[Bug 664826] Review Request: lucene3 - High-performance, full-featured text search engine
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=664826 --- Comment #4 from Stanislav Ochotnicky 2011-02-01 03:05:38 EST --- Oh, while you're at it...I forgot to mention that description should be fixed too (just copy-paste from lucene web would be OK, they don't mention Jakarta anymore) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 671862] Review Request: synapse - gnome-do alternative (no mono)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=671862 Thomas Spura changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||674188 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 674188] Review Request: libzeitgeist - Library to access zeitgeist; needed by synapse
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=674188
Thomas Spura changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||toms...@fedoraproject.org
Blocks||671862
--- Comment #1 from Thomas Spura 2011-02-01
03:13:54 EST ---
Just some questions for now:
- when using %{version} instead of 0.3.2 in Source0, it's easier to update the
package
- you own _includedir, but only should the subfolders/files.
(Same for other folders...)
- scratch build failed, because of missing BR:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2754073
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 674114] Review Request: rhino-appjet - JavaScript for Java as modified by Appjet
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=674114 Alexander Kurtakov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||akurt...@redhat.com --- Comment #1 from Alexander Kurtakov 2011-02-01 03:28:21 EST --- I propose contacting rhino maintainer(me) and working together to get this both upstream and in our package. Having same source with one additional patch as additional package is not the way we are supposed to work. This means that you will have to update your patch for 1.7R2 of course. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 674114] Review Request: rhino-appjet - JavaScript for Java as modified by Appjet
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=674114 Alexander Kurtakov changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|akurt...@redhat.com --- Comment #2 from Alexander Kurtakov 2011-02-01 03:30:58 EST --- Actually I'll take this one to be sure that we will work it out. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 615508] Review Request: nut - A nutritional Software
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=615508 --- Comment #4 from Ankur Sinha 2011-02-01 04:33:01 EST --- (In reply to comment #2) > "nut" as an application and package name is already in use ( Network UPS Tools > - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226209 ) for a long long time. > Please contact your upstream and kindly ask them to look for another name for > the software. If they do not agree, you'll have to look for another name for > the application and package (for instance "nut-nutrition" as Ubuntu seemed to > have used) before proposing again its inclusion. > > I'm setting whiteboard to "Not ready" until the name conflict is solved. Hi, I haven't received a reply from upstream. What steps do I need to take to rename the package as nut-nutrition please? Thanks, Ankur -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 Vít Ondruch changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #9 from Vít Ondruch 2011-02-01 04:33:49 EST --- Thank you for your review! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: rubygem-activemodel Short Description: A toolkit for building modeling frameworks Owners: vondruch Branches: InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 668820] Review Request: rubygem-rdoc - RDoc produces HTML and command-line documentation for Ruby projects
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=668820
--- Comment #3 from Vít Ondruch 2011-02-01 04:37:57 EST
---
Btw. I did not mentioned it here before, but according to Ruby Packaging
Guidelines:
"If the same Ruby library is to be packaged for use as a Gem and as a straight
Ruby library without Gem support, it must be packaged as a Gem first. To make
it available to code that does not use Ruby Gems, a subpackage called
ruby-%{gemname} must be created in the rubygem-%{gemname} package such that"
We already have ruby-rdoc package, so this package does not follow the
guidelines precisely. I know they should not conflict, they are designed to
work side by side, I just believe I should note it here.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 522821] Review Request: bluetile - A modern tiling window manager with a gentle learning curve
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=522821 Jens Petersen changed: What|Removed |Added Status Whiteboard|notready| Flag|needinfo?(petersen@redhat.c | |om) | --- Comment #18 from Jens Petersen 2011-02-01 05:03:36 EST --- Just ConfigFile left to review. Updated packaging:- Spec: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/bluetile/bluetile.spec SRPM: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/bluetile/bluetile-0.5.3-1.fc14.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 640205] Review Request: visualvm - Lightweight profiler that integrates many command-line JDK tools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=640205 --- Comment #50 from Fedora Update System 2011-02-01 05:13:36 EST --- visualvm-1.3.1-1.1.5.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/visualvm-1.3.1-1.1.5.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 674060] Review Request: rubygem-deltacloud-core - Deltacloud REST API
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=674060 Michal Fojtik changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://bugzilla.redhat.com ||/show_bug.cgi?id=641400 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 674006] Review Request: openni - Library for human-machine Natural Interaction
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=674006
--- Comment #2 from Tim Niemueller 2011-02-01 05:48:54 EST
---
(In reply to comment #1)
> I'll handle doing this review.
Thanks.
> 1) The package version is a little wonky. The package naming guidelines would
> have you use a format like "1.0.0.25-0.1.%{gitrev}git%{dist}". Note the dot
> instead of an underscore between the 0.1 and gitrevision. Likewise, your
> changelog entry should read "1.0.0.25-0.1.4c9ff978git". There are no explicit
> examples for git, but the svn examples all have "svn" coming after the
> numbers.
> I don't think it matters all that much since the 0.1 part of revision should
> be bumped each time, nullifying all the junk after the next decimal point.
>
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Pre-Release_packages
Changed to use a dot instead of an underscore, not going to change the
changelog entry, I want it to be close to the actual version (minus dist tag
since it's built on multiple branches).
> 2) When you install files using the "install" command that ship with the
> tarball, like the SamplesConfig.xml, you should use -p to preserve the
> timestamps on the file.
Good point, done.
> 3) Looking at the scriptlets, you're only registering the libraries on a new
> install, and unregistering them when the package is erased. Do you have to
> re-register libraries if they change at all?
No, therefore the guard. It only writes the file path to an XML file, no symbol
or version information or anything else.
> 4) When you build the source tarball, you should rm -rf the Platform/Win32
> folder. There's a bunch of pre-built windows dll junk and a Visual C++
> redistributable in there that don't need to go into the Fedora SCM.
Done.
New SRPM at
http://fedorapeople.org/~timn/robotics/openni-1.0.0.25-0.2.git4c9ff978.fc14.src.rpm.
