[Bug 652582] Review Request: pandoc - Markdown markup converter
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652582 --- Comment #3 from Lakshmi Narasimhan 2011-01-30 02:30:34 EST --- Created attachment 475991 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=475991 Patch to fix man page permission issue -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 652582] Review Request: pandoc - Markdown markup converter
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652582 --- Comment #4 from Lakshmi Narasimhan 2011-01-30 02:31:58 EST --- I get these errors from rpmlint pandoc.x86_64: E: non-readable /usr/share/man/man1/markdown2pdf.1.gz 0600L The file can't be read by everybody. If this is expected (for security reasons), contact your rpmlint distributor to get it added to the list of exceptions for your distro (or add it to your local configuration if you installed rpmlint from the source tarball). pandoc.x86_64: E: non-readable /usr/share/man/man1/pandoc.1.gz 0600L The file can't be read by everybody. If this is expected (for security reasons), contact your rpmlint distributor to get it added to the list of exceptions for your distro (or add it to your local configuration if you installed rpmlint from the source tarball). Attached a patch that fixes these. Thanks -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 673029] Review Request: sil-nuosu-fonts - The Nuosu SIL Font
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=673029 --- Comment #2 from Peng Wu 2011-01-30 01:54:56 EST --- Thanks, a simple fontconfig rule is added and the spec file is cleaned. Here are the new spec file and source rpm: Spec URL: http://pwu.fedorapeople.org/NuosuSIL/sil-nuosu-fonts.spec SRPM URL: http://pwu.fedorapeople.org/NuosuSIL/sil-nuosu-fonts-2.1.1-2.fc14.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 673027] Review Request: manchu-fonts - A Manchu OpenType (TrueType-flavored) font
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=673027 --- Comment #2 from Peng Wu 2011-01-30 01:52:49 EST --- Thanks, a simple fontconfig rule is added and the spec file is cleaned. Here are the new spec file and source rpm: Spec URL: http://pwu.fedorapeople.org/ManchuFont2005/manchu-fonts.spec SRPM URL: http://pwu.fedorapeople.org/ManchuFont2005/manchu-fonts-2.006-2.fc14.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 652576] Review Request: ghc-texmath - Haskell texmathml library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652576 --- Comment #7 from Lakshmi Narasimhan 2011-01-30 00:37:22 EST --- I see the package in rawhide. Sorry. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 630206] Review Request: ghc-hledger-lib - Core types and utilities for working with hledger data
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=630206
Lakshmi Narasimhan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Lakshmi Narasimhan 2011-01-30
00:31:29 EST ---
[+]MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
the review.
rpm ghc-hledger-lib-prof-0.13-1.fc14.x86_64.rpm
ghc-hledger-lib.src: W: strange-permission hledger-lib-0.13.tar.gz 0640L
A file that you listed to include in your package has strange permissions.
Usually, a file should have 0644 permissions.
ghc-hledger-lib-prof.x86_64: E: devel-dependency ghc-hledger-lib-devel
Your package has a dependency on a devel package but it's not a devel package
itself.
ghc-hledger-lib-prof.x86_64: W: no-documentation
The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include
documentation files.
ghc-hledger-lib-prof.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/ghc-6.12.3/hledger-lib-0.13/libHShledger-lib-0.13_p.a
A development file (usually source code) is located in a non-devel package. If
you want to include source code in your package, be sure to create a
development package.
4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings.
[+]MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+]MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec
[+]MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
Naming-Yes
Version-release - Matches
License - OK, GPLv3. License text present in LICENSE file.
No prebuilt external bits - OK, the source package does not ship with
any prebuilt bits
Spec legibity - OK, based on template produced by cabal2spec 0.22.2.
Package template - OK , based on template produced by cabal2spec
0.22.2.
Arch support - OK
Libexecdir - OK
rpmlint - yes
changelogs - OK
Source url tag - OK, validated.
Buildroot is ignored - present anyway. OK, should be removed.
%clean is ignored - present anyway. OK, should be removed.
Build Requires list - OK, validated.
Summary and description - OK, looks fine.
API documentation - OK, present in devel package
[+]MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines.
License is GPLv3. No license headers in source files. The cabal file mentions
the license. Version of GPL inferred from the LICENSE file.
[+]MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
Version of GPL inferred from the LICENSE file.
[+]MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package must be included in %doc.
LICENSE file contains the license text.
[+]MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+]MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+]MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream
source,as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task.
md5sum hledger-lib-0.13.tar.gz
1b8b343089cb58a9610e71e562227947 hledger-lib-0.13.tar.gz
md5sum ghc-hledger-lib-0.13-1.fc14.src/hledger-lib-0.13.tar.gz
1b8b343089cb58a9610e71e562227947
ghc-hledger-lib-0.13-1.fc14.src/hledger-lib-0.13.tar.gz
[+]MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture.
Built locally on x86_64.
[+]MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch.
[+]MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.
Validated.
[NA]MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly using the %find_lang macro
[NA]MUST: Packages stores shared library files must call ldconfig in %post and
%postun.
[+]MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
Checked with rpmquery --list
[NA]MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review.
[+]MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates.
Checked with rpmquery --whatprovides
[+]MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file's %files listings.
