[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 #6 from Hans de Goede 2011-01-26 03:07:56 EST --- (In reply to comment #5) > (In reply to comment #4) > > http://people.fedoraproject.org/~jwrdegoede/v4l-utils-0.8.2-2.fc15.src.rpm > > Doesn't build for me (mock -r fedora-rawhide-x86_64 > v4l-utils-0.8.2-2.fc15.src.rpm): > > .. > make[2]: Entering directory > `/builddir/build/BUILD/v4l-utils-0.8.2/lib/libv4l1' > cc -Wp,-MMD,"libv4l1.d",-MQ,"libv4l1.o",-MP -c -I../include > -fvisibility=hidden > -fPIC -I../../include -I../../lib/include -D_GNU_SOURCE > -DV4L_UTILS_VERSION='"0.8.2"' -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FO > cc -Wp,-MMD,"log.d",-MQ,"log.o",-MP -c -I../include -fvisibility=hidden -fPIC > -I../../include -I../../lib/include -D_GNU_SOURCE > -DV4L_UTILS_VERSION='"0.8.2"' > -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SO > log.c:22:28: fatal error: linux/videodev.h: No such file or directory > compilation terminated. > libv4l1.c:60:28: fatal error: linux/videodev.h: No such file or directory > compilation terminated. > make[2]: *** [log.o] Error 1 Oops, good point we need to deal with this upstream since linux/videodev.h is going away (deprecated) but for now adding a BuildRequires: kernel-headers fixes this: Spec URL: http://people.fedoraproject.org/~jwrdegoede/v4l-utils.spec SRPM URL: http://people.fedoraproject.org/~jwrdegoede/v4l-utils-0.8.2-3.fc15.src.rpm I'll start a discussion upstream about how to deal with the v4l1 API stuff libv4l1 needs from videodev.h -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 671430] Review Request: trytond-purchase-invoice-line-standalone - purchase-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=671430 --- Comment #1 from Tim Lauridsen 2011-01-26 03:12:48 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 671430] Review Request: trytond-purchase-invoice-line-standalone - purchase-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=671430 Tim Lauridsen 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 671431] Review Request: trytond-purchase - purchase 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=671431 Tim Lauridsen 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 671431] Review Request: trytond-purchase - purchase 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=671431 Tim Lauridsen 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 671431] Review Request: trytond-purchase - purchase 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=671431 --- Comment #1 from Tim Lauridsen 2011-01-26 03:13:28 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 671430] Review Request: trytond-purchase-invoice-line-standalone - purchase-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=671430 Tim Lauridsen 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 671430] Review Request: trytond-purchase-invoice-line-standalone - purchase-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=671430 Tim Lauridsen 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 671430] Review Request: trytond-purchase-invoice-line-standalone - purchase-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=671430 --- Comment #3 from Tim Lauridsen 2011-01-26 03:13:05 EST --- [x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. MD5SUM this package : 1fb1b464913623a58a55a123c5c918bf MD5SUM upstream package : 1fb1b464913623a58a55a123c5c918bf [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. rpmlint (srpm) : trytond-purchase-invoice-line-standalone-1.8.0-3.fc15.src.rpm --- trytond-purchase-invoice-line-standalone.src: W: summary-not-capitalized C purchase-invoice-line-standalone module for Tryton 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. --- rpmlint : trytond-purchase-invoice-line-standalone-1.8.0-3.fc14.noarch.rpm --- trytond-purchase-invoice-line-standalone.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C purchase-invoice-line-standalone module for Tryton trytond-purchase-invoice-line-standalone.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/trytond/modules/purchase_invoice_line_standalone/tests/test_purchase_invoice_line_standalone.py 0644L /usr/bin/env 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 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 671431] Review Request: trytond-purchase - purchase 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=671431
--- Comment #2 from Tim Lauridsen 2011-01-26 03:13:37 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.
[?] Packages should try
[Bug 671430] Review Request: trytond-purchase-invoice-line-standalone - purchase-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=671430
--- Comment #2 from Tim Lauridsen 2011-01-26 03:12:55 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.
