc15
rpm -q --requires perl-HTML-Mason-PSGIHandler
perl = 0:5.008_001
perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.12.2)
perl(CGI::PSGI)
perl(HTML::Mason::CGIHandler)
perl(HTML::Mason::Exceptions)
perl(HTML::Mason::PSGIHandler)
perl(HTML::Mason::Request::CGI)
perl(base)
perl(strict)
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) = 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) = 4.0-1
ACCEPT
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 671434] Review Request: trytond-sale - sale 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=671434 Tim Lauridsen t...@rasmil.dk changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Tim Lauridsen t...@rasmil.dk 2011-01-25 11:26:00 EST --- No issues. 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 513345] Review Request: iwak - Detect the openssh keys affected by CVE-2008-0166 among authorized_keys
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=513345 Jan F. Chadima jchad...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Flag|needinfo?(jchadima@redhat.c | |om) | Last Closed||2011-01-25 11:28:13 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 672561] Review Request: perl-Perl-Critic-Pulp - Some add-on perlcritic policies
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=672561 --- Comment #1 from Marcela Mašláňová mmasl...@redhat.com 2011-01-25 11:30:22 EST --- Missing perl(Test::DistManifest). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 672574] Review Request: perl-Perl-Critic-Storable - Policy for Storable.pm
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=672574 Petr Sabata psab...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||psab...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|psab...@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 672561] Review Request: perl-Perl-Critic-Pulp - Some add-on perlcritic policies
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=672561 Marcela Mašláňová mmasl...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||672543 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 672543] Review Request: perl-Test-DistManifest - Author test that validates a package MANIFEST
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=672543 Marcela Mašláňová mmasl...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||672561 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 672582] New: Review Request: perl-Perl-Critic-Nits - Policies of nits I like to pick
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-Perl-Critic-Nits - Policies of nits I like to pick https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=672582 Summary: Review Request: perl-Perl-Critic-Nits - Policies of nits I like to pick Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: ppi...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/perl-Perl-Critic-Nits/perl-Perl-Critic-Nits.spec SRPM URL: http://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/perl-Perl-Critic-Nits/perl-Perl-Critic-Nits-1.0.0-1.fc15.src.rpm Description: The included policy is: Perl::Critic::Policy::ValuesAndExpressions::ProhibitAccessOfPrivateData (Prohibits direct access to a hash-based object's hash). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 672543] Review Request: perl-Test-DistManifest - Author test that validates a package MANIFEST
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=672543
Marcela Mašláňová mmasl...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mmasl...@redhat.com
--- Comment #1 from Marcela Mašláňová mmasl...@redhat.com 2011-01-25 11:52:14
EST ---
- rpmlint OK
- package must be named according to Guidelines OK
- spec file name must match the base package %{name} OK
- package must meet the Packaging Guidelines OK
- package must be licensed with Fedora approved license OK
- license field must match actual license OK
- text of the license in its own file must be included in %doc OK
- sources must match the upstream source OK
- package MUST successfully compile and build OK
- architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in bugzilla OK
- build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires OK
- handle locales properly with %find_lang macro OK
- shared library files must call ldconfig in %post(un) OK
- packages must NOT bundle system libraries OK
- package must own all directories that it creates OK
- permissions on files must be set properly OK
- package must consistently use macros OK
- package must contain code, or permissable content OK
- large documentation must go in a -doc OK
- %doc must not affect the runtime of the application OK
- header files must be in a -devel package OK
- static libraries must be in a -static package OK
- library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel OK
- devel package usually require base package OK
- packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives OK
- GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file OK
- packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages OK
rpm -q perl-Test-DistManifest
perl-Test-DistManifest-1.009-1.fc15.noarch
rpm -q --provides perl-Test-DistManifest
perl(Test::DistManifest) = 1.009
perl-Test-DistManifest = 1.009-1.fc15
[root@arrakis ~]# rpm -q --requires perl-Test-DistManifest
perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.12.2)
perl(Module::Manifest) = 0.07
perl(Test::Builder) = 0.72
perl(Test::More) = 0.62
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) = 4.0-1
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) = 3.0.4-1
perl(Carp)
perl(Cwd)
perl(File::Find)
perl(File::Spec)
perl(File::Spec::Unix)
perl(strict)
perl(warnings)
Please fix and file bug on rpmlint and rpmbuild ;-)
BuildArch:perl(File::Spec)
BuildArch:perl(File::Spec::Unix)
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 672574] Review Request: perl-Perl-Critic-Storable - Policy for Storable.pm
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=672574
Petr Sabata psab...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Petr Sabata psab...@redhat.com 2011-01-25 11:49:13 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.