[+]MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
Checked with ls -lR
[+]MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[+]MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[+]MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
[+]MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application.
checked with ls -lR
[+]MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[NA]MUST: Static
[Bug 663244] Review Request: CUnit - A unit testing framework for C
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=663244 Ralf Corsepius changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rc040...@freenet.de --- Comment #17 from Ralf Corsepius 2011-01-30 00:06:07 EST --- (In reply to comment #16) > The build fails with: > > automake-1.11: command not found That's a classical autotool beginner's mistake: For portability reasons, the autotools should not be run during builts, but be integrated into the sources. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 630206] Review Request: ghc-hledger-lib - Core types and utilities for working with hledger data
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=630206 Lakshmi Narasimhan changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||lakshminaras2...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|lakshminaras2...@gmail.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 663244] Review Request: CUnit - A unit testing framework for C
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=663244 --- Comment #16 from Shakthi Kannan 2011-01-29 23:43:20 EST --- The build fails with: automake-1.11: command not found for EL-5: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=2750004&name=build.log -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 634025] Review Request: PolarSSL - Light-weight cryptographic and SSL/TLS library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=634025 Mads Kiilerich changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #10 from Mads Kiilerich 2011-01-29 20:20:31 EST --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: polarssl Short Description: Light-weight cryptographic and SSL/TLS library Owners: kiilerix Branches: f14 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 673589] Review Request: UpTools - C++ library for hpc, networking, db, memory, etc.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=673589 seb...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|needinfo- | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 673589] Review Request: UpTools - C++ library for hpc, networking, db, memory, etc.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=673589 --- Comment #2 from seb...@gmail.com 2011-01-29 18:00:08 EST --- The right link for SRPM URL: http://www.palermo.edu/ingenieria/UpTools-8.5.4-1.fc14.src.rpm Please sorry, but it's my first RPM that I Upload to Fedora community and my anxiety for upload it betrayed me. I look forward for a kind sponsor and your feedback. Thanks again -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 650667] Review Request: hitori - Hitori game for GNOME
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=650667 Martin Gieseking changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|martin.giesek...@uos.de 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 665995] Review Request: fmit - Free Music Instrument Tuner
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=665995 --- Comment #23 from Volker Fröhlich 2011-01-29 17:39:38 EST --- Thank you, please proceed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 665168] Review Request: nautilus-sendto-trac - Nautilus context menu for sending files to Trac
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=665168 Mat Booth changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 665168] Review Request: nautilus-sendto-trac - Nautilus context menu for sending files to Trac
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=665168 --- Comment #9 from Mat Booth 2011-01-29 17:27:24 EST --- Thanks, Fabian. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: nautilus-sendto-trac Short Description: Nautilus context menu for sending files to Trac Owners: mbooth Branches: F14 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 671884] Review Request: erlang-cluster_info - Cluster info/postmortem inspector for Erlang applications
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=671884 --- Comment #4 from Thomas Spura 2011-01-29 17:15:24 EST --- I have no glue about erlang, but want to review this package. So there might be some dump questions ;-) Are there any guidelines related to erlang like [1] for python? How to verify, the BuildRequires/Requires? e.g. I greped for 'erts' and couldn't find a match... Current SHOULD from my side: * Use as url: https://download.github.com/hibari-cluster-info-d077716.tar.gz That works with wget and spectool Rest looks ok, except my inknowledge about the BR/R. If you could enlight me, about that, I'll approve this unless someone else stepps in... [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 661615] Review Request: bamf - Application matching framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=661615 Adam Williamson changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE Last Closed||2011-01-29 17:02:29 --- Comment #9 from Adam Williamson 2011-01-29 17:02:29 EST --- all done, thanks! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 650667] Review Request: hitori - Hitori game for GNOME
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=650667 --- Comment #11 from Mario Blättermann 2011-01-29 16:09:02 EST --- New version has arrived: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/19373040/Fedora/hitori-0.2.5-4.fc14.src.rpm Regarding the sponsorship, I will contact you per E-Mail. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 650667] Review Request: hitori - Hitori game for GNOME
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=650667
--- Comment #10 from Martin Gieseking 2011-01-29
15:41:45 EST ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> Note: The sources still include the old COPYING-DOCS from previous versions.
> The new Mallard-based manual is CC-licensed, as described in
> /help/C/license.page. That's why I've dropped the obsolete file from the docs
> list, too. Is this OK?
Ah, good catch. Yes that's OK. Only license texts of actually involved licenses
must be added to the package.
The proper abbreviation for the Creative Commons license is CC-BY-SA (without
v3.0 postfix). See here for a list of accepted licenses and their short names
used in the License fields:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#SoftwareLicenses
Here are a couple of further notes:
- Don't mix spaces and tabs for indentation. Choose one of them and stick
with it.
- Add BR: gtk2-devel again. Only "Requires: gtk2" was supposed to be removed.
- Please put the sections %post, %postun, and %posttrans between %clean and
%files. It's just the usual place for the scriptlets.
- Replace %{_datadir}/gnome/help/%{name}/* with
%{_datadir}/gnome/help/%{name}/
Otherwise, only the content of the directory is added but the directory
itself stays unowned and won't get removed when uninstalling the package.
