[Bug 678891] Review Request: lcd4linux - Display system state on an external LCD display
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=678891 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-02-23 03:00:03 EST --- lcd4linux-0.11-0.2.svn1143.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/lcd4linux-0.11-0.2.svn1143.fc13 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 676853] Review Request: goocanvasmm2 - goocanvasmm2 goodness for Gtk3
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=676853
--- Comment #3 from Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com 2011-02-23 03:26:15
EST ---
I really think than docs should be in a subpackage (as for others *mm package)
:
- include = 0.5Mio, doc = 5Mio
- should requires others documentation (for links) which are already split
I agree than libsig++20-doc must (co-)own %{_datadir}/devhelp/ (which is not
owned by any required package). But others package, which requires
libsig++20-doc must not own this already owned dir.
-doc subpackage should also comes with the COPYING file (as it doesn't requires
the main package)
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#Subpackage_Licensing
*devhelp must also be tagged as %doc if pointed files are tagged as %doc
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 678221] Review Request: perl-EV - Wrapper for the libev high-performance event loop library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=678221
--- Comment #3 from Mathieu Bridon boche...@fedoraproject.org 2011-02-23
03:44:03 EST ---
Thanks for the review, President!
Here is an updated package:
Spec URL: http://bochecha.fedorapeople.org/packages/perl-EV.spec
SRPM URL: http://bochecha.fedorapeople.org/packages/perl-EV-4.03-2.fc16.src.rpm
Full diff:
diff --git a/perl-EV.spec b/perl-EV.spec
index 00baa90..2b29f94 100644
--- a/perl-EV.spec
+++ b/perl-EV.spec
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
Name: perl-EV
Version:4.03
-Release:1%{?dist}
+Release:2%{?dist}
Summary:Wrapper for the libev high-performance event loop library
Group: Development/Libraries
@@ -8,7 +8,6 @@ License:(GPL+ or Artistic) and (BSD or GPLv2+)
URL:http://search.cpan.org/dist/EV/
Source0:
http://search.cpan.org/CPAN/authors/id/M/ML/MLEHMANN/EV-%{version}.tar.gz
Patch0: perl-EV-4.03-Don-t-ask-questions-at-build-time.patch
-BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
BuildRequires: perl(ExtUtils::MakeMaker)
BuildRequires: perl(common::sense)
@@ -18,6 +17,9 @@ BuildRequires: perl(AnyEvent) = 2.6
Requires: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_%(eval `%{__perl} -V:version`; echo
$version))
+%{?perl_default_filter}
+
+
%description
This module provides an interface to libev
(http://software.schmorp.de/pkg/libev.html). While the included
documentation
@@ -28,6 +30,15 @@ specific backend with LIBEV_FLAGS, or just about in any
case because it has
much more detailed information.
+%package devel
+Summary:Wrapper for the libev high-performance event loop library
+Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
+
+
+%description devel
+This package provides the development headers for the Perl EV module.
+
+
%prep
%setup -q -n EV-%{version}
@@ -69,11 +80,24 @@ rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
%doc Changes COPYING README
%{perl_vendorarch}/auto/*
%{perl_vendorarch}/EV.pm
-%{perl_vendorarch}/EV/
+%{perl_vendorarch}/EV
+%exclude %{perl_vendorarch}/EV/*.h
%{_mandir}/man3/*.3*
+%files devel
+%defattr(-,root,root,-)
+%{perl_vendorarch}/EV/*.h
+
+
%changelog
+* Wed Feb 23 2011 Mathieu Bridon boche...@fedoraproject.org - 4.03-2
+- Fixes asked during the review process:
+ - Filter the private shared EV.so out of the automatic Provides
+ - Put the header files in a -devel package
+- Removed the Buildroot line since it's useless for newer versions of Fedora
+ and this package can only go in Fedora = 15 due to its libev dependency)
+
* Mon Jan 24 2011 Mathieu Bridon boche...@fedoraproject.org - 4.03-1
- Update to 4.03.