[?] Packages should try
[Bug 671435] Review Request: trytond-stock-forecast - stock-forecast 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=671435 --- Comment #1 from Tim Lauridsen 2011-01-26 03:15:10 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 671432] Review Request: trytond-sale-opportunity - sale-opportunity 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=671432 --- Comment #1 from Tim Lauridsen 2011-01-26 03:14:04 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 671433] Review Request: trytond-sale-price-list - sale-price-list 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=671433 --- Comment #1 from Tim Lauridsen 2011-01-26 03:14:38 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 671433] Review Request: trytond-sale-price-list - sale-price-list 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=671433 Tim Lauridsen 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 671435] Review Request: trytond-stock-forecast - stock-forecast 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=671435 Tim Lauridsen 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 671431] Review Request: trytond-purchase - purchase 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=671431 Tim Lauridsen 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 671435] Review Request: trytond-stock-forecast - stock-forecast 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=671435 Tim Lauridsen 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 671433] Review Request: trytond-sale-price-list - sale-price-list 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=671433 Tim Lauridsen changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Tim Lauridsen 2011-01-26 03:17:08 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 671435] Review Request: trytond-stock-forecast - stock-forecast 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=671435 Tim Lauridsen changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Tim Lauridsen 2011-01-26 03:18:17 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 671432] Review Request: trytond-sale-opportunity - sale-opportunity 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=671432 Tim Lauridsen 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 671433] Review Request: trytond-sale-price-list - sale-price-list 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=671433 Tim Lauridsen 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 671430] Review Request: trytond-purchase-invoice-line-standalone - purchase-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=671430 Tim Lauridsen changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Tim Lauridsen 2011-01-26 03:14:15 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 671435] Review Request: trytond-stock-forecast - stock-forecast 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=671435 --- Comment #3 from Tim Lauridsen 2011-01-26 03:15:28 EST --- [x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. MD5SUM this package : 7c577526fe3995ea85ab33c5db47bb59 MD5SUM upstream package : 7c577526fe3995ea85ab33c5db47bb59 [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. rpmlint (srpm) : trytond-stock-forecast-1.8.0-3.fc15.src.rpm --- trytond-stock-forecast.src: W: summary-not-capitalized C stock-forecast module for Tryton 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. --- rpmlint : trytond-stock-forecast-1.8.0-3.fc14.noarch.rpm --- trytond-stock-forecast.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C stock-forecast module for Tryton trytond-stock-forecast.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/trytond/modules/stock_forecast/tests/test_stock_forecast.py 0644L /usr/bin/env 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 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 671431] Review Request: trytond-purchase - purchase 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=671431 --- Comment #3 from Tim Lauridsen 2011-01-26 03:13:50 EST --- [x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. MD5SUM this package : 9724104bd390eafa1ede8f774df0676e MD5SUM upstream package : 9724104bd390eafa1ede8f774df0676e [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. rpmlint (srpm) : trytond-purchase-1.8.0-3.fc15.src.rpm --- trytond-purchase.src: W: summary-not-capitalized C purchase module for Tryton 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. --- rpmlint : trytond-purchase-1.8.0-3.fc14.noarch.rpm --- trytond-purchase.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C purchase module for Tryton trytond-purchase.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/trytond/modules/purchase/tests/test_purchase.py 0644L /usr/bin/env 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 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 671433] Review Request: trytond-sale-price-list - sale-price-list 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=671433 --- Comment #3 from Tim Lauridsen 2011-01-26 03:14:57 EST --- [x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. MD5SUM this package : 125321a3390e45811a4e73a0c76c247c MD5SUM upstream package : 125321a3390e45811a4e73a0c76c247c [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. rpmlint (srpm) : trytond-sale-price-list-1.8.0-3.fc15.src.rpm --- trytond-sale-price-list.src: W: summary-not-capitalized C sale-price-list module for Tryton 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. --- rpmlint : trytond-sale-price-list-1.8.0-3.fc14.noarch.rpm --- trytond-sale-price-list.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C sale-price-list module for Tryton trytond-sale-price-list.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/trytond/modules/sale_price_list/tests/test_sale_price_list.py 0644L /usr/bin/env 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 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 671432] Review Request: trytond-sale-opportunity - sale-opportunity 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=671432
--- Comment #2 from Tim Lauridsen 2011-01-26 03:14:14 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.
[?] Packages should try
[Bug 671435] Review Request: trytond-stock-forecast - stock-forecast 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=671435
--- Comment #2 from Tim Lauridsen 2011-01-26 03:15:18 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.