Spec changed in place.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on 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 Vít Ondruch changed: What|Removed |Added CC||vondr...@redhat.com --- Comment #21 from Vít Ondruch 2011-02-01 05:57:15 EST --- Bundler should be already in rawhide. I did not proposed it for F14 though. However, the Bundler is build dependency which could/should be avoided IMO. Here is way how to achieve it: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging_talk:Ruby -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 671024] Review Request: wallpaperd - Background setter supporting random images and per-workspace images
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=671024 Germán Racca changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Germán Racca 2011-02-01 06:07:03 EST --- Many thanks for the review! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: wallpaperd Short Description: Background setter supporting random images and per-workspace images Owners: skytux Branches: f13 f14 f15 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 663384] Review Request: scap-workbench - GUI tool that provides scanning, tailoring, editing and validation functionality for SCAP content
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=663384 Maros Barabas changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|needinfo?(mbarabas@redhat.c | |om) | --- Comment #3 from Maros Barabas 2011-02-01 06:41:08 EST --- Please review package against new version of package. Source file: https://fedorahosted.org/released/scap-workbench/scap-workbench-0.2.0.tar.bz2 SPEC: https://fedorahosted.org/scap-workbench/attachment/wiki/WikiStart/scap-workbench.spec?format=raw -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 484644] Review Request: screenlets - Fully themeable mini-apps
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=484644 --- Comment #29 from Tareq Al Jurf 2011-02-01 07:11:25 EST --- The screenlets project is dead, but I think this might be an alternative https://launchpad.net/~gilir/+archive/screenlets-daily , although i felt the tarball contents were missing -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 664619] Review Request: jspeex - Java Implementation of Speex
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=664619 Stanislav Ochotnicky changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|socho...@redhat.com --- Comment #5 from Stanislav Ochotnicky 2011-02-01 07:33:17 EST --- I'll do the 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 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 #22 from Mamoru Tasaka 2011-02-01 07:44:48 EST --- (In reply to comment #21) > However, the Bundler is build dependency which could/should be avoided IMO. > Here is way how to achieve it: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging_talk:Ruby I just wrote the opposite opinion for this on wiki. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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|ON_QA |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 664826] Review Request: lucene3 - High-performance, full-featured text search engine
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=664826 Stanislav Ochotnicky 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 664619] Review Request: jspeex - Java Implementation of Speex
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=664619
Stanislav Ochotnicky changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Comment #6 from Stanislav Ochotnicky 2011-02-01
08:02:02 EST ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x] Rpmlint output: emtpy
[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] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines[2].
[x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms.
[!] Buildroot definition is not present
Unless you plan EPEL-5 package, you should remove this
[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] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type: BSD with advertising
[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.
[!] All independent sub-packages have license of their own
javadoc subpackage is missing license
[x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
MD5SUM this package: a568efa4a6aa3c218ca4a37e5231685c
MD5SUM upstream package: a568efa4a6aa3c218ca4a37e5231685c
[x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines[5].
[x] Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x] Permissions on files are set properly.
[!] Package does NOT have a %clean section which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}
(or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). (not needed anymore)
I have a feeling you are planning EPEL-5 build, but if that's not the case you
should remove rm-rfs
[x] Package consistently uses macros (no %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
mixing)
[x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[x] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
[x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x] Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
subpackage
[x] Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlinks)
[x] Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
[x] Javadoc subpackages have Require: jpackage-utils
[-] Package uses %global not %define
[-] If package uses tarball from VCS include comment how to re-create that
tarball (svn export URL, git clone URL, ...)
[x] If source tarball includes bundled jar/class files these need to be
removed prior to building
[x] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
[x] Jar files are installed to %{_javadir}/%{name}.jar (see [6] for details)
[-] If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even when
building with ant
[-] pom files has correct add_to_maven_depmap call which resolves to the pom
file (use "JPP." and "JPP-" correctly)
=== Other suggestions ===
[x] If possible use upstream build method (maven/ant/javac)
[x] Avoid having BuildRequires on exact NVR unless necessary
[x] Package has BuildArch: noarch (if possible)
[x] Latest version is packaged.
[x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
Tested on: rawhide-x86_64
=== Issues ===
1. License in javadoc subpackage
2. EPEL-specifics cleanup (if they are not needed - depends on you)
All in all, nicely done. Provided you add license to javadoc subpackage this
package is
*** APPROVED ***
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 671106] Review Request: perl-Mail-MboxParser - Read-only access to UNIX-mailboxes
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=671106 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System 2011-02-01 08:46:56 EST --- perl-Mail-MboxParser-0.55-2.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Mail-MboxParser-0.55-2.el5 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 671106] Review Request: perl-Mail-MboxParser - Read-only access to UNIX-mailboxes
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=671106 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 637360] Review Request: ghc-parameterized-data - Parameterized data 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=637360 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 673175] Review Request: mnogosearch - Web indexing and search system for a small domain or intranet
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=673175 --- Comment #3 from Gerd v. Egidy 2011-02-01 09:07:35 EST --- I have fixed some bugs in the default configuration and improved packaging a bit. Updated files can be found here: SPEC: http://developer.intra2net.com/git/?p=mnogosearch-rpm;a=blob_plain;f=mnogosearch.spec;h=fe509a32f1c6878132b07a8afcce43a512c911ca SRPM: http://developer.intra2net.com/git/?p=mnogosearch-rpm;a=blob;f=mnogosearch-3.3.11-4.src.rpm;h=e00e3bb7bd94d3298abb56fcc68c3a3a97530fe3 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 577489] Review Request: kwalletcli - Command-Line Interface to the KDE Wallet
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=577489 --- Comment #8 from Julian Aloofi 2011-02-01 09:23:26 EST --- Sorry, must've missed the mail from bugzilla about the update, just found it again on my Front Page. Anyway, the links don't work anymore. Do you still want it reviewed? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 189678] Review Request: perl-List-MoreUtils - Provide the stuff missing in List::Util