- Add %dir %{_datadir}/%{name}/ to the %files section or (alternatively)
replace %{_datadir}/%{name}/%{name}.ui with %{_datadir}/%{name}/
for proper directory ownership.
BTW, if you don't have a sponsor yet, I can sponsor you if you're willing to do
some informal reviews of other packager's submissions in order to show an
understanding of the packaging guidelines. This is important because you will
be allowed to formally review and approve packages once you are sponsored. And
of course you shouldn't mess your own packages either. Thus, you should know
what you do. :)
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 672365] Review Request: clutter-gtk010 - A basic GTK2 clutter widget
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=672365 Peter Robinson changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Peter Robinson 2011-01-29 15:03:56 EST --- New Package GIT Request === Package Name: clutter-gtk010 Short Description: A basic GTK2 clutter widget Owners: pbrobinson Branches: devel InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 665560] Review Request: rubygem-mail - A Really Ruby Mail Library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=665560 --- Comment #17 from Minnikhanov 2011-01-29 14:46:34 EST --- Spec URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/14118661/rubygem-mail.spec SRPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/14118661/rubygem-mail-2.2.15-1.fc14.src.rpm Updated to latest upstream release (v.2.2.15 25/01/2011) Spec(previous) URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/14118661/rubygem-mail-2.2.14-5.fc14.spec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 672365] Review Request: clutter-gtk010 - A basic GTK2 clutter widget
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=672365 Adam Williamson changed: What|Removed |Added CC||awill...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|awill...@redhat.com Flag||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Adam Williamson 2011-01-29 14:02:15 EST --- It builds in mock. rpmlint output is clean except for spelling errors: clutter-gtk010.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gtk -> gt, gtd, gt k clutter-gtk010.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US compat -> compar, compact, combat clutter-gtk010.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gtk -> gt, gtd, gt k clutter-gtk010.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US compat -> compar, compact, combat clutter-gtk010-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) gtk -> gt, gtd, gt k clutter-gtk010-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation all MUST items are okay. Checked there are no conflicts with F15's clutter-gtk packages and this can install alongside them happily. note package is only slightly modified from existing clutter-gtk package, which has passed review. review 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 650667] Review Request: hitori - Hitori game for GNOME
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=650667 --- Comment #9 from Mario Blättermann 2011-01-29 13:54:10 EST --- OK, here we go: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/19373040/Fedora/hitori-0.2.5-3.fc14.src.rpm Note: The sources still include the old COPYING-DOCS from previous versions. The new Mallard-based manual is CC-licensed, as described in /help/C/license.page. That's why I've dropped the obsolete file from the docs list, too. Is this OK? I filed a bug for Hitori: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=640905 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 672203] Review Request: erlang-riak_err - Enhanced SASL Error Logger for Riak
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=672203 Peter Lemenkov changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Peter Lemenkov 2011-01-29 13:43:58 EST --- Thanks! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: erlang-riak_err Short Description: Enhanced SASL Error Logger for Riak Owners: peter Branches: f14 el6 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 663244] Review Request: CUnit - A unit testing framework for C
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=663244 Jeroen van Meeuwen changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kana...@kanarip.com --- Comment #15 from Jeroen van Meeuwen 2011-01-29 13:34:40 EST --- May I request a EL-5 branch too please? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 672203] Review Request: erlang-riak_err - Enhanced SASL Error Logger for Riak
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=672203 Martin Gieseking changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Martin Gieseking 2011-01-29 13:32:43 EST --- I think this is your latest SRPM: :) http://peter.fedorapeople.org/erlang-riak_err-1.0.0-0.1.20110105git429f757.fc12.src.rpm The package looks good now, thus it's 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 663244] Review Request: CUnit - A unit testing framework for C
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=663244 Shakthi Kannan changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #14 from Shakthi Kannan 2011-01-29 13:17:10 EST --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: CUnit Short Description: A unit testing framework for C Owners: shakthimaan chitlesh Branches: F-13 F-14 EL-6 InitialCC: shakthimaan -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 672203] Review Request: erlang-riak_err - Enhanced SASL Error Logger for Riak
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=672203
--- Comment #2 from Peter Lemenkov 2011-01-29 13:18:23 EST
---
Done (just changed %{release}):
http://peter.fedorapeople.org/erlang-riak_err.spec
http://peter.fedorapeople.org/erlang-riak_err-1.0.0-1.fc12.src.rpm
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 663244] Review Request: CUnit - A unit testing framework for C
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=663244 Martin Gieseking changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #13 from Martin Gieseking 2011-01-29 13:11:18 EST --- The spec file and the patches look good now, so we can finish here. Package 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 648098] Review Request: ghc-zlib-bindings - Low-level bindings to the zlib package
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=648098 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 630198] Review Request: ghc-safe - Library for safe (pattern match free) functions
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=630198 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 648098] Review Request: ghc-zlib-bindings - Low-level bindings to the zlib package
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=648098 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System 2011-01-29 12:50:13 EST --- ghc-zlib-bindings-0.0.0-1.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ghc-zlib-bindings-0.0.0-1.fc14 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 630198] Review Request: ghc-safe - Library for safe (pattern match free) functions
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=630198 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System 2011-01-29 12:52:12 EST --- ghc-safe-0.3-1.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ghc-safe-0.3-1.fc13 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 630198] Review Request: ghc-safe - Library for safe (pattern match free) functions