[?] Packages should try
[Bug 671432] Review Request: trytond-sale-opportunity - sale-opportunity 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=671432 Tim Lauridsen changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Tim Lauridsen 2011-01-26 03:16:06 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 671435] Review Request: trytond-stock-forecast - stock-forecast 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=671435 Tim Lauridsen 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 671432] Review Request: trytond-sale-opportunity - sale-opportunity 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=671432 Tim Lauridsen 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 671432] Review Request: trytond-sale-opportunity - sale-opportunity 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=671432 Tim Lauridsen 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 671432] Review Request: trytond-sale-opportunity - sale-opportunity 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=671432 --- Comment #3 from Tim Lauridsen 2011-01-26 03:14:24 EST --- [x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. MD5SUM this package : a380a310f5ca2afb43059eb0c9fc95d3 MD5SUM upstream package : a380a310f5ca2afb43059eb0c9fc95d3 [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. rpmlint (srpm) : trytond-sale-opportunity-1.8.0-3.fc15.src.rpm --- trytond-sale-opportunity.src: W: summary-not-capitalized C sale-opportunity module for Tryton 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. --- rpmlint : trytond-sale-opportunity-1.8.0-3.fc14.noarch.rpm --- trytond-sale-opportunity.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C sale-opportunity module for Tryton trytond-sale-opportunity.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/trytond/modules/sale_opportunity/tests/test_sale_opportunity.py 0644L /usr/bin/env 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 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 671433] Review Request: trytond-sale-price-list - sale-price-list 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=671433
--- Comment #2 from Tim Lauridsen 2011-01-26 03:14:45 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.
[?] Packages should try
[Bug 671433] Review Request: trytond-sale-price-list - sale-price-list 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=671433 Tim Lauridsen 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 671431] Review Request: trytond-purchase - purchase 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=671431 Tim Lauridsen changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Tim Lauridsen 2011-01-26 03:15:29 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 539693] Review Request: plowsahre - command-line downloader/uploader for some of the most popular file-sharing websites
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=539693 --- Comment #6 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) 2011-01-26 03:38:23 EST --- This is I known. Problem there what no release there! Tarball looks like plowshare-SVN-r1327-snapshot.tar.gz. It is official tarball, not my checkout! So I do not known what mark as . -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 539693] Review Request: plowsahre - command-line downloader/uploader for some of the most popular file-sharing websites
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=539693 --- Comment #7 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) 2011-01-26 03:41:13 EST --- I thought it release after 0.9.4 but sure what should be next (0.9.5 or 1.0)... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 651898] Review Request: rubygem-activemodel - A toolkit for building modeling frameworks
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=651898
--- Comment #4 from Vít Ondruch 2011-01-26 03:52:43 EST
---
I am taking over this package (right Jozef?).
So here is updated package:
Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/vondruch/rubygem-activemodel.spec
SRPM URL:
http://people.redhat.com/vondruch/rubygem-activemodel-3.0.3-1.fc14.src.rpm
(In reply to comment #3)
> rubygem-i18n has now made it into fedora and I've update rubygem-activesupport
> to version 3.0.3 which will be pushed into fedora as soon as it's dependencies
> are.
>
> For now use the following for this review
>
> http://mo.morsi.org/files/rpms/rubygem-activesupport-3.0.3-1.fc14.src.rpm
>
> * please update to latest activemodel upstream release, 3.0.3
DONE
> * rpmlint looks good
>
> * mark README, LICENSE, CHANGELOG files as %doc
DONE
> * you do not need rm -rf %{buildroot} in %install and %clean sections (should
> be removed)
Removed from install section. Left in %clean section. If you remove it, then
the activemode directory stays in BUILDROOT, which is not nice, although it
doesn't make any problems.
I should remember this and be consistent ...
> * feel free to tar up upstream test suite and run in in a %check section
DONE
> * feel free to move docs into their own subpackage
DONE
I do not provide the Koji build due to missing activesupport dependency.