- Use the system libev instead of the bundled one.
---
(In reply to comment #2)
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x] Rpmlint output:
[... snip ...]
The private-shared-object-provides will go away if you use the Perl default
filter (as you should for all packages of Perl modules). See
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Perl_default_filter for the gory details.
Fixed.
Is there a compelling reason for including include files in the main package?
If not, I'ld rather you split those two files in a -devel sub-package
No reason, those rpmlint warnings just escaped me in the middle all those
spelling suggestions.
Fixed.
[x] Buildroot is correct
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
Note that Buildroot is ignored for semi-recent versions of Fedora and EPEL.
Since this is only going to Fedora = 15 anyway (dependency on libev), I
removed the Buildroot line.
[!] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type: GPLv2+ and Artistic
That's GPLv2+ or Artistic, not and.
From where did you get BSD or GPLv2+?
There's a bundled copy of libev in the source RPM.
At build-time, I remove this folder and use instead the sources coming from the
Fedora libev-source package, to avoid building against the bundled copy (this
is what is done by other packages such as tigervnc that uses the sources from
Xorg).
The sources of libev are BSD or GPLv2+, hence the License tag.
However, I must admit that I'm not sure I did it right license-wise:
- since I'm building against the system-provided sources of libev, should I
just remove the part related to the libev sources?
- since the sources are still included in the source rpm, should I leave it as
is?
Not sure, I felt it was safer to keep all the licenses of all the included
sources.
[!] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
I believe that was the same as above (rpmlint warning), so this is 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
[Bug 667207] Review Request: avoision - Arcade style game of evade and capture
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=667207
Martin Gieseking martin.giesek...@uos.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|martin.giesek...@uos.de
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Martin Gieseking martin.giesek...@uos.de 2011-02-23
03:57:49 EST ---
The package looks fine. According to
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL#Sourceforge.net, the
project directory should be removed from Source0. However, it also works as
it is now.
$ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-14-x86_64/result/*.rpm
avoision.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary avoision
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
The warning is expected as there's no manpage available.
-
key:
[+] OK
[.] OK, not applicable
[X] needs work
-
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}.
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license.
application: GPLv2+
audio/graphic files: CC-BY-SA
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[+] MUST: The file containing the text of the license(s) for the package must
be included in %doc.
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source.
$ md5sum avoision-0.6.tar.gz*
5e6aa929624b385dc83fbd80c97d9529 avoision-0.6.tar.gz
5e6aa929624b385dc83fbd80c97d9529 avoision-0.6.tar.gz.1
[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
[.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, ...
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.
[+] MUST: When compiling C, C++, or Fortran files, %{optflags} must be applied.
[.] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly.
[.] MUST: Packages storing shared library files (not just symlinks) must call
ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[+] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[.] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, ...
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates.
[+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in %files.
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[.] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
[+] MUST: Files in %doc must not affect the runtime of the application.
[.] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[.] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[.] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g.
libfoo.so.1.1), ...
[.] MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned
dependency.
[.] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
[+] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file.
[+] MUST: .desktop files must be properly installed with desktop-file-install
in the %install section.
[+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
[+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
[.] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, ...
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[+] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all
supported architectures.
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described.
[.] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane.
[.] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency.
[.] SHOULD: pkgconfig(.pc) files should be placed in a -devel pkg.
[.] SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin,
/usr/bin, or /usr/sbin ...
[.] SHOULD: Your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts.