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=189678 Marcela Mašláňová changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Marcela Mašláňová 2011-02-01 09:26:01 EST --- Package Change Request == Package Name: perl-List-MoreUtils New Branches: el6 Owners: pghmcfc rmyers mmaslano (I suppose commit permission will be handy for maintainers of other EL branches). -- 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 664817] Review Request: perl-HTML-Selector-XPath - CSS Selector to XPath compiler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=664817 Jason Tibbitts changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ti...@math.uh.edu Flag||fedora-review+ --- Comment #7 from Jason Tibbitts 2011-02-01 10:02:10 EST --- I think that guideline bears further scrutiny. If the perl maintainers do intend to unbundle all modules from the base perl package then it makes sense as eventually most perl packages will have to change. If not, then requiring packagers to anticipate which modules may or may not be unbundled isn't really productive. Not to mention finding these things isn't necessarily easy (because the package builds just fine currently) so checking them in the review process isn't really possible. Personally, I would change that guideline from "should" to "are encouraged to". Anyway, it's just a suggestion, not a requirement. Perfectly reasonable for packagers and reviewers to disagree about those, but no reason to assume that a different reviewer will not have a different opinion. And my opinion is that this package is just fine. Ralf, would you please open a ticket so that FPC can discuss amending or removing that bit from the guidelines? Of course I'm sure you know that you can remove BuildRoot, %clean and the cleaning of the build root in %install if you don't intend to target el5. * source files match upstream. sha256sum: fd0735f32a49a357025b0cb16669be34906ab8d8e514cff94075d71daa3fa99d HTML-Selector-XPath-0.04.tar.gz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK. * dist tag is present. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text not included upstream. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly. * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: perl(HTML::Selector::XPath) = 0.04 perl-HTML-Selector-XPath = 0.04-1.fc15 = perl >= 0:5.008_001 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.12.3) perl(Carp) perl(Exporter) perl(strict) * %check is present and all tests pass: All tests successful. Files=4, Tests=36, 0 wallclock secs ( 0.02 usr 0.02 sys + 0.22 cusr 0.03 csys = 0.29 CPU) Result: PASS * no bundled libraries. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no generically named files. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the 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 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 #23 from Minnikhanov 2011-02-01 10:05:51 EST --- (In reply to comment #21) > Bundler should be already in rawhide. I did not proposed it for F14 though. > > However, the Bundler is build dependency which could/should be avoided IMO. > Here is way how to achieve it: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging_talk:Ruby I mark "Branches: f14" as placeholder. I don't suppose to push & to build for F14. When I made previous "New Package SCM Request" without "Branches:" for 'tzinfo.gem' I have a problem with 'fedpkg' https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=619979#c40 . Solution: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=619979#c41 Now I decide make "Branches: f14" as placeholder; for reason - hav't any problem with 'fedpkg'. If possible don't use branch F14 & remove it , I ready. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 673404] Review Request: perl-Parse-CPAN-Meta - Parse META.yml and META.json CPAN metadata 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=673404
Marcela Mašláňová changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mmasl...@redhat.com
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Marcela Mašláňová 2011-02-01 10:13:49
EST ---
- rpmlint OK
- package must be named according to Guidelines OK
- spec file name must match the base package %{name} OK
- package must meet the Packaging Guidelines OK
- package must be licensed with Fedora approved license OK
- license field must match actual license OK
- text of the license in its own file must be included in %doc OK
- sources must match the upstream source OK
- package MUST successfully compile and build OK
- architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in bugzilla OK
- build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires OK
- handle locales properly with %find_lang macro OK
- shared library files must call ldconfig in %post(un) OK
- packages must NOT bundle system libraries OK
- package must own all directories that it creates OK
- permissions on files must be set properly OK
- package must consistently use macros OK
- package must contain code, or permissable content OK
- large documentation must go in a -doc OK
- %doc must not affect the runtime of the application OK
- header files must be in a -devel package OK
- static libraries must be in a -static package OK
- library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel OK
- devel package usually require base package OK
- packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives OK
- GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file OK
- packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages OK
ACCEPT
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 621416] Review Request: libgeotiff -- GeoTIFF format 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=621416 --- Comment #31 from Balint Cristian 2011-02-01 10:21:03 EST --- Hold a moment, The real license of EPSG data (one what we are in interest) is here: http://www.epsg.org/CurrentDB.html - I dont know why in front page is something "other" text ! (perhaps OGP != EPSG) - Another way to check is: download it via http://www.epsg.org/databases/Arc/7_5/Discv7_5sql-mySql.html I can't see the "commercial restricion" amendament, in that form ! The new "Terms of Use" was Revised in 28 August 2007, that one is what Thomas and we got at that time. It even ship within the tarballs or the downlod-able files ! Please check up. Can re-re-view this 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 189678] Review Request: perl-List-MoreUtils - Provide the stuff missing in List::Util
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=189678 --- Comment #7 from Paul Howarth 2011-02-01 10:41:48 EST --- perl-List-MoreUtils-0.22-10.el6 is already in the EPEL-6 buildroot so I suspect it's already in the optional channel and hence ineligible for EPEL-6 unless it's not available on all architectures. -- 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 673172] Review Request: perl-Perl-Critic-Deprecated - Perl::Critic policies which have been superseded by others
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=673172
Marcela Mašláňová changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mmasl...@redhat.com
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Marcela Mašláňová 2011-02-01 10:46:26
EST ---
- rpmlint OK
- package must be named according to Guidelines OK
- spec file name must match the base package %{name} OK
- package must meet the Packaging Guidelines OK
- package must be licensed with Fedora approved license OK
- license field must match actual license OK
- text of the license in its own file must be included in %doc OK
- sources must match the upstream source OK
- package MUST successfully compile and build OK
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2754775
- architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in bugzilla OK
- build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires OK
- handle locales properly with %find_lang macro OK
- shared library files must call ldconfig in %post(un) OK
- packages must NOT bundle system libraries OK
- package must own all directories that it creates OK
- permissions on files must be set properly OK
- package must consistently use macros OK
- package must contain code, or permissable content OK
- large documentation must go in a -doc OK
- %doc must not affect the runtime of the application OK
- header files must be in a -devel package OK
- static libraries must be in a -static package OK
- library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel OK
- devel package usually require base package OK
- packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives OK
- GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file OK
- packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages OK
rpm -qp --provides
~/Downloads/perl-Perl-Critic-Deprecated-1.108-1.fc15.noarch.rpm
perl(Perl::Critic::Deprecated) = 1.108
perl(Perl::Critic::Policy::NamingConventions::ProhibitMixedCaseSubs) = 1.108
perl(Perl::Critic::Policy::NamingConventions::ProhibitMixedCaseVars) = 1.108
perl(Perl::Critic::Utils::PPIRegexp) = 1.108
perl-Perl-Critic-Deprecated = 1.108-1.fc15
rpm -qp --requires
~/Downloads/perl-Perl-Critic-Deprecated-1.108-1.fc15.noarch.rpm
perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.12.3)
perl(Perl::Critic::Policy) >= 1.094
perl(Perl::Critic::Utils) >= 1.094
rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
perl >= 0:5.006001
perl(base)
perl(Carp)
perl(English)
perl(Exporter)
perl(PPI::Node)
perl(Readonly)
perl(strict)
perl(warnings)
rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1
ACCEPT
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 #24 from Vít Ondruch 2011-02-01 10:47:01 EST --- Great ... than you are probably aware of fedpkg update. I had no issues today pushing Bundler without f14 branch. May be you should give it a try. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 673172] Review Request: perl-Perl-Critic-Deprecated - Perl::Critic policies which have been superseded by others