However if approved, I can already prepare the 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 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 changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Fixed In Version||perl-Perl-Metrics-Simple-0. ||15-1.fc15 Resolution||RAWHIDE Last Closed||2011-01-26 04:12:03 --- Comment #6 from Petr Pisar 2011-01-26 04:12:03 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 671438] Review Request: trytond-stock-product-location - stock-product-location 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=671438 --- Comment #1 from Tim Lauridsen 2011-01-26 04:18:06 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 671438] Review Request: trytond-stock-product-location - stock-product-location 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=671438 Tim Lauridsen 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 671436] Review Request: trytond-stock-inventory-location - stock-inventory-location 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=671436 --- Comment #1 from Tim Lauridsen 2011-01-26 04:17:03 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 671436] Review Request: trytond-stock-inventory-location - stock-inventory-location 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=671436 Tim Lauridsen 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 671436] Review Request: trytond-stock-inventory-location - stock-inventory-location 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=671436 Tim Lauridsen 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 671437] Review Request: trytond-stock-location-sequence - stock-location-sequence 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=671437 Tim Lauridsen 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 671437] Review Request: trytond-stock-location-sequence - stock-location-sequence 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=671437 --- Comment #3 from Tim Lauridsen 2011-01-26 04:17:51 EST --- [x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. MD5SUM this package : e765b0022aad661710af3f18c123dabc MD5SUM upstream package : e765b0022aad661710af3f18c123dabc [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. rpmlint (srpm) : trytond-stock-location-sequence-1.8.0-3.fc15.src.rpm --- trytond-stock-location-sequence.src: W: summary-not-capitalized C stock-location-sequence module for Tryton 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. --- rpmlint : trytond-stock-location-sequence-1.8.0-3.fc14.noarch.rpm --- trytond-stock-location-sequence.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C stock-location-sequence module for Tryton trytond-stock-location-sequence.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/trytond/modules/stock_location_sequence/tests/test_stock_location_sequence.py 0644L /usr/bin/env 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 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 671436] Review Request: trytond-stock-inventory-location - stock-inventory-location 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=671436 --- Comment #3 from Tim Lauridsen 2011-01-26 04:17:20 EST --- [x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. MD5SUM this package : 12ef9670f3f188e1650785eea3364b90 MD5SUM upstream package : 12ef9670f3f188e1650785eea3364b90 [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. rpmlint (srpm) : trytond-stock-inventory-location-1.8.0-3.fc15.src.rpm --- trytond-stock-inventory-location.src: W: summary-not-capitalized C stock-inventory-location module for Tryton 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. --- rpmlint : trytond-stock-inventory-location-1.8.0-3.fc14.noarch.rpm --- trytond-stock-inventory-location.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C stock-inventory-location module for Tryton trytond-stock-inventory-location.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/trytond/modules/stock_inventory_location/tests/test_stock_inventory_location.py 0644L /usr/bin/env 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 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 671437] Review Request: trytond-stock-location-sequence - stock-location-sequence 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=671437
--- Comment #2 from Tim Lauridsen 2011-01-26 04:17:42 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.
[?] Packages should try
[Bug 671438] Review Request: trytond-stock-product-location - stock-product-location 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=671438
--- Comment #2 from Tim Lauridsen 2011-01-26 04:18:12 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.
[?] Packages should try
[Bug 671436] Review Request: trytond-stock-inventory-location - stock-inventory-location 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=671436
--- Comment #2 from Tim Lauridsen 2011-01-26 04:17:10 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.
[?] Packages should try
[Bug 671437] Review Request: trytond-stock-location-sequence - stock-location-sequence 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=671437 Tim Lauridsen 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 671436] Review Request: trytond-stock-inventory-location - stock-inventory-location 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=671436 Tim Lauridsen 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 671438] Review Request: trytond-stock-product-location - stock-product-location 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=671438 Tim Lauridsen 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 671437] Review Request: trytond-stock-location-sequence - stock-location-sequence 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=671437 Tim Lauridsen 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 671437] Review Request: trytond-stock-location-sequence - stock-location-sequence 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=671437 --- Comment #1 from Tim Lauridsen 2011-01-26 04:17:35 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 671439] Review Request: trytond-stock - stock 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=671439 Tim Lauridsen 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 671438] Review Request: trytond-stock-product-location - stock-product-location 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=671438 Tim Lauridsen 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 671438] Review Request: trytond-stock-product-location - stock-product-location 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=671438 --- Comment #3 from Tim Lauridsen 2011-01-26 04:18:22 EST --- [x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. MD5SUM this package : 8cb340630a0e5435b3b50c8f8a5da533 MD5SUM upstream package : 8cb340630a0e5435b3b50c8f8a5da533 [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. rpmlint (srpm) : trytond-stock-product-location-1.8.0-3.fc15.src.rpm --- trytond-stock-product-location.src: W: summary-not-capitalized C stock-product-location module for Tryton 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. --- rpmlint : trytond-stock-product-location-1.8.0-3.fc14.noarch.rpm --- trytond-stock-product-location.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C stock-product-location module for Tryton trytond-stock-product-location.