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=630198 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System 2011-01-29 12:52:20 EST --- ghc-safe-0.3-1.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ghc-safe-0.3-1.fc14 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 630204] Review Request: ghc-mtlparse - Haskell mtlparse library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=630204 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System 2011-01-29 12:51:23 EST --- ghc-mtlparse-0.1.1-1.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ghc-mtlparse-0.1.1-1.fc14 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 630274] Review Request: ghc-blaze-builder - Builder to efficiently append text
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=630274 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System 2011-01-29 12:49:27 EST --- ghc-blaze-builder-0.2.1.4-1.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ghc-blaze-builder-0.2.1.4-1.fc13 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 648098] Review Request: ghc-zlib-bindings - Low-level bindings to the zlib package
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=648098 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System 2011-01-29 12:50:07 EST --- ghc-zlib-bindings-0.0.0-1.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ghc-zlib-bindings-0.0.0-1.fc13 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 630274] Review Request: ghc-blaze-builder - Builder to efficiently append text
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=630274 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System 2011-01-29 12:49:20 EST --- ghc-blaze-builder-0.2.1.4-1.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ghc-blaze-builder-0.2.1.4-1.fc14 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 630274] Review Request: ghc-blaze-builder - Builder to efficiently append text
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=630274 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 630204] Review Request: ghc-mtlparse - Haskell mtlparse library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=630204 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System 2011-01-29 12:51:15 EST --- ghc-mtlparse-0.1.1-1.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ghc-mtlparse-0.1.1-1.fc13 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 630224] Review Request: ghc-attempt - Concrete data type for handling extensible exceptions as failures
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=630224 Bug 630224 depends on bug 630223, which changed state. Bug 630223 Summary: Review Request: ghc-failure - A simple type class for success/failure computations https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=630223 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||ERRATA Status|ON_QA |CLOSED --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System 2011-01-29 12:46:55 EST --- ghc-attempt-0.3.0-1.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ghc-attempt-0.3.0-1.fc14 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 630261] Review Request: ghc-bytestring-nums - Parse numeric literals from ByteStrings
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=630261 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System 2011-01-29 12:48:05 EST --- ghc-bytestring-nums-0.3.2-1.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ghc-bytestring-nums-0.3.2-1.fc14 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 630224] Review Request: ghc-attempt - Concrete data type for handling extensible exceptions as failures
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=630224 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System 2011-01-29 12:47:02 EST --- ghc-attempt-0.3.0-1.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ghc-attempt-0.3.0-1.fc13 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 630261] Review Request: ghc-bytestring-nums - Parse numeric literals from ByteStrings
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=630261 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System 2011-01-29 12:48:12 EST --- ghc-bytestring-nums-0.3.2-1.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ghc-bytestring-nums-0.3.2-1.fc13 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 663244] Review Request: CUnit - A unit testing framework for C
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=663244 --- Comment #12 from Shakthi Kannan 2011-01-29 12:31:59 EST --- - Changed Group to use System Environment/Libraries. - Removed executable permission from C files. - Created two separate patches for Makefile and manpage fixes. - Removed passing datarootdir from configure. SPEC: http://shakthimaan.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/CUnit.spec SRPM: http://shakthimaan.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/CUnit-2.1.2-6.fc14.src.rpmm $ rpmlint CUnit.spec CUnit.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/cunit/CUnit-2.1-2-src.tar.bz2 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. $ rpmlint CUnit-2.1.2-6.fc14.i686.rpm CUnit.i686: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib/libcunit.so.1.0.1 exit@GLIBC_2.0 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. $ rpmlint CUnit-devel-2.1.2-6.fc14.i686.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ $ rpmlint CUnit-2.1.2-6.fc14.src.rpm CUnit.src: W: invalid-url Source0: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/cunit/CUnit-2.1-2-src.tar.bz2 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Successful Koji builds for F-13, F-14, EL-6 respectively: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2749372 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2749363 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2749366 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 670997] Review Request: perl-Data-Types - Validate and convert data types
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=670997 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System 2011-01-29 12:26:02 EST --- perl-Data-Types-0.08-2.fc14 has been pushed to the Fedora 14 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update perl-Data-Types'. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Data-Types-0.08-2.fc14 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 517191] Review Request: php-symfony-symfony - Open-Source PHP Web Framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=517191 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||php-symfony-symfony-1.4.8-2 ||.fc14 Resolution||ERRATA Last Closed||2011-01-29 12:24:54 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 655496] Review Request: cambozola - A viewer for multipart jpeg streams
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=655496 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||cambozola-0.92-2.fc13 Resolution||ERRATA Last Closed||2011-01-29 12:25:21 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 517191] Review Request: php-symfony-symfony - Open-Source PHP Web Framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=517191 --- Comment #36 from Fedora Update System 2011-01-29 12:24:45 EST --- php-symfony-symfony-1.4.8-2.fc14 has been pushed to the Fedora 14 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 655496] Review Request: cambozola - A viewer for multipart jpeg streams