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=673172 Marcela Mašláňová changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review+ |fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Marcela Mašláňová 2011-02-01 10:55:36 EST --- rpm -i /home/marca/Downloads/perl-Perl-Critic-Deprecated-1.108-1.fc15.noarch.rpm file /usr/share/man/man3/Perl::Critic::Utils::PPIRegexp.3pm.gz from install of perl-Perl-Critic-Deprecated-1.108-1.fc15.noarch conflicts with file from package perl-Perl-Critic-1.106-1.fc14.noarch file /usr/share/perl5/Perl/Critic/Utils/PPIRegexp.pm from install of perl-Perl-Critic-Deprecated-1.108-1.fc15.noarch conflicts with file from package perl-Perl-Critic-1.106-1.fc14.noarch You should solve this issue before pushing into Fedora. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 621416] Review Request: libgeotiff -- GeoTIFF format 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=621416 --- Comment #32 from Balint Cristian 2011-02-01 11:00:31 EST --- In the meanwhile we found more exactly (Web itself seems confusing): A) on web page offending paragraph #2 is: http://www.epsg.org/databases/Arc/7_5/Discv7_5sql-mySql.html "2. The EPSG Facilities are published by OGP at no charge. Distribution for profit is forbidden. " B) inside tarball (e.g v7.5 mySQL) #2 says: "2. The data may be included in any commercial package provided that any commerciality is based on value added by the provider and not on a value ascribed to the EPSG dataset which is made available at no charge. The ownership of the EPSG dataset [OGP] must be acknowledged." We try ask EPSG why that discrepance, anyway can revew the one from tarball in the hope EPSG can fix/explain us web side ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 673172] Review Request: perl-Perl-Critic-Deprecated - Perl::Critic policies which have been superseded by others
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=673172
Ralf Corsepius changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rc040...@freenet.de
--- Comment #3 from Ralf Corsepius 2011-02-01 11:02:56
EST ---
OK, Marcela, seemingly you are not interested in discussing the issues
@redhat.cz submitted packages are introducing and seem to prefer to implement
facts, instead:
This package does not install to vendor_dir:
%{__perl} Build.PL installdirs=core
I guess, I don't have to mention what I think of this?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 673404] Review Request: perl-Parse-CPAN-Meta - Parse META.yml and META.json CPAN metadata 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=673404 Iain Arnell 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 673404] Review Request: perl-Parse-CPAN-Meta - Parse META.yml and META.json CPAN metadata 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=673404 --- Comment #2 from Iain Arnell 2011-02-01 11:08:16 EST --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: perl-Parse-CPAN-Meta Short Description: Parse META.yml and META.json CPAN metadata files Owners: iarnell Branches: InitialCC: perl-sig -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 669940] Review Request: mediawiki116-Cite - An extension to provide citation and footnote tools for Mediawiki
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=669940 Ian Weller changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Ian Weller 2011-02-01 11:50:34 EST --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: mediawiki116-Cite Short Description: An extension to provide citation and footnote tools for MediaWiki Owners: ianweller Branches: el4 el5 el6 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 669939] Review Request: mediawiki116-ParserFunctions - Enhances the Mediawiki parser with logical 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=669939 Ian Weller changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Ian Weller 2011-02-01 11:50:05 EST --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: mediawiki116-ParserFunctions Short Description: Enhances the MediaWiki parser with logical functions Owners: ianweller Branches: el4 el5 el6 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 674082] Review Request: mchange-commons - A collection of general purpose utilities for c3p0
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=674082 --- Comment #6 from Mat Booth 2011-02-01 11:56:15 EST --- I guess we shouldn't review this package (and c3p0) until we know what is going to happen upstream: https://github.com/ether/pad/issuesearch?state=open&q=c3p0#issue/219 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 674115] Review Request: yuicompressor-appjet - JavaScript minifier
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=674115 Mat Booth changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|fed...@matbooth.co.uk -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 670040] Review Request: mediawiki116-ConfirmEdit - Adds captchas when saving an edit
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=670040 --- Comment #4 from Ian Weller 2011-02-01 11:55:33 EST --- There's some missing context here -- jds2001 and I were talking about this at the hotel at FUDCon. I feel pretty opposed to making a subpackage, and this reasoning is extremely subjective, so we basically need someone who can reference packaging guidelines and make a decision. :) I read through them and it wasn't really clear whether we should have a subpackage or not. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 669552] Review Request: swingx - A collection of Swing components
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=669552 --- Comment #3 from Omair Majid 2011-02-01 12:22:14 EST --- Update files: Spec URL: http://omajid.fedorapeople.org/swingx/swingx.spec SRPM URL: http://omajid.fedorapeople.org/swingx/swingx-0.9.5-1.fc15.src.rpm Added COPYING to javadoc subpackage. Made sure all maven poms/fragments are installed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 673172] Review Request: perl-Perl-Critic-Deprecated - Perl::Critic policies which have been superseded by others
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=673172 --- Comment #4 from Petr Pisar 2011-02-01 12:20:58 EST --- (In reply to comment #2) > rpm -i > /home/marca/Downloads/perl-Perl-Critic-Deprecated-1.108-1.fc15.noarch.rpm > file /usr/share/man/man3/Perl::Critic::Utils::PPIRegexp.3pm.gz from > install of perl-Perl-Critic-Deprecated-1.108-1.fc15.noarch conflicts with file > from package perl-Perl-Critic-1.106-1.fc14.noarch > file /usr/share/perl5/Perl/Critic/Utils/PPIRegexp.pm from install of > perl-Perl-Critic-Deprecated-1.108-1.fc15.noarch conflicts with file from > package perl-Perl-Critic-1.106-1.fc14.noarch > > You should solve this issue before pushing into Fedora. You have out-dated machine probably as current perl-Perl-Critic-1.111-1.fc15.noarch does not contain the module (because it's---deprecated). I'm targeting perl-Perl-Critic-Deprecated to F15 only, so I guess there is no problem. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 670040] Review Request: mediawiki116-ConfirmEdit - Adds captchas when saving an edit
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=670040 --- Comment #5 from Jason Tibbitts 2011-02-01 12:27:04 EST --- I think we need a bit more context. Does the disagreement boil down to dependency bloat for an optional feature? If so, the guidelines aren't going to tell you much about that. This seems to be a leaf package, so the only thing to really consider is how much dependency bloat we're talking about and whether those dependencies will cause problems (security exposure, etc.) in the situation where the package is to be used. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 674115] Review Request: yuicompressor-appjet - JavaScript minifier
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=674115 William Lima changed: What|Removed |Added CC||wl...@primate.com.br --- Comment #1 from William Lima 2011-02-01 12:40:18 EST --- who made this spec? spot or sdz? :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 666726] Review Request: Amide - A Medical Image Data Examiner:
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=666726 Susmit changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Susmit 2011-02-01 12:44:52 EST --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: amide Short Description: A Medical Image Data Examiner Owners: Susmit 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 674115] Review Request: yuicompressor-appjet - JavaScript minifier