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/trytond/modules/stock_product_location/tests/test_stock_product_location.py 0644L /usr/bin/env 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 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 671439] Review Request: trytond-stock - stock 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=671439 Tim Lauridsen 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 671439] Review Request: trytond-stock - stock 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=671439 --- Comment #1 from Tim Lauridsen 2011-01-26 04:18:35 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 671440] Review Request: trytond-stock-supply-day - stock-supply-day 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=671440 Tim Lauridsen 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 671439] Review Request: trytond-stock - stock 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=671439 Tim Lauridsen 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 671442] Review Request: trytond-timesheet - timesheet 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=671442 Tim Lauridsen 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 671440] Review Request: trytond-stock-supply-day - stock-supply-day 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=671440 Tim Lauridsen 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 671439] Review Request: trytond-stock - stock 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=671439 --- Comment #3 from Tim Lauridsen 2011-01-26 04:18:53 EST --- [x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. MD5SUM this package : 45de7cf5b32489e0b4658ca851064401 MD5SUM upstream package : 45de7cf5b32489e0b4658ca851064401 [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. rpmlint (srpm) : trytond-stock-1.8.0-3.fc15.src.rpm --- trytond-stock.src: W: summary-not-capitalized C stock module for Tryton 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. --- rpmlint : trytond-stock-1.8.0-3.fc14.noarch.rpm --- trytond-stock.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C stock module for Tryton trytond-stock.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/trytond/modules/stock/tests/test_stock.py 0644L /usr/bin/env 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 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 671440] Review Request: trytond-stock-supply-day - stock-supply-day 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=671440 --- Comment #3 from Tim Lauridsen 2011-01-26 04:19:25 EST --- [x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. MD5SUM this package : d7f679eb6022bf65cabc8322fcfa561b MD5SUM upstream package : d7f679eb6022bf65cabc8322fcfa561b [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. rpmlint (srpm) : trytond-stock-supply-day-1.8.0-3.fc15.src.rpm --- trytond-stock-supply-day.src: W: summary-not-capitalized C stock-supply-day module for Tryton 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. --- rpmlint : trytond-stock-supply-day-1.8.0-3.fc14.noarch.rpm --- trytond-stock-supply-day.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C stock-supply-day module for Tryton trytond-stock-supply-day.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/trytond/modules/stock_supply_day/tests/test_stock_supply_day.py 0644L /usr/bin/env 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 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 671441] Review Request: trytond-stock-supply - stock-supply 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=671441
--- Comment #2 from Tim Lauridsen 2011-01-26 04:19:48 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.
[?] Packages should try
[Bug 671439] Review Request: trytond-stock - stock 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=671439
--- Comment #2 from Tim Lauridsen 2011-01-26 04:18:42 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.
[?] Packages should try
[Bug 671440] Review Request: trytond-stock-supply-day - stock-supply-day 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=671440 --- Comment #1 from Tim Lauridsen 2011-01-26 04:19:06 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 671442] Review Request: trytond-timesheet - timesheet 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=671442 Tim Lauridsen 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 671441] Review Request: trytond-stock-supply - stock-supply 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=671441 Tim Lauridsen 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 671442] Review Request: trytond-timesheet - timesheet 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=671442 Tim Lauridsen 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 671441] Review Request: trytond-stock-supply - stock-supply 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=671441 Tim Lauridsen 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 671441] Review Request: trytond-stock-supply - stock-supply 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=671441 Tim Lauridsen 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 671442] Review Request: trytond-timesheet - timesheet 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=671442 --- Comment #1 from Tim Lauridsen 2011-01-26 04:20:11 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 671441] Review Request: trytond-stock-supply - stock-supply 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=671441 --- Comment #1 from Tim Lauridsen 2011-01-26 04:19:39 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 671440] Review Request: trytond-stock-supply-day - stock-supply-day 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=671440 Tim Lauridsen 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 671437] Review Request: trytond-stock-location-sequence - stock-location-sequence 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=671437 Tim Lauridsen changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Tim Lauridsen 2011-01-26 04:23:20 EST --- Looking fine 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 671436] Review Request: trytond-stock-inventory-location - stock-inventory-location 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=671436 Tim Lauridsen changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Tim Lauridsen 2011-01-26 04:21:42 EST --- Looking fine 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 671442] Review Request: trytond-timesheet - timesheet 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=671442 --- Comment #3 from Tim Lauridsen 2011-01-26 04:20:32 EST --- [x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. MD5SUM this package : 4326c48c3615d156090d70d6e65d3f72 MD5SUM upstream package : 4326c48c3615d156090d70d6e65d3f72 [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. rpmlint (srpm) : trytond-timesheet-1.8.0-3.fc15.src.rpm --- trytond-timesheet.src: W: summary-not-capitalized C timesheet module for Tryton 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. --- rpmlint : trytond-timesheet-1.8.0-3.fc14.noarch.rpm --- trytond-timesheet.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C timesheet module for Tryton trytond-timesheet.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/trytond/modules/timesheet/tests/test_timesheet.py 0644L /usr/bin/env 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 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 671440] Review Request: trytond-stock-supply-day - stock-supply-day 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=671440
--- Comment #2 from Tim Lauridsen 2011-01-26 04:19:16 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.