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 677089] Review Request: php-pear-XML-RPC2 - XML-RPC client/server 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=677089 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-02-23 04:30:26 EST --- php-pear-XML-RPC2-1.0.6-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/php-pear-XML-RPC2-1.0.6-1.el6 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 677089] Review Request: php-pear-XML-RPC2 - XML-RPC client/server 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=677089 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |MODIFIED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 677089] Review Request: php-pear-XML-RPC2 - XML-RPC client/server 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=677089 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-02-23 04:30:01 EST --- php-pear-XML-RPC2-1.0.6-1.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/php-pear-XML-RPC2-1.0.6-1.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 677089] Review Request: php-pear-XML-RPC2 - XML-RPC client/server 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=677089 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-02-23 04:29:26 EST --- php-pear-XML-RPC2-1.0.6-1.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/php-pear-XML-RPC2-1.0.6-1.fc15 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 650283] Review Request: rubygem-rspec-core - Rspec-2 runner and formatters
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=650283
Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #7 from Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com 2011-02-23 04:29:56 EST
---
(In reply to comment #4)
(In reply to comment #3)
At first, could you please explain how are you going to build all these
packages? I assume that in first iteration, you are going to change
need_bootstrap to 0 and in the second iteration, you are going to remove
this
constant and conditions completely, is that right?
- As you see Depends on field on this bug, with version-compatible
rubygem-rspec-{expectations,mocks} installed as BR, bootstrapping
is not needed.
(So the reason that need_bootstrap craft is added to -core spec file
is only that I want to make all rubygem-rspec-foo related spec file
alike).
! Note that for rubygem-rspec-{expectations,mocks}, bootstrapping
is always needed if we want to enable tests, everytime we upgrade
the version of rspec related gems.
So if I understand it correctly, you plan to import and build
rubygem-rspec-{expectations,mocks}, which will not have executed the %check
section while rubygem-rspec-core could be successfully build with executed test
suite, right?
* Test suite
- The test suite is really tricky :/ I have tried to run all the specs and
there
are failing not only for autospec part, also for formatters. I have
created
several upstream bugs to cover this:
https://github.com/rspec/rspec-core/issues/318
https://github.com/rspec/rspec-core/issues/319
- Cucumber specs has several failures as well
https://github.com/rspec/rspec-core/issues/320
- It is not hopefully showstopper
- The selected subset works just fine
- Well, I am using
$ ruby -rubygems -Ilib/ ...
note that -Ilib/ is used here, which may explain the difference of test
results between you and me.
There apparently some issues with test suite. Some of them are already fixed
upstream and some are waiting for their fix:
https://github.com/rspec/rspec-core/issues/324
I hope it is not showstopper unless upstream will say so.
* Documentation
- Files in -doc subpackage are not marked as documentation. That is
reported
by rpmlint. They can by appropriately queried later:
$ rpm -qp -d noarch/rubygem-rspec-core-doc-2.5.1-1.fc14.noarch.rpm
- It is messaged by rpmlint
- It is intentional. I always say that %doc attribute in -doc subpackage
is redundant because
- The name of rpm already says that the package is for documentation
- If --excludedocs is specified with $ rpm -ivh (or similar effect is
set in rpm config file by default), files marked as %doc won't
be installed, although the admin is just about to install -doc
package to see document files, which is perhaps not expected.
In our case, when we include spec or test suite in doc subpackage is this
statement questionable. However it is discussion for fedora-devel then for this
review.