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=674115 Mat Booth changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Mat Booth 2011-02-01 12:48:17 EST --- Spot, but he'll disavow all knowledge. ;-) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 Attachment #476256|0 |1 is obsolete|| --- Comment #9 from seb...@gmail.com 2011-02-01 13:02:59 EST --- Created attachment 476456 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=476456 Fixes the original spec made it known to bugzilla I've made some fixes, now the rpmlint give no error and no warning :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 #8 from seb...@gmail.com 2011-02-01 12:59:42 EST --- Well, all errors and warnings from rpmlint were fixed, I think that I do my homework :) SPEC URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/14217893/UpTools.spec SRPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/14217893/UpTools-8.5.4-1.fc14.src.rpm rmplint results: rpmlint -i -v UpTools.spec UpTools.spec: I: checking-url http://www.palermo.edu/ingenieria/UpTools-8.5.4.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds) 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint -i -v ../SRPMS/UpTools-8.5.4-1.fc14.src.rpm UpTools.src: I: checking UpTools.src: I: checking-url http://www.palermo.edu/ingenieria/uptools_ingles.html (timeout 10 seconds) UpTools.src: I: checking-url http://www.palermo.edu/ingenieria/UpTools-8.5.4.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds) 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint -i -v ../RPMS/i686/UpTools-8.5.4-1.fc14.i686.rpm UpTools.i686: I: checking UpTools.i686: I: checking-url http://www.palermo.edu/ingenieria/uptools_ingles.html (timeout 10 seconds) 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint -i -v ../RPMS/i686/UpTools-debuginfo-8.5.4-1.fc14.i686.rpm UpTools-debuginfo.i686: I: checking UpTools-debuginfo.i686: I: checking-url http://www.palermo.edu/ingenieria/uptools_ingles.html (timeout 10 seconds) 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint -i -v ../RPMS/i686/UpTools-devel-8.5.4-1.fc14.i686.rpm UpTools-devel.i686: I: checking UpTools-devel.i686: I: checking-url http://www.palermo.edu/ingenieria/uptools_ingles.html (timeout 10 seconds) 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint -i -v ../RPMS/i686/UpTools-devel-debuginfo-8.5.4-1.fc14.i686.rpm UpTools-devel-debuginfo.i686: I: checking UpTools-devel-debuginfo.i686: I: checking-url http://www.palermo.edu/ingenieria/uptools_ingles.html (timeout 10 seconds) 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint -i -v ../RPMS/i686/UpTools-static-8.5.4-1.fc14.i686.rpm UpTools-static.i686: I: checking UpTools-static.i686: I: checking-url http://www.palermo.edu/ingenieria/uptools_ingles.html (timeout 10 seconds) 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint -i -v ../RPMS/x86_64/UpTools-8.5.4-1.fc14.x86_64.rpm UpTools.x86_64: I: checking UpTools.x86_64: I: checking-url http://www.palermo.edu/ingenieria/uptools_ingles.html (timeout 10 seconds) 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint -i -v ../RPMS/x86_64/UpTools-debuginfo-8.5.4-1.fc14.x86_64.rpm UpTools-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking UpTools-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking-url http://www.palermo.edu/ingenieria/uptools_ingles.html (timeout 10 seconds) 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint -i -v ../RPMS/x86_64/UpTools-devel-8.5.4-1.fc14.x86_64.rpm UpTools-devel.x86_64: I: checking UpTools-devel.x86_64: I: checking-url http://www.palermo.edu/ingenieria/uptools_ingles.html (timeout 10 seconds) 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint -i -v ../RPMS/x86_64/UpTools-static-8.5.4-1.fc14.x86_64.rpm UpTools-static.x86_64: I: checking UpTools-static.x86_64: I: checking-url http://www.palermo.edu/ingenieria/uptools_ingles.html (timeout 10 seconds) 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. koji results: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2755389 I look forward your review and your sponsorship -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 230762] Review Request: xawtv - TV applications for video4linux compliant 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=230762 Dmitry Butskoy changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #10 from Dmitry Butskoy 2011-02-01 12:25:36 EST --- Package Change Request == Package Name: xawtv New Branches: el5 el6 Owners: dmi...@butskoy.name InitialCC: mche...@redhat.com -- 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 230762] Review Request: xawtv - TV applications for video4linux compliant 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=230762 Jason Tibbitts changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs- --- Comment #11 from Jason Tibbitts 2011-02-01 12:39:53 EST --- Owners and initialCC fields must contain FAS account names, not email addresses. -- 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 230762] Review Request: xawtv - TV applications for video4linux compliant 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=230762 Dmitry Butskoy changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs- |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #12 from Dmitry Butskoy 2011-02-01 12:53:12 EST --- Package Change Request == Package Name: xawtv New Branches: el5 el6 Owners: buc InitialCC: mchehab -- 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 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 #25 from Minnikhanov 2011-02-01 13:30:46 EST --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: rubygem-mail Short Description: A Really Ruby Mail Library. Owners: minn Branches: InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 619355] Review Request: python26-numpy - A fast multidimensional array facility for Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=619355 --- Comment #9 from Steve Traylen 2011-02-01 13:33:31 EST --- After talking to people and trying a few things out the header files should be in a -devel. They are used for compiling C extensions to numpy. New packages shortly. Steve -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 668090] Review Request: rubygem-railties - Rails internals: application bootup, plugins, generators, and rake tasks.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=668090 --- Comment #10 from Minnikhanov 2011-02-01 14:04:26 EST --- Spec URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/14118661/rubygem-railties.spec SRPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/14118661/rubygem-railties-3.0.3-6.fc14.src.rpm koji scratch build: green http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2755487 (In reply to comment #9) > (In reply to comment #8) > > Thanks for these updated rpms, since the tests don't pass but we've verified > functionality, could you comment the check section for the time being. I don't > like relying on the fact that 'rake test' doesn't return a non-zero exit code > when the tests fail in railties. You can also comment the BuildRequires needed > for the tests for the time being. > + Fixed. Test excluded. > suite and one additional nit. As with the mail gem, the "fix any executable > that doesn't have a shebang" and "find files with a shebang that do not have > executable permissions" sections seem to be unnecessary (I checked) and can be > removed (they clutter the rpm build log). > + Fixed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 #26 from Minnikhanov 2011-02-01 14:25:42 EST --- koji scratch build: FAIL at %check http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2755505 >>> Executing(%check): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.1RJLF5 + umask 022 + cd /builddir/build/BUILD + cd rubygem-mail-2.2.15 + unset DISPLAY + pushd /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/rubygem-mail-2.2.15-2.fc15.noarch/usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/mail-2.2.15 ~/build/BUILDROOT/rubygem-mail-2.2.15-2.fc15.noarch/usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/mail-2.2.15 ~/build/BUILD/rubygem-mail-2.2.15 + rake spec rake aborted! Bundler couldn't find some gems.Did you run `bundle install`? /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/rubygem-mail-2.2.15-2.fc15.noarch/usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/mail-2.2.15/Rakefile:18 (See full trace by running task with --trace) (in /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/rubygem-mail-2.2.15-2.fc15.noarch/usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/mail-2.2.15) error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.1RJLF5 (%check) RPM build errors: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.1RJLF5 (%check) Child returncode was: 1 EXCEPTION: Command failed. See logs for output. <<< -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 672955] Review Request: iwl100-firmware - Firmware for Intel(R) Wireless WiFi Link 100 Series Adapters
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=672955 John W. Linville changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from John W. Linville 2011-02-01 14:40:33 EST --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: iwl100-firmware Short Description: Firmware for Intel(R) Wireless WiFi Link 100 Series Adapters Owners: linville Branches: F-14 InitialCC: linville -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 673630] Review Request: habari - Lite blogging software
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=673630 Raghu Udiyar changed: What|Removed |Added CC||raghusidda...@gmail.com --- Comment #2 from Raghu Udiyar 2011-02-01 14:59:01 EST --- Hello Jakub, I'm not a sponsor so I can't officially review this request. Following are a few things that you can fix though : - habari.spec: W: no-%build-section If you run rpmlint -i you can get more details on the errors. If you do this it'll tell you to add the %build section even if it's not needed. - habari.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US backend -> backed, You can just change the word to "back end" or "back-end" to remove this warning. Also, I think you missed a full stop before "supports" in the description. I know it's trivial but better to get a clean rpmlint run :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 484644] Review Request: screenlets - Fully themeable mini-apps