[?] Packages should try
[Bug 671441] Review Request: trytond-stock-supply - stock-supply 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=671441 --- Comment #3 from Tim Lauridsen 2011-01-26 04:19:58 EST --- [x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. MD5SUM this package : 3b038e117a98606147b2958fd4e988b6 MD5SUM upstream package : 3b038e117a98606147b2958fd4e988b6 [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. rpmlint (srpm) : trytond-stock-supply-1.8.0-3.fc15.src.rpm --- trytond-stock-supply.src: W: summary-not-capitalized C stock-supply module for Tryton 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. --- rpmlint : trytond-stock-supply-1.8.0-3.fc14.noarch.rpm --- trytond-stock-supply.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C stock-supply module for Tryton trytond-stock-supply.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/trytond/modules/stock_supply/tests/test_stock_supply.py 0644L /usr/bin/env 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 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 671442] Review Request: trytond-timesheet - timesheet 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=671442
--- Comment #2 from Tim Lauridsen 2011-01-26 04:20:18 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.
[?] Packages should try
[Bug 671439] Review Request: trytond-stock - stock 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=671439 Tim Lauridsen changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Tim Lauridsen 2011-01-26 04:24:42 EST --- Looking fine 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 671440] Review Request: trytond-stock-supply-day - stock-supply-day 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=671440 Tim Lauridsen changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Tim Lauridsen 2011-01-26 04:25:18 EST --- Looking fine 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 671441] Review Request: trytond-stock-supply - stock-supply 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=671441 Tim Lauridsen changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Tim Lauridsen 2011-01-26 04:25:58 EST --- Looking fine 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 671438] Review Request: trytond-stock-product-location - stock-product-location 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=671438 Tim Lauridsen changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Tim Lauridsen 2011-01-26 04:24:03 EST --- Looking fine 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 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 Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Fixed In Version||perl-Perl-Critic-Storable-0 ||.01-1.fc15 Resolution||RAWHIDE Last Closed||2011-01-26 04:26:53 --- Comment #4 from Petr Pisar 2011-01-26 04:26:53 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 671442] Review Request: trytond-timesheet - timesheet 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=671442 Tim Lauridsen changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Tim Lauridsen 2011-01-26 04:29:17 EST --- Looking fine 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 670860] Review Request: trytond-modules - Modules for Tryton
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=670860 --- Comment #10 from Tim Lauridsen 2011-01-26 04:31:04 EST --- All the module packages should be reviewed 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 670860] Review Request: trytond-modules - Modules for Tryton
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=670860 --- Comment #11 from Dan Horák 2011-01-26 04:40:47 EST --- My BIG THANKS to you, Tim. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 672764] New: Review Request: perl-JSON-PP - JSON::XS compatible pure-Perl module
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-JSON-PP - JSON::XS compatible pure-Perl module https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=672764 Summary: Review Request: perl-JSON-PP - JSON::XS compatible pure-Perl module Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: p...@city-fan.org QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://subversion.city-fan.org/repos/cfo-repo/perl-JSON-PP/branches/fedora/perl-JSON-PP.spec SRPM URL: http://www.city-fan.org/~paul/extras/perl-JSON-PP/perl-JSON-PP-2.27104-2.fc15.src.rpm Description: JSON::XS is the fastest and most proper JSON module on CPAN. It is written by Marc Lehmann in C, so must be compiled and installed in the used environment. JSON::PP is a pure-Perl module and is compatible with JSON::XS. The package builds and runs cleanly on all current Fedora and EPEL releases. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 #8 from Fedora Update System 2011-01-26 04:57:33 EST --- python-inotify-0.9.1-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-inotify-0.9.1-1.el6 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 #9 from Fedora Update System 2011-01-26 04:57:40 EST --- python-inotify-0.9.1-1.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-inotify-0.9.1-1.el5 -- 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 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 #10 from Terje Røsten 2011-01-26 04:53:34 EST --- Thanks, this is starting to look good. Some warnings from rpmlint: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 12) - convert tabs in Obsoletes: and Provides: to spaces. W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes iptraf W self-obsoletion iptraf obsoletes iptraf = 1.0.3.52.gdaa1-1.fc14 - these seems dangerous, W: invalid-url Source0: https://fedorahosted.org/releases/i/p/iptraf-ng/iptraf-ng-1.0.3.52.gdaa1.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not Found - can't find the tarball on the website, would also be nice to remove the gdaa1 postfix. W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.0.2-3 ['1.0.3.52.gdaa1-1.fc14', '1.0.3.52.gdaa1-1'] - easy to fix W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man8/iptraf-ng.8.gz 27: warning: macro `Biptraf' not defined Fix these and I will do the formal 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 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 #11 from Nikola Pajkovsky 2011-01-26 05:30:13
EST ---
http://npajkovs.fedorapeople.org/iptraf-ng.spec
http://npajkovs.fedorapeople.org/iptraf-ng-1.0.3.55.gae6e.dirty-1.fc15.src.rpm
(In reply to comment #10)
> Thanks, this is starting to look good.
>
> Some warnings from rpmlint:
>
> W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 12)
>
> - convert tabs in Obsoletes: and Provides: to spaces.
>
> W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes iptraf
> W self-obsoletion iptraf obsoletes iptraf = 1.0.3.52.gdaa1-1.fc14
>
> - these seems dangerous,
>
fixed
> W: invalid-url Source0:
> https://fedorahosted.org/releases/i/p/iptraf-ng/iptraf-ng-1.0.3.52.gdaa1.tar.gz
> HTTP Error 404: Not Found
>
> - can't find the tarball on the website,
> would also be nice to remove the gdaa1 postfix.
the naming convention is A.B.C.X.sha1.dirty-%{release}
where,
A.B.C - is version of iptraf-ng
X - is how many commits are iptraf ahead of A.B.C version
sha1 - taken from git description
optional dirty - show only if I have dirty working directory (Right now I
middle of some work)
This is a snapshot taken from git. For table release it will be looking as
iptraf-ng.A.B.C-%{release}
> W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.0.2-3 ['1.0.3.52.gdaa1-1.fc14',
> '1.0.3.52.gdaa1-1']
>
> - easy to fix
>
> W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man8/iptraf-ng.8.gz 27: warning: macro
> `Biptraf' not defined
>
>
> Fix these and I will do the formal review.
This won't be fixed till I release a new stable version or I put iptraf-ng into
rawhide.
Thank you for taking time to look at it.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 655184] Review Request: drupal6-data - Data module helps you model, manage and query related sets of tables.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=655184 --- Comment #8 from Peter Borsa 2011-01-26 05:40:37 EST --- http://asrob.net/fedora/drupal6-data.spec http://asrob.net/fedora/drupal6-data-1.0-0.3.alpha14.fc14.src.rpm This is an other build which contains several fixes. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 672779] Review Request: perl-Module-Metadata - Gather package and POD information from perl module 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=672779 Paul Howarth changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||672665 --- Comment #1 from Paul Howarth 2011-01-26 06:01:11 EST --- This package needs perl(version) >= 0.87, which isn't yet in Rawhide. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 672779] New: Review Request: perl-Module-Metadata - Gather package and POD information from perl module files
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-Module-Metadata - Gather package and POD information from perl module files https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=672779 Summary: Review Request: perl-Module-Metadata - Gather package and POD information from perl module files Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: p...@city-fan.org QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://subversion.city-fan.org/repos/cfo-repo/perl-Module-Metadata/branches/fedora/perl-Module-Metadata.spec SRPM URL: http://www.city-fan.org/~paul/extras/perl-Module-Metadata/perl-Module-Metadata-1.03-2.fc15.src.rpm Description: Gather package and POD information from perl module files. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