I have no other objections. So this package is APPROVED.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 650280] Review Request: rubygem-rspec-mocks - Rspec-2 doubles (mocks and stubs)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=650280 Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||vondr...@redhat.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com 2011-02-23 04:38:26 EST --- Taking this one. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 650280] Review Request: rubygem-rspec-mocks - Rspec-2 doubles (mocks and stubs)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=650280 Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|vondr...@redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 627637] Review Request: qroneko - A front end of crontab application
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=627637 Praveen Kumar kumarpraveen.nit...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #11 from Praveen Kumar kumarpraveen.nit...@gmail.com 2011-02-23 04:46:32 EST --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: qroneko Short Description: A front end of crontab application Owners: kumarpraveen Branches: f13 f14 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 674692] Review Request: python-pyramid - The Pyramid web application framework, a Pylons project
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=674692 --- Comment #5 from Tim Lauridsen t...@rasmil.dk 2011-02-23 04:55:26 EST --- %define modname pyramid should be %global modname pyramid -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 674692] Review Request: python-pyramid - The Pyramid web application framework, a Pylons project
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=674692
--- Comment #4 from Tim Lauridsen t...@rasmil.dk 2011-02-23 04:54:43 EST ---
Source0 should be
http://pypi.python.org/packages/source/p/pyramid/%{modname}-%{version}.tar.gz
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 674692] Review Request: python-pyramid - The Pyramid web application framework, a Pylons project
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=674692 --- Comment #6 from Tim Lauridsen t...@rasmil.dk 2011-02-23 05:40:33 EST --- the is a lot of test stuff under /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pyramid/tests Would it not be better to put this under /usr/share/pyramid/tests It looks like usage examples to me. there is all kind of files .po, .mo, .html etc. or maybe it should go into -doc sub package. If you what to use this framework on a server, you dont want all that test/usage examples to be 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 676853] Review Request: goocanvasmm2 - goocanvasmm2 goodness for Gtk3
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=676853 --- Comment #4 from Haïkel Guémar karlthe...@gmail.com 2011-02-23 05:44:53 EST --- I agree with your suggestions, i update the spec and src.rpm above consequently. mock build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2859676 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 627637] Review Request: qroneko - A front end of crontab application
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=627637 --- Comment #12 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2011-02-23 05:44:11 EST --- Ah, please also request for f15 branch. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 539693] Review Request: plowsahre - command-line downloader/uploader for some of the most popular file-sharing websites
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=539693 --- Comment #10 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) pa...@hubbitus.info 2011-02-23 06:12:54 EST --- Sorry for the delay http://hubbitus.info/rpm/Fedora13/plowshare/plowshare-0.9.4-0.1.svn1358.fc13.src.rpm http://hubbitus.info/rpm/Fedora13/plowshare/plowshare.spec Elder, I think this package is quite simple to maintain it together. But if you want - you may became co-maintainer. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 674009] Review Request: bitten - A continuous integration plugin for 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=674009 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-02-23 06:18:04 EST --- bitten-0.6b3-0.3.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/bitten-0.6b3-0.3.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 674009] Review Request: bitten - A continuous integration plugin for 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=674009 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-02-23 06:17:24 EST --- bitten-0.6b3-0.3.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/bitten-0.6b3-0.3.fc15 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 674009] Review Request: bitten - A continuous integration plugin for 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=674009 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 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 627637] Review Request: qroneko - A front end of crontab application
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=627637 --- Comment #13 from Praveen Kumar kumarpraveen.nit...@gmail.com 2011-02-23 06:13:54 EST --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: qroneko Short Description: A front end of crontab application Owners: kumarpraveen Branches: f13 f14 f15 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 674009] Review Request: bitten - A continuous integration plugin for 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=674009 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-02-23 06:16:48 EST --- bitten-0.6b3-0.3.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/bitten-0.6b3-0.3.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 674009] Review Request: bitten - A continuous integration plugin for 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=674009 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-02-23 06:21:05 EST --- bitten-0.6b3-0.3.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/bitten-0.6b3-0.3.el6 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 675122] Review Request: php-pear-Auth-Yubico - Authentication class for verifying Yubico OTP tokens