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=484644 --- Comment #30 from Sergio Pascual 2011-02-01 15:44:42 EST --- You can check out the source code directly from the bazaar 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 664982] Review Request: perl-Parallel-Prefork - Simple prefork server framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=664982 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System 2011-02-01 15:52:17 EST --- perl-Parallel-Prefork-0.11-1.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 664982] Review Request: perl-Parallel-Prefork - Simple prefork server framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=664982 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System 2011-02-01 15:53:28 EST --- perl-Parallel-Prefork-0.11-1.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 664982] Review Request: perl-Parallel-Prefork - Simple prefork server framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=664982 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||perl-Parallel-Prefork-0.11- ||1.fc13 Resolution||ERRATA Last Closed||2011-02-01 15:52:22 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 664982] Review Request: perl-Parallel-Prefork - Simple prefork server framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=664982 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|perl-Parallel-Prefork-0.11- |perl-Parallel-Prefork-0.11- |1.fc13 |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 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 #8 from Martin Gieseking 2011-02-01 15:58:14 EST --- I just got an informative reply from Matthias Brantner, a member of the Zorba team. The bundled json library is an old (public domain) version of jsonxx (https://github.com/hjiang/jsonxx). The latest sources are MIT-licensed. Due to several API changes, Zorba probably can't be built with them. jsonxx doesn't seem to be intended for dynamic linkage as it lacks a soname definition. Actually, "make" only compiles the single C++ file to an object file. So if jsonxx must be packaged separately, it should probably go to a static library 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 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 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System 2011-02-01 15:54:43 EST --- nautilus-sendto-trac-0.3.1-2.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 nautilus-sendto-trac'. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/nautilus-sendto-trac-0.3.1-2.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 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 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System 2011-02-01 15:55:01 EST --- polarssl-0.14.0-4.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 polarssl'. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/polarssl-0.14.0-4.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 673630] Review Request: habari - Lite blogging software
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=673630 --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jedelsky 2011-02-01 17:10:39 EST --- Hello Raghu, thanks for your hints. I didn't know, that empty build section is ok; now I'm a little bit smarter :) I made some changes. New files are here: SPEC: http://static.stderr.cz/fedora/habari/0.6.6-2/habari.spec SRPM: http://static.stderr.cz/fedora/habari/0.6.6-2/habari-0.6.6-2.fc14.src.rpm rpmlint is happy 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 668090] Review Request: rubygem-railties - Rails internals: application bootup, plugins, generators, and rake tasks.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=668090 Mohammed Morsi changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #11 from Mohammed Morsi 2011-02-01 18:06:02 EST --- Looks good. The only thing I'd add is to take the license out of the test tarball downloaded from the git repo and include it as its own source, or at least have a comment about it. nbd though. 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 668824] Review Request: rubygem-text-hyphen - Multilingual word hyphenation according to modified TeX hyphenation pattern 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=668824
--- Comment #3 from Mohammed Morsi 2011-02-01 18:21:59 EST
---
Thanks alot for the review. Updated the rpm based on feedback:
Spec URL: http://mo.morsi.org/files/rpms/rubygem-text-hyphen.spec
SRPM URL:
http://mo.morsi.org/files/rpms/rubygem-text-hyphen-1.0.0-2.fc14.src.rpm
Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2755541
If your taking this official review, please change the status of the bug to
'assigned', assign it to yourself, and change the 'fedora-review' flag to '?'
(In reply to comment #1)
> Some notes:
>
> * License
> - Must be pick up one or set another by LICENSE file.
Done. The licensing situation in this package is ugly (even says so in the
LICENSE file). But I think I got it through the combination of including all
the necessary licenses and removing the files with licenses incompatible for
Fedora. This should be verified though.
>
> * BuildRoot
> - On Fedora BuildRoot line is no longer needed:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag
>
Done
> * %description
> - This section is empty. It will be better to fill.
>
Done
> * %install
> - rm -rf %{buildroot} at the beginning of %install isn't needed and
> should be removed
>
Done
> * %check
> - Feel free run test suite in a %check section in the rpm
>
Done
> * %clean
> - %clean section is no longer needed (on Fedora):
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#.25clean
>
Done
> * %files
> - Should use only the defined %geminstdir macro in %files.
> - Some files and folders don't listed here.
>
Done
> * documents / -doc subpackage
> - Please consider to split document files (which are not
> needed on runtime) to -doc subpackage.
> The following files/directories can be moved to -doc subpackage
> --
> %{gemdir}/doc/%{gemname}-%{version}/
> %{geminstdir}/ChangeLog
> %{geminstdir}/tests/
> # next line publish in Bugzilla?
> %{geminstdir}/Rakefile - I don't know where it must be. May be it need
> only for tests.
> --
>
I'm going to leave it as is since the original gem ships w/ these files and
there aren't too many of them. The necessary files have been marked as %doc
though.
> * rpmbuild log:
> --
> ...
> + gem install --local
> --install-dir
> /home/pkg/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/rubygem-text-hyphen-1.0.0-1.fc14.x86_64/usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8
> --force --rdoc /home/pkg/rpmbuild/SOURCES/text-hyphen-1.0.0.gem
> + /usr/lib/rpm/check-rpaths /usr/lib/rpm/check-buildroot
> + /usr/lib/rpm/redhat/brp-compress
> + /usr/lib/rpm/redhat/brp-strip /usr/bin/strip
> + /usr/lib/rpm/redhat/brp-strip-comment-note /usr/bin/strip /usr/bin/objdump
> + /usr/lib/rpm/redhat/brp-strip-static-archive /usr/bin/strip
> + /usr/lib/rpm/brp-python-bytecompile /usr/bin/python 1
> + /usr/lib/rpm/redhat/brp-python-hardlink
> + /usr/lib/rpm/redhat/brp-java-repack-jars
> warning: File listed
> twice: /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/text-hyphen-1.0.0/ChangeLog
> warning: File listed
> twice: /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/text-hyphen-1.0.0/INSTALL
> warning: File listed
> twice: /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/text-hyphen-1.0.0/LICENCE
> warning: File listed
> twice: /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/text-hyphen-1.0.0/README
> + umask 022
> + cd /home/pkg/rpmbuild/BUILD
> + rm
> -rf /home/pkg/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/rubygem-text-hyphen-1.0.0-1.fc14.x86_64
> + exit 0
> --
>
> - There is twice definition - may be in %files
Done.
>
> * rpmlint log:
> --
> rubygem-text-hyphen.noarch: E: summary-too-long C Multilingual word
> hyphenation according to modified TeX hyphenation pattern files
Done
> rubygem-text-hyphen.noarch: E: no-description-tag
Done
> rubygem-text-hyphen.noarch: E:
> non-executable-script /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/text-hyphen-1.0.0/Rakefile
> 0644L /usr/bin/env
> rubygem-text-hyphen.noarch: W:
> hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/text-hyphen-1.0.0/.yardoc
> rubygem-text-hyphen.noarch: W:
> hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/text-hyphen-1.0.0/.yardoc
> rubygem-text-hyphen.noarch: E:
> non-executable-script /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/text-hyphen-1.0.0/bin/hyphen
> 0644L /usr/bin/env
Not getting these locally, perhaps I fixed as part of something else?
> rubygem-text-hyphen.noarch: W:
> unexpanded-macro
> /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/text-hyphen-1.0.0/ri/Text/Hyphen/clear_cache%21-i.yaml
Can be ignored, occurs in alot of ruby packages.