[-] 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]
[-] Buildroot is correct
(%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)).
[-] Package run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) and the beginning of
%install.
[-] Package use %makeinstall only when ``make install DESTDIR=...'' doesn't
work.
[-] 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.
[x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[-] 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 : 202d4bc43d1396e5d430c4a1bc34ccce
MD5SUM upstream package : 202d4bc43d1396e5d430c4a1bc34ccce
[-] 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.
[-] 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).
[-] Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[-] 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.
[-] 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 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.
[-] SourceX / PatchY prefixed with
[Bug 671393] Review Request: trytond-account-be - account-be 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=671393 Tim Lauridsen t...@rasmil.dk 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 671394] Review Request: trytond-account-de-skr03 - account-de-skr03 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=671394 --- Comment #1 from Tim Lauridsen t...@rasmil.dk 2011-01-25 12:03:41 EST --- I will review this bug -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 671394] Review Request: trytond-account-de-skr03 - account-de-skr03 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=671394 Tim Lauridsen t...@rasmil.dk 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 671393] Review Request: trytond-account-be - account-be 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=671393 --- Comment #4 from Tim Lauridsen t...@rasmil.dk 2011-01-25 12:03:24 EST --- I will review this bug -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 671393] Review Request: trytond-account-be - account-be 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=671393 Tim Lauridsen t...@rasmil.dk changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|t...@rasmil.dk -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 671393] Review Request: trytond-account-be - account-be 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=671393 Tim Lauridsen t...@rasmil.dk 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 671398] Review Request: trytond-account-invoice - account-invoice 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=671398 Tim Lauridsen t...@rasmil.dk changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|t...@rasmil.dk -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 671394] Review Request: trytond-account-de-skr03 - account-de-skr03 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=671394 Tim Lauridsen t...@rasmil.dk changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|t...@rasmil.dk -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 671398] Review Request: trytond-account-invoice - account-invoice 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=671398 Tim Lauridsen t...@rasmil.dk 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 671396] Review Request: trytond-account-invoice-history - account-invoice-history 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=671396 Tim Lauridsen t...@rasmil.dk 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 671394] Review Request: trytond-account-de-skr03 - account-de-skr03 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=671394 Tim Lauridsen t...@rasmil.dk 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 671398] Review Request: trytond-account-invoice - account-invoice 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=671398 --- Comment #1 from Tim Lauridsen t...@rasmil.dk 2011-01-25 12:04:30 EST --- I will review this bug -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 671396] Review Request: trytond-account-invoice-history - account-invoice-history 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=671396 --- Comment #1 from Tim Lauridsen t...@rasmil.dk 2011-01-25 12:03:57 EST --- I will review this bug -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 671398] Review Request: trytond-account-invoice - account-invoice 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=671398 --- Comment #2 from Tim Lauridsen t...@rasmil.dk 2011-01-25 12:04:37 EST --- I will review this bug -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 671397] Review Request: trytond-account-invoice-line-standalone - account-invoice-line-standalone 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=671397 --- Comment #1 from Tim Lauridsen t...@rasmil.dk 2011-01-25 12:04:14 EST --- I will review this bug -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 671398] Review Request: trytond-account-invoice - account-invoice 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=671398 Tim Lauridsen t...@rasmil.dk 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 671396] Review Request: trytond-account-invoice-history - account-invoice-history 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=671396 Tim Lauridsen t...@rasmil.dk changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|t...