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=655496 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System 2011-01-29 12:25:16 EST --- cambozola-0.92-2.fc13 has been pushed to the Fedora 13 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 655496] Review Request: cambozola - A viewer for multipart jpeg streams
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=655496 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|cambozola-0.92-2.fc13 |cambozola-0.92-2.fc14 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 655496] Review Request: cambozola - A viewer for multipart jpeg streams
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=655496 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System 2011-01-29 12:26:07 EST --- cambozola-0.92-2.fc14 has been pushed to the Fedora 14 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 630215] Review Request: ghc-MemoTrie - Trie-based memo functions
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=630215 Ben Boeckel changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Ben Boeckel 2011-01-29 12:16:51 EST --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: ghc-MemoTrie Short Description: Trie-based memo functions Owners: mathstuf Branches: F-13 F-14 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 630278] Review Request: ghc-ranges - Ranges and various functions on them
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=630278 Ben Boeckel changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #9 from Ben Boeckel 2011-01-29 12:15:36 EST --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: ghc-ranges Short Description: Ranges and various functions on them Owners: mathstuf Branches: F-13 F-14 Thanks. InitialCC: haskell-sig(In reply to comment #8) > Also, please upgrade to cabal2spec-0.22.4 while committing the spec file. Will do. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 658420] Review Request: zorba - General purpose XQuery processor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=658420 --- Comment #7 from Martin Gieseking 2011-01-29 12:17:44 EST --- (In reply to comment #6) > Please ask upstream where the files in external/json have been taken from, and > if they have undergone modification. Please ask them also to document this in > the relevant directory. OK, done. I let you know if I get any information on the bundled json library. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 673637] Review Request: python-carrot - AMQP Messaging Framework for Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=673637 Brian Pepple changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Brian Pepple 2011-01-29 12:00:36 EST --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-carrot Short Description: AMQP Messaging Framework for Python Owners: bpepple Branches: f14 el6 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 658420] Review Request: zorba - General purpose XQuery processor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=658420
--- Comment #6 from Jussi Lehtola 2011-01-29 11:26:37
EST ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> According to the guidelines [1], Java packages using JNI (and thus containing
> a
> .so file) must be installed in %{_libdir}/%{name}. Therefore, I haven't moved
> the jar yet. If this part of the guidelines doesn't apply here for some
> reason,
> please let me know.
>
> [1]
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Java#Packaging_JAR_files_that_use_JNI
That's certainly true, so this is ok.
***
All the issues seem to have been fixed. However, before approving this review,
I still have one final point.
The directory
external/json
looks a bit troubling, since it is insinuating that a json library is bundled.
However, there are *NO* comments whatsoever what library this is and what its
upstream is.
Please ask upstream where the files in external/json have been taken from, and
if they have undergone modification. Please ask them also to document this in
the relevant directory.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 663244] Review Request: CUnit - A unit testing framework for C
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=663244
Martin Gieseking changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|martin.giesek...@uos.de
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Comment #11 from Martin Gieseking 2011-01-29
11:18:22 EST ---
The package is almost ready. Here are a few things you should consider:
- The Group of the base package should be "System Environment/Libraries".
- Some of the C files have executable permissions. Please get rid of them in
%prep, e.g. with
find -name *.c -exec chmod -x {} \;
- Please provide two separate patches: one for the docdir stuff and one for
the manpage. That way it's easier to deal with future upstream updates.
- As Michael already mentioned, you can drop --datarootdir=%{_datadir} from
%configure because %{_datarootdir} = %{_datadir} = /usr/share
$ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-14-x86_64/result/*.rpm
CUnit.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libcunit.so.1.0.1
exit@GLIBC_2.2.5
CUnit-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/src/debug/CUnit-2.1-2/CUnit/Sources/Framework/Util.c
CUnit-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/src/debug/CUnit-2.1-2/CUnit/Sources/Framework/TestRun.c
CUnit-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/src/debug/CUnit-2.1-2/CUnit/Sources/Console/Console.c
CUnit-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/src/debug/CUnit-2.1-2/CUnit/Sources/Automated/Automated.c
CUnit-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/src/debug/CUnit-2.1-2/CUnit/Sources/Framework/TestDB.c
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings.
-
key:
[+] OK
[.] OK, not applicable
[X] needs work
-
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}.
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license.
- LGPLv2+
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[+] MUST: The file containing the text of the license(s) for the package must
be included in %doc.
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source.
$ md5sum CUnit-2.1-2-src.tar.bz2*
31c62bd7a65007737ba28b7aafc44d3a CUnit-2.1-2-src.tar.bz2
31c62bd7a65007737ba28b7aafc44d3a CUnit-2.1-2-src.tar.bz2.1
[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
[.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, ...
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.
[+] MUST: When compiling C, C++, or Fortran files, %{optflags} must be applied.
[.] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly.
[.] MUST: If a package installs files below %{_datadir}/icons, the icon cache
must be updated.
[+] MUST: Packages storing shared library files (not just symlinks) must call
ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[+] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[.] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, ...
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates.
[+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in %files.
[X] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
- please fix the file permissions of the .c files
[.] MUST: Packages must not provide RPM dependency information when that
information is not global in nature, or are otherwise handled.
[.] MUST: When filtering automatically generated RPM dependency information,
the filtering system implemented by Fedora must be used.