> %21
> rubygem-text-hyphen.noarch: E:
> non-executable-script
> /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/text-hyphen-1.0.0/tests/tc_text_hyphen.rb 0644L
> /usr/bin/env
> rubygem-text-hyphen.src: E: summary-too-lo
[Bug 670345] Review Request: cx_freeze - create executable from python scripts
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=670345 --- Comment #16 from Patrice FERLET 2011-02-01 18:28:16 EST --- Excuse me to ping this post, but... is anyone looking at my 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 634911] Review Request: nodejs - Evented I/O for v8 JavaScript
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=634911 --- Comment #16 from Patrice FERLET 2011-02-01 18:26:00 EST --- I made corrections : http://www.metal3d.org/rpms/nodejs.spec http://www.metal3d.org/rpms/nodejs-0.2.6-4.fc14.src.rpm There still be some "review" to check to know what to do with "lib" javascript files that reside into "/usr/lib" and are not plateform dependant... Should I do a noarch "lib" 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 668823] Review Request: rubygem-text-format - Text::Format formats fixed-width text nicely
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=668823
--- Comment #2 from Mohammed Morsi 2011-02-01 18:39:14 EST
---
Thanks alot for the review. Updated the rpm based on feedback:
Spec URL: http://mo.morsi.org/files/rpms/rubygem-text-format.spec
SRPM URL:
http://mo.morsi.org/files/rpms/rubygem-text-format-1.0.0-2.fc14.src.rpm
Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2755537
If your taking this official review, please change the status of the bug to
'assigned', assign it to yourself, and change the 'fedora-review' flag to '?'
(In reply to comment #1)
> Some notes:
>
> * License
> - Must be pick up one or set another by LICENSE file.
>
Done
> * BuildRoot
> - On Fedora BuildRoot line is no longer needed:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag
>
Done
> * %install
> - rm -rf %{buildroot} at the beginning of %install isn't needed and
> should be removed
Done
> - Gems have permission 664, need 'chmod 644'
>
Please elaborate on this. Which files are wrong?
> * %check
> - Feel free run test suite in a %check section in the rpm
>
Done. I decoupled this rpm from text-hyphen as it is not a runtime dependency
and incase there are issues w/ text-hyphen. Thus I only run the test suite
testing the main functionality of this gem, not the one testing it against
text-hyphen or other external components.
> * %clean
> - %clean section is no longer needed (on Fedora):
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#.25clean
>
Done
> * %files
> - Should use only the defined %geminstdir macro in %files.
>
Done
> * documents / -doc subpackage
> - Please consider to split document files (which are not
> needed on runtime) to -doc subpackage.
> The following files/directories can be moved to -doc subpackage
> --
> %{gemdir}/doc/%{gemname}-%{version}/
> %{geminstdir}/Changelog
> %{geminstdir}/tests/
> %{geminstdir}/Rakefile
> --
>
Since the original gem included these files, and there aren't too many of them,
will leave them in the main package. The files are marked as %doc though
> * rpmbuild log:
> --
> ...
> + /usr/lib/rpm/redhat/brp-python-hardlink
> + /usr/lib/rpm/redhat/brp-java-repack-jars
> warning: File listed
> twice: /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/text-format-1.0.0/Changelog
> warning: File listed
> twice: /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/text-format-1.0.0/Install
> warning: File listed
> twice: /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/text-format-1.0.0/README
> + umask 022
> + cd /home/pkg/rpmbuild/BUILD
> + rm
> -rf /home/pkg/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/rubygem-text-format-1.0.0-1.fc14.x86_64
> + exit 0
> --
>
Fixed
> * rpmlint log:
> --
> rubygem-text-format.noarch: W:
> unexpanded-macro
> /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/text-format-1.0.0/ri/Text/Format/Number/%5b%5d-i.yaml
> %5b
> rubygem-text-format.noarch: W:
> unexpanded-macro
> /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/text-format-1.0.0/ri/Text/Format/Number/%5b%5d-i.yaml
> %5d
> rubygem-text-format.noarch: E:
> zero-length /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/text-format-1.0.0/metaconfig
> rubygem-text-format.noarch: W:
> unexpanded-macro
> /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/text-format-1.0.0/ri/Text/Format/Alpha/%5b%5d-i.yaml
> %5b
> rubygem-text-format.noarch: W:
> unexpanded-macro
> /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/text-format-1.0.0/ri/Text/Format/Alpha/%5b%5d-i.yaml
> %5d
These can be ignored.
> rubygem-text-format.noarch: W:
> hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/text-format-1.0.0/.yardoc
> rubygem-text-format.noarch: W:
> hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/text-format-1.0.0/.yardoc
Not seeing these.
> rubygem-text-format.noarch: W:
> unexpanded-macro
> /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/text-format-1.0.0/ri/Text/Format/right_align%3f-i.yaml
> %3f
> rubygem-text-format.noarch: W:
> unexpanded-macro
> /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/text-format-1.0.0/ri/Text/Format/Roman/%5b%5d-i.yaml
> %5b
> rubygem-text-format.noarch: W:
> unexpanded-macro
> /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/text-format-1.0.0/ri/Text/Format/Roman/%5b%5d-i.yaml
> %5d
> rubygem-text-format.noarch: E:
> non-executable-script /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/text-format-1.0.0/Rakefile
> 0644L /usr/bin/env
> rubygem-text-format.noarch: E:
> wrong-script-end-of-line-encoding
Fixed
> /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/text-format-1.0.0/Rakefile
> rubygem-text-format.noarch: W:
> unexpanded-macro
> /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/text-format-1.0.0/ri/Text/Format/%3d%3d-i.yaml %3d
> rubygem-text-format.noarch: W:
> unexpanded-macro
> /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/text-format-1.0.0/ri/Text/Format/%3d%3d-i.yaml %3d
> rubygem-text-format.noarch: W:
> file-not-utf8 /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/text-format-1.0.0/README
> rubygem-text-f
[Bug 668822] Review Request: rubygem-memcache-client - A Ruby library for accessing memcached
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=668822
--- Comment #3 from Mohammed Morsi 2011-02-01 18:56:19 EST
---
Thanks alot for the review. Updated the rpm based on feedback:
Spec URL: http://mo.morsi.org/files/rpms/rubygem-memcache-client.spec
SRPM URL:
http://mo.morsi.org/files/rpms/rubygem-memcache-client-1.8.5-2.fc14.src.rpm
Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2755539
If your taking this official review, please change the status of the bug to
'assigned', assign it to yourself, and change the 'fedora-review' flag to '?'
(In reply to comment #1)
> Some notes:
>
> * License
> - Must be pick up one or set another by LICENSE file.
Done
>
> * BuildRoot
> - On Fedora BuildRoot line is no longer needed:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag
>
Done
> * %check
> - Feel free run test suite in a %check section in the rpm
>
Done
> * %clean
> - %clean section is no longer needed (on Fedora):
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#.25clean
>
Done
> * Unused macros
> - Should use only the defined %geminstdir macro in %files.
>
Done
> * documents / -doc subpackage
> - Please consider to split document files (which are not
> needed on runtime) to -doc subpackage.