@rasmil.dk -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 671396] Review Request: trytond-account-invoice-history - account-invoice-history 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=671396 Tim Lauridsen t...@rasmil.dk 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 671397] Review Request: trytond-account-invoice-line-standalone - account-invoice-line-standalone 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=671397 Tim Lauridsen t...@rasmil.dk 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 671397] Review Request: trytond-account-invoice-line-standalone - account-invoice-line-standalone 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=671397 Tim Lauridsen t...@rasmil.dk changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|t...@rasmil.dk -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 671397] Review Request: trytond-account-invoice-line-standalone - account-invoice-line-standalone 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=671397 Tim Lauridsen t...@rasmil.dk 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 671196] Review Request: perl-Parallel-Scoreboard - Scoreboard for monitoring status of many processes
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=671196
Marcela Mašláňová mmasl...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mmasl...@redhat.com
--- Comment #1 from Marcela Mašláňová mmasl...@redhat.com 2011-01-25 12:06:21
EST ---
- rpmlint OK
- package must be named according to Guidelines OK
- spec file name must match the base package %{name} OK
- package must meet the Packaging Guidelines OK
- package must be licensed with Fedora approved license OK
- license field must match actual license OK
- text of the license in its own file must be included in %doc OK
- sources must match the upstream source OK
- package MUST successfully compile and build OK
^ http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2741673
- architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in bugzilla OK
- build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires OK
- handle locales properly with %find_lang macro OK
- shared library files must call ldconfig in %post(un) OK
- packages must NOT bundle system libraries ?
- package must own all directories that it creates OK
- permissions on files must be set properly OK
- package must consistently use macros OK
- package must contain code, or permissable content OK
- large documentation must go in a -doc OK
- %doc must not affect the runtime of the application OK
- header files must be in a -devel package OK
- static libraries must be in a -static package OK
- library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel OK
- devel package usually require base package OK
- packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives OK
- GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file OK
- packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages OK
rpm -q --provides perl-Parallel-Scoreboard
perl(Parallel::Scoreboard) = 0.02
perl-Parallel-Scoreboard = 0.02-1.fc15
rpm -q --requires perl-Parallel-Scoreboard
perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.12.2)
perl(Digest::MD5)
perl(Fcntl)
perl(POSIX)
perl(strict)
perl(warnings)
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) = 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) = 4.0-1
In inc directory lives for example Test::More. Could it be replace by system
Test::More? Also check the rest of inc.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 671393] Review Request: trytond-account-be - account-be 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=671393
--- Comment #5 from Tim Lauridsen t...@rasmil.dk 2011-01-25 12:08:17 EST ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
Common part from all trytond- packages
=== 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 %global instead of %define.
[-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[-] No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[?]
[Bug 671393] Review Request: trytond-account-be - account-be 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=671393 --- Comment #6 from Tim Lauridsen t...@rasmil.dk 2011-01-25 12:13:11 EST --- [x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. MD5SUM this package : 4a8298f19577a1b65e5e008746051852 MD5SUM upstream package : 4a8298f19577a1b65e5e008746051852 [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. rpmlint (srpm) : trytond-account-be-1.8.0-3.fc15.src.rpm --- trytond-account-be.src: W: summary-not-capitalized C account-be module for Tryton 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. --- rpmlint : trytond-account-be-1.8.0-3.fc14.noarch.rpm --- trytond-account-be.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C account-be module for Tryton 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 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 671398] Review Request: trytond-account-invoice - account-invoice 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=671398
--- Comment #4 from Tim Lauridsen t...@rasmil.dk 2011-01-25 12:08:55 EST ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
Common part from all trytond- packages
=== 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 %global instead of %define.
[-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[-] No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[?]