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=675122 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-02-23 06:22:28 EST --- php-pear-Auth-Yubico-2.3-2.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/php-pear-Auth-Yubico-2.3-2.fc15 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 675122] Review Request: php-pear-Auth-Yubico - Authentication class for verifying Yubico OTP tokens
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=675122 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-02-23 06:22:14 EST --- php-pear-Auth-Yubico-2.3-2.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/php-pear-Auth-Yubico-2.3-2.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 676853] Review Request: goocanvasmm2 - goocanvasmm2 goodness for Gtk3
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=676853 --- Comment #5 from Haïkel Guémar karlthe...@gmail.com 2011-02-23 06:23:17 EST --- i fixed *-doc requirements to gtkmm30-doc (which will pull the other stuff), spec and src.rpm above updated. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 225726] Merge Review: emacs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225726 Vitezslav Crhonek vcrho...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|vcrho...@redhat.com |nob...@fedoraproject.org -- 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 675122] Review Request: php-pear-Auth-Yubico - Authentication class for verifying Yubico OTP tokens
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=675122 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-02-23 06:22:21 EST --- php-pear-Auth-Yubico-2.3-2.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/php-pear-Auth-Yubico-2.3-2.fc13 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 675122] Review Request: php-pear-Auth-Yubico - Authentication class for verifying Yubico OTP tokens
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=675122 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |MODIFIED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 650280] Review Request: rubygem-rspec-mocks - Rspec-2 doubles (mocks and stubs)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=650280 Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com 2011-02-23 06:26:21 EST --- * Dependency - I see no reason for the sed at line 58. There is no dependency mentioned in any of the specified files. * Unnecessary prep section - If there is no sed in prep section, the gem install could be moved into install section. This is not MUST, however it would simplify the spec file a bit. * Test suite - Some specs are not executed (there are 7 specs missing). The test suite should be executed by following command preferably: ruby -rubygems -Ilib/ -S rspec spec - What about executing Cucumber test suite? But there is probably missing packaged Aruba gem :/ * Koji: - Builds fine on Koji http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2859806 Neither one of the above is showstopper, so the 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 675234] Review Request: duply - Wrapper for duplicity
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=675234 --- Comment #2 from Thomas Moschny thomas.mosc...@gmx.de 2011-02-23 05:21:08 EST --- Hi Sergio, thanks for your comments! (In reply to comment #1) duply.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary duply ***Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page. Perhaps you contact the author to provide one man page. The author already declined such a request once: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detailaid=2933556group_id=217745atid=1041150 but maybe I can ask him again. I've found a file with an encoding different from utf-8 Notes: -Encoding: file -i ./usr/bin/duply ./usr/bin/duply: text/x-shellscript; charset=iso-8859-1 rpmlint does not complain about it, however you may convert it with iconv: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#file-not-utf8 Good catch, fixed. -Tags: BuildRoot tag is not needed: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag -Sections: The same goes for %clean section: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#.25clean Both are needed as I am intending to also maintain the package also for EPEL5. Updated spec and src rpm: Spec URL: http://thm.fedorapeople.org/duply/duply.spec SRPM URL: http://thm.fedorapeople.org/duply/duply-1.5.4.2-1.fc13.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 675122] Review Request: php-pear-Auth-Yubico - Authentication class for verifying Yubico OTP tokens
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=675122 Patrick Monnerat p...@datasphere.ch changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2011-02-23 06:38:36 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 666409] Review Request: t4k_common - Library for Tux4Kids applications
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=666409
Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||brendan.jones...@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com 2011-02-23
06:39:47 EST ---
Hi Jon,
I've put together an informal review for you here. Comments denoted by ***
Great project.