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[.] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
[+] MUST: Files in %doc must not affect the runtime of the application.
[+] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[.] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[+] MUST: library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel
package.
[+] MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned
dependency.
[+] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
[.] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file.
[+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
[+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
EPEL <= 5 only:
[+] MUST: Th
[Bug 673637] Review Request: python-carrot - AMQP Messaging Framework for Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=673637
David Nalley changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from David Nalley 2011-01-29 10:56:05 EST ---
OK: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the
review.
[ke4qqq@L1012001 rpmbuild]$ rpmlint SRPMS/python-carrot-0.10.7-2.fc14.src.rpm
SPECS/python-carrot.spec RPMS/noarch/python-carrot-0.10.7-2.fc14.noarch.rpm
python-carrot.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency python-amqplib
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings.
I agree that can be disregarded.
OK: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
OK: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
OK: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines
OK: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines .
OK: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
OK: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package must be included in %doc.
OK: The spec file must be written in American English.
OK: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
OK: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no
upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL
Guidelines for how to deal with this.
[ke4qqq@L1012001 SOURCES]$ md5sum carrot-0.10.7.tar.gz*
530a0614de3a669314c3acd4995c54d5 carrot-0.10.7.tar.gz
530a0614de3a669314c3acd4995c54d5 carrot-0.10.7.tar.gz.1
OK: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture.
NA: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line.
OK: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of
those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
NA: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
NA: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files
(not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call
ldconfig in %post and %postun.
OK: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
NA: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this
fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation
of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a
blocker.
OK: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a
directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that
directory.
OK: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings.
OK: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with
executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
%defattr(...) line.
OK: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}
(or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
OK: Each package must consistently use macros.
OK: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
NA: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of
large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to
size. Large can refer to either size or quantity).
OK: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of
the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly
if it is not present.
NA: Header files must be in a -devel package.
NA: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
NA: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for
directory ownership and usability).
NA: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1),
then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel
package.
NA: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package
using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
NA: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must b
[Bug 673637] Review Request: python-carrot - AMQP Messaging Framework for Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=673637 David Nalley changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED 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 666233] Review Request: gnome-paint - Easy to use paint program for GNOME
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=666233 --- Comment #4 from Tareq Al Jurf 2011-01-29 08:50:09 EST --- PING, hicham -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 659082] Review Request: redland-bindings - language bindings for redland
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=659082 --- Comment #7 from Orcan Ogetbil 2011-01-29 08:22:25 EST --- According to the packaging list, it is best to make a -common subpackage, and put the common files in there. All the other packages will require the -common subpackage. The license of the -common subpackage should be what upstream claims as the license of their software. Note that there are multiple license files. If a particular license file does not apply to a particular subpackage, then we can't put that license file into the -common package. (LGPLv2+ or ASL 2.0 or MPLv1.0 ?) -- 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 672203] Review Request: erlang-riak_err - Enhanced SASL Error Logger for Riak
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=672203
Martin Gieseking changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||martin.giesek...@uos.de
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|martin.giesek...@uos.de
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Martin Gieseking 2011-01-29
07:48:49 EST ---
Hi Peter,
as far as I see, version 1.0.0 of riak_err hasn't been officially released yet.
So this is a snapshot package that should follow
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Snapshot_packages
Everything else looks fine.
$ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-14-x86_64/result/*.rpm
erlang-riak_err.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
basho-riak_err-riak_err-1.0.0-0-g429f757.tar.gz
erlang-riak_err.x86_64: E: /var/lib/mock/fedora-14-x86_64/result/ erlang-stdlib
erlang-riak_err.x86_64: E: no-binary
erlang-riak_err.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 2 warnings.
- explicit-lib-dependency is false positive
- no-binary is expected in pure Erlang packages
- only-non-binary-in-usr-lib is expected in pure Erlang packages
-
key:
[+] OK
[.] OK, not applicable
[X] needs work
-
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}.
[X] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
- version 1.0.0 hasn't been released yet, thus this is a snapshot release:
update the Release field accordingly
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license.
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[+] MUST: The file containing the text of the license(s) for the package must
be included in %doc.
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source.
$ md5sum basho-riak_err-riak_err-1.0.0-0-g429f757.tar.gz*
94e7567877b306e0f0f13574ae3be8d8
basho-riak_err-riak_err-1.0.0-0-g429f757.tar.gz
94e7567877b306e0f0f13574ae3be8d8
basho-riak_err-riak_err-1.0.0-0-g429f757.tar.gz.1
[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
[.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, ...
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.
[.] MUST: When compiling C, C++, and Fortran files, %{optflags} must be
applied.
[.] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly.
[.] MUST: If a package installs files below %{_datadir}/icons, the icon cache
must be updated.
[.] MUST: Packages storing shared library files (not just symlinks) must call
ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[+] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[.] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, ...
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates.
[+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in %files.
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
[.] MUST: Packages must not provide RPM dependency information when that
information is not global in nature, or are otherwise handled.
[.] MUST: When filtering automatically generated RPM dependency information,
the filtering system implemented by Fedora must be used.
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[.] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
[+] MUST: Files in %doc must not affect the runtime of the application.
[.] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[.] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[.] MUST: library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel
package.
[.] MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned
dependency.