> The following files/directories can be moved to -doc subpackage
> --
> %{gemdir}/doc/%{gemname}-%{version}/
> %{geminstdir}/test/
> # next line publish in Bugzilla?
> %{geminstdir}/Rakefile - I don't know where it must be. May be it need
> only for tests.
> --
>
Leaving as is since the original gem shipped w/ these files. Marked as %doc
though
> * rpmbuild log:
> --
> ...
> + /usr/lib/rpm/redhat/brp-java-repack-jars
> warning: File listed
> twice: /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/memcache-client-1.8.5/LICENSE.txt
> warning: File listed
> twice: /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/memcache-client-1.8.5/README.rdoc
> + umask 022
> + cd /home/pkg/rpmbuild/BUILD
> + rm
> -rf /home/pkg/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/rubygem-memcache-client-1.8.5-1.fc14.x86_64
> + exit 0
> --
>
> - There is twice definition - may be in %files
>
Done
> * rpmlint log:
> --
> rubygem-memcache-client.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US)
> memcached -> mem cached, mem-cached, mustached
> rubygem-memcache-client.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
> memcached -> mem cached, mem-cached, mustached
> rubygem-memcache-client.noarch: W:
> unexpanded-macro
> /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/memcache-client-1.8.5/ri/MemCache/%5b%5d-i.yaml %5b
> rubygem-memcache-client.noarch: W:
> unexpanded-macro
> /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/memcache-client-1.8.5/ri/MemCache/%5b%5d-i.yaml %5d
> rubygem-memcache-client.noarch: W:
> unexpanded-macro
> /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/memcache-client-1.8.5/ri/MemCache/raise_on_error_response%21-i.yaml
> %21
> rubygem-memcache-client.noarch: W:
> unexpanded-macro
> /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/memcache-client-1.8.5/ri/EM/SocketConnection/can_read%3f-i.yaml
> %3f
> rubygem-memcache-client.noarch: W:
> unexpanded-macro
> /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/memcache-client-1.8.5/ri/MemCache/%5b%5d%3d-i.yaml
> %5b
> rubygem-memcache-client.noarch: W:
> unexpanded-macro
> /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/memcache-client-1.8.5/ri/MemCache/%5b%5d%3d-i.yaml
> %5d
> rubygem-memcache-client.noarch: W:
> unexpanded-macro
> /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/memcache-client-1.8.5/ri/MemCache/%5b%5d%3d-i.yaml
> %3d
> rubygem-memcache-client.noarch: W:
> unexpanded-macro
> /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/memcache-client-1.8.5/ri/EM/SocketConnection/closed%3f-i.yaml
> %3f
> rubygem-memcache-client.noarch: W:
> unexpanded-macro
> /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/memcache-client-1.8.5/ri/MemCache/active%3f-i.yaml
> %3f
> rubygem-memcache-client.noarch: W:
> unexpanded-macro
> /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/memcache-client-1.8.5/ri/MemCache/Server/alive%3f-i.yaml
> %3f
> rubygem-memcache-client.noarch: W:
> unexpanded-macro
> /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/memcache-client-1.8.5/ri/MemCache/check_multithread_status%21-i.yaml
> %21
> rubygem-memcache-client.noarch: W:
> unexpanded-macro
> /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/memcache-client-1.8.5/ri/MemCache/servers%3d-i.yaml
> %3d
> rubygem-memcache-client.noarch: W:
> unexpanded-macro
> /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/memcache-client-1.8.5/ri/MemCache/readonly%3f-i.yaml
All these can be ignored
> %3f
> rubygem-memcache-client.noarch: W:
> hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/memcache-client-1.8.5/.yardoc
> rubygem-memcache-client.noarch: W:
> hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/memcache-client-1.8.5/.yardoc
> rubygem-memcache-client.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary
This one can be ignore
[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 #27 from Mohammed Morsi 2011-02-01 19:29:58 EST --- OK my bad. This was because I pushed the update to the treetop rpm but didn't request and official build. Just did that. When it propagates to the rawhide repos you should be able to build mail http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=216551 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 522821] Review Request: bluetile - A modern tiling window manager with a gentle learning curve
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=522821 Jens Petersen changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|low |medium -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 664817] Review Request: perl-HTML-Selector-XPath - CSS Selector to XPath compiler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=664817 Ralf Corsepius changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #8 from Ralf Corsepius 2011-02-01 20:15:06 EST --- Thanks, Jason. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: perl-HTML-Selector-XPath Short Description: CSS Selector to XPath compiler Owners: corsepiu Branches: f13 f14 InitialCC: perl-sig -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 522821] Review Request: bluetile - A modern tiling window manager with a gentle learning curve
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=522821 Jens Petersen changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 522821] Review Request: bluetile - A modern tiling window manager with a gentle learning curve
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=522821 Jens Petersen changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|low |medium -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 664911] Review Request: perl-Test-WWW-Mechanize-PSGI - Test PSGI programs using WWW::Mechanize
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=664911 Ralf Corsepius 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 634911] Review Request: nodejs - Evented I/O for v8 JavaScript
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=634911 Bobby Powers changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bo...@laptop.org --- Comment #17 from Bobby Powers 2011-02-01 23:43:59 EST --- (In reply to comment #16) > I made corrections : > http://www.metal3d.org/rpms/nodejs.spec > http://www.metal3d.org/rpms/nodejs-0.2.6-4.fc14.src.rpm > > There still be some "review" to check to know what to do with "lib" javascript > files that reside into "/usr/lib" and are not plateform dependant... > > Should I do a noarch "lib" package ? FWIW, gnome-js-common installs into /usr/share/gnome-js and puts its pkgconfig file in /usr/share/pkgconfig http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/gitweb/?p=gnome-js-common.git;a=blob;f=gnome-js-common.spec;h=aa584aa02b8f539f380b19e6d23eab7557cd45ba;hb=HEAD http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/rpminfo?rpmID=2026030 Bobby -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 634911] Review Request: nodejs - Evented I/O for v8 JavaScript
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=634911 --- Comment #18 from Bobby Powers 2011-02-01 23:44:47 EST --- I should have been more clear. It installs its (platform-independent javascript files) into /usr/share/gnome-js -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 669552] Review Request: swingx - A collection of Swing components
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=669552 Alexander Kurtakov changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ Last Closed||2011-02-02 01:39:17 --- Comment #4 from Alexander Kurtakov 2011-02-02 01:39:17 EST --- Thanks, This package is APPROVED. As this is effectively a merge review I'm closing it 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 634052] Review Request: ghc-ConfigFile - configuration file library for Haskell
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=634052 Jens Petersen changed: What|Removed |Added Alias||ghc-ConfigFile -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 669552] Review Request: swingx - A collection of Swing components
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=669552 Alexander Kurtakov changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|652183(FE-JAVASIG) | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 670999] Review Request: perl-MongoDB - Database driver
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=670999 --- Comment #6 from Lubomir Rintel 2011-02-02 02:19:14 EST --- DEBUG util.py:247: Error: No Package found for perl(Data::Types) Is this ever going in? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