+ OK
- N/A
! Problem
? Not evaluated
Required
=
[+] rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build
produces
rpmlint ../RPMS/x86_64/t4k_common-*
t4k_common.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tuxmath - tux math,
tux-math, Tuxtla
t4k_common.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tuxtype - tux type,
tux-type, Tuxtla
t4k_common.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libt4k_common.so.0.0.0
exit@GLIBC_2.2.5
t4k_common-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tuxmath - tux
math, tux-math, Tuxtla
t4k_common-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tuxtype - tux
type, tux-type, Tuxtla
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
rpmlint ../SRPMS/t4k_common-0.0.3-1.fc14.src.rpm
t4k_common.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tuxmath - tux math,
tux-math, Tuxtla
t4k_common.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tuxtype - tux type,
tux-type, Tuxtla
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
[+] named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
*** upstream package contains an underscore, so this is ok
[+] The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec
[+] Meet the Packaging Guidelines
*** NOTE: no longer need %clean/cleaning of the buildroot in %install
unless building for F12 and below or EPEL
[+] Be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing
Guidelines
[+] The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license
[+] License file must be included in %doc
[+] The spec file must be written in American English
[+] The spec file for the package MUST be legible
[+] The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source
[+] Successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary
architecture
[+] Proper use of ExcludeArch
[+] All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires
[+] The spec file MUST handle locales properly
[+] Shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's
default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun
[+] Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries
[-] If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this
fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation
of that specific package
[!] A package must own all directories that it creates
*** line 54: must own %{_datadir}/%{name} - do not need to qualify files or
directories under this
[+] A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings
[+] Permissions on files must be set properly. Every %files section must
include a %defattr(...) line
[!] Each package must consistently use macros
*** use %{name} macro in Source0
[+] The package must contain code, or permissable content
[+] Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage
[+] If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of
the application
[+] Header files must be in a -devel package
[-] Static libraries must be in a -static package
[+] library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package
[+] devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned
dependency
[+] Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives
[-] GUI apps must include a %{name}.desktop file, properly installed with
desktop-file-install in the %install section
[+] Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages
[+] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8
Should Items
[-] the packager SHOULD query upstream for any missing license text files to
include it
[-] Non-English language support for description and summary sections in the
package spec if available
[+] The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock
[+] The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures
[?] The reviewer should test that the package functions as described
[+] If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane
[?] Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using
a fully versioned dependency
[+] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) should usually be placed in a -devel pkg
[-] If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin,
/usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which
[Bug 650282] Review Request: rubygem-rspec-expectations - Rspec-2 expectations (should and matchers)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=650282 Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||vondr...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|vondr...@redhat.com --- Comment #2 from Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com 2011-02-23 06:53:53 EST --- I am taking this 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 670127] Review Request: the-board - A space for placing daily records in your GNOME desktop
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=670127 Christoph Wickert cwick...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||cwick...@fedoraproject.org --- Comment #11 from Christoph Wickert cwick...@fedoraproject.org 2011-02-23 06:54:26 EST --- Please use %global instead of %define, see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/global_preferred_over_define -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 650282] Review Request: rubygem-rspec-expectations - Rspec-2 expectations (should and matchers)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=650282 Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com 2011-02-23 07:26:23 EST --- * Unnecessary prep section - The gem install could be moved into install section. This is not MUST, however it would simplify the spec file a bit. * Test suite - Some specs are not executed (there are 4 specs missing). The test suite should be executed by following command preferably: ruby -rubygems -Ilib/ -S rspec spec - What about executing Cucumber test suite? But there is probably missing packaged Aruba gem :/ * Koji: - Builds fine on Koji http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2859873 Neither one of the above is showstopper, so the 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 676853] Review Request: goocanvasmm2 - goocanvasmm2 goodness for Gtk3
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=676853
--- Comment #6 from Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com 2011-02-23 07:45:47
EST ---
=== FORMAL REVIEW ===
-=N/A x=Check !=Problem, ?=Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[!] Rpmlint output:
goocanvasmm2.spec:30: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 4, tab:
line 30)
goocanvasmm2.spec: I: checking-url
http://ftp.gnome.org/pub/GNOME/sources/goocanvasmm2/1.90/goocanvasmm-1.90.3.tar.bz2
(timeout 10 seconds)
goocanvasmm2.spec: W: invalid-url Source0:
http://ftp.gnome.org/pub/GNOME/sources/goocanvasmm2/1.90/goocanvasmm-1.90.3.tar.bz2
HTTP Error 404: Not Found
goocanvasmm2.src: I: checking
goocanvasmm2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US goocanvas - goo
canvas, goo-canvas, canvasser
goocanvasmm2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US subpackage - sub
package, sub-package, prepackage
goocanvasmm2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gtkmm
goocanvasmm2.src: I: checking-url http://www.gtkmm.org/ (timeout 10 seconds)
goocanvasmm