[+] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
[.] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file.
[+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
[+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
EPEL <= 5
[+] MUST: The spec file must contain a valid BuildRoot field.
[+] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package must run rm -rf
%{buildroot}.
[+] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot}.
[.] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'
[.] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s
[Bug 673665] New: Review Request: R-XML - Tools for parsing and generating xml within R and s-plus
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: R-XML - Tools for parsing and generating xml within R and s-plus https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=673665 Summary: Review Request: R-XML - Tools for parsing and generating xml within R and s-plus Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: pin...@pingoured.fr QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://pingou.fedorapeople.org/RPMs/R-XML.spec SRPM URL: http://pingou.fedorapeople.org/RPMs/R-XML-3.2.0-1.fc14.src.rpm Description: This package provides many approaches for both reading and creating XML (and HTML) documents (including DTDs), both local and accessible via HTTP or FTP. It also offers access to an XPath "interpreter". -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 670997] Review Request: perl-Data-Types - Validate and convert data types
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=670997 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System 2011-01-29 06:57:05 EST --- perl-Data-Types-0.08-2.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Data-Types-0.08-2.fc14 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 670997] Review Request: perl-Data-Types - Validate and convert data types
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=670997 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |MODIFIED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 673661] New: Review Request: R-ALL - Data of T- and B-cell Acute Lymphocytic Leukemia
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: R-ALL - Data of T- and B-cell Acute Lymphocytic Leukemia https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=673661 Summary: Review Request: R-ALL - Data of T- and B-cell Acute Lymphocytic Leukemia Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: pin...@pingoured.fr QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://pingou.fedorapeople.org/RPMs/R-ALL.spec SRPM URL: http://pingou.fedorapeople.org/RPMs/R-ALL-1.4.7-1.fc14.src.rpm Description: Data of T- and B-cell Acute Lymphocytic Leukemia from the Ritz Laboratory at the DFCI (includes Apr 2004 versions) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 673660] New: Review Request: R-RCurl - General network (HTTP/FTP/...) client interface for R
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: R-RCurl - General network (HTTP/FTP/...) client
interface for R
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=673660
Summary: Review Request: R-RCurl - General network
(HTTP/FTP/...) client interface for R
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Platform: All
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: medium
Priority: medium
Component: Package Review
AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org
ReportedBy: pin...@pingoured.fr
QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com
Estimated Hours: 0.0
Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: http://pingou.fedorapeople.org/RPMs/R-RCurl.spec
SRPM URL: http://pingou.fedorapeople.org/RPMs/R-RCurl-1.5.0-1.fc14.src.rpm
Description:
The package allows one to compose general HTTP requests and provides convenient
functions to fetch URIs, get & post forms, etc. and process the results
returned by the Web server. This provides a great deal of control over the
HTTP/FTP/... connection and the form of the request while providing a
higher-level interface than is available just using R socket connections.
Additionally, the underlying implementation is robust and extensive, supporting
FTP/FTPS/TFTP (uploads and downloads), SSL/HTTPS, telnet, dict, ldap, and also
supports cookies, redirects, authentication, etc.
The warning about the -devel ("only-non-binary-in-usr-lib") can be safely
ignore for R packages.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 673658] New: Review Request: R-Rcompression - In-memory decompression for GNU zip and bzip2 formats.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: R-Rcompression - In-memory decompression for GNU zip and bzip2 formats. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=673658 Summary: Review Request: R-Rcompression - In-memory decompression for GNU zip and bzip2 formats. Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: pin...@pingoured.fr QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://pingou.fedorapeople.org/RPMs/R-Rcompression.spec SRPM URL: http://pingou.fedorapeople.org/RPMs/R-Rcompression-0.92.0-1.fc14.src.rpm Description: The package is a basic interface to some of the compression facilities in the zlib and bzip2 libraries for uncompressing (and compressing) data in memory that is not in a file. It handles bz2, gzip and regular compress (.Z) content. It can work on files or with data in memory, e.g. downloaded directly into memory via an HTTP request. It is used when we don't want to write data to a file and then read it back into R. This is common when performing HTTP requests via the RCurl package and dependent packages such as SSOAP. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 673657] Review Request: R-bitops - Functions for bitwise operations
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=673657 Pierre-YvesChibon changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||NOTABUG Last Closed||2011-01-29 05:55:38 --- Comment #1 from Pierre-YvesChibon 2011-01-29 05:55:38 EST --- oups it's already packaged -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 673657] New: Review Request: R-bitops - Functions for bitwise operations
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: R-bitops - Functions for bitwise operations https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=673657 Summary: Review Request: R-bitops - Functions for bitwise operations Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: pin...@pingoured.fr QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://pingou.fedorapeople.org/RPMs/R-bitops.spec SRPM URL: http://pingou.fedorapeople.org/RPMs/R-bitops-1.0.4.1-1.fc14.src.rpm Description: Functions for Bitwise operations on integer vectors. This package is part of a larger dependency chain needed to update the GenomicFeatures package -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 634025] Review Request: PolarSSL - Light-weight cryptographic and SSL/TLS library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=634025
Martin Gieseking changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|martin.giesek...@uos.de
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Comment #9 from Martin Gieseking 2011-01-29
05:49:03 EST ---
OK, I'm volunteering. :)
The package looks fine. However, I recommend to apply the minor improvements
mentioned in comment #5. Also, please add short comments above the Patch fields
telling what the patches do. These are no blockers though.
$ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-14-x86_64/result/*.rpm
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
-
key:
[+] OK
[.] OK, not applicable
[X] needs work
-
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}.
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license.
GPLv2+
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[+] MUST: The file containing the text of the license(s) for the package must
be included in %doc.
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source.
$ md5sum polarssl-0.14.0-gpl.tgz*
669a0582a27a5ec381542f0c67e966b7 polarssl-0.14.0-gpl.tgz
669a0582a27a5ec381542f0c67e966b7 polarssl-0.14.0-gpl.tgz.1
[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
koji scratch build (f15):
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2748827
[.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, ...
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.
[+] MUST: When compiling C, C++, and Fortran files, %{optflags} must be
applied.
[.] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly.
[.] MUST: If a package installs files below %{_datadir}/icons, the icon cache
must be updated.
[+] MUST: Packages storing shared library files (not just symlinks) must call
ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[+] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[.] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, ...
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates.
[+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in %files.
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
[.] MUST: Packages must not provide RPM dependency information when that
information is not global in nature, or are otherwise handled.
[.] MUST: When filtering automatically generated RPM dependency information,
the filtering system implemented by Fedora must be used.
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[.] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
[+] MUST: Files in %doc must not affect the runtime of the application.
[+] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[.] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[+] MUST: .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package.
[+] MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned
dependency
[+] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be
removed in the spec if they are built.
[.] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file
[+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
[+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
EPEL <= 5 only:
[+] MUST: The spec file must contain a valid BuildRoot field.
[+] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package must run rm -rf
%{buildroot}.
[+] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot}.
[.] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'
[.] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream,...
[X] SHOULD: Patch files should be prefixed with %{name}-
[X] SHOULD: All patches should be commented in the spec file.
[+] SHOULD: Timestamps of files should be preserved.
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[+] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all
supported architectures.
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described.
[+] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane.
[.] SHOULD: subpackages other t
[Bug 650667] Review Request: hitori - Hitori game for GNOME
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=650667 --- Comment #8 from Martin Gieseking 2011-01-29 04:22:58 EST --- OK, great. Looking forward to 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 630216] Review Request: ghc-vector-space - Vector & affine spaces, linear maps, and derivatives
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=630216
Lakshmi Narasimhan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||lakshminaras2...@gmail.com
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|lakshminaras2...@gmail.com
Alias||ghc-vector-space
Flag||fedora-review+
Bug 630216 depends on bug 630213, which changed state.
Bug 630213 Summary: Review Request: ghc-Boolean - Generalized booleans
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=630213
What|Old Value |New Value
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
Resolution||ERRATA
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
--- Comment #2 from Lakshmi Narasimhan 2011-01-29
03:07:07 EST ---
[+]MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
the review.
rpmlint -i ghc-vector-space-*.rpm ../ghc-vector-space.spec
ghc-vector-space.src: W: strange-permission vector-space-0.7.2.tar.gz 0640L
A file that you listed to include in your package has strange permissions.
Usually, a file should have 0644 permissions.
ghc-vector-space-prof.x86_64: E: devel-dependency ghc-vector-space-devel
Your package has a dependency on a devel package but it's not a devel package
itself.
ghc-vector-space-prof.x86_64: W: no-documentation
The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include
documentation files.
ghc-vector-space-prof.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/ghc-6.12.3/vector-space-0.7.2/libHSvector-space-0.7.2_p.a
A development file (usually source code) is located in a non-devel package. If
you want to include source code in your package, be sure to create a
development package.
4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings.
[+]MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+]MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec
[+]MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
Naming-Yes
Version-release - Matches
License - OK, BSD 3 clause. LICENSE text is included in COPYING file.
No prebuilt external bits - OK
Spec legibity - OK
Package template - OK, yes template generated by cabal2spec-0.22.2.
Please update to 0.22.4 version
Arch support - OK
Libexecdir - OK
rpmlint - yes
changelogs - OK
Source url tag - OK, validated.
Buildroot is ignored - present anyway. OK
%clean is ignored - present anyway. OK
Build Requires list - OK
Summary and description - OK
API documentation - OK, present in devel package
[+]MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines.
BSD 3 clause license.
[+]MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[+]MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package must be included in %doc.
License text in COPYING file.
[+]MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+]MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+]MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream
source,as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task.
md5sum vector-space-0.7.2.tar.gz
b1bf37f8c2801a43aceab649b6c6aaab vector-space-0.7.2.tar.gz
md5sum ghc-vector-space-0.7.2-1.fc14.src/vector-space-0.7.2.tar.gz
b1bf37f8c2801a43aceab649b6c6aaab
ghc-vector-space-0.7.2-1.fc14.src/vector-space-0.7.2.tar.gz
[+]MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture.
Built on x86_64.
[+]MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch.
[+]MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.
[NA]MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly using the %find_lang macro
[NA]MUST: Packages stores shared library files must call ldconfig in %post and
%postun.
[+]MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
checked with rpmquery --list
[NA]MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review.
[+]MUST: A package must own all directories that it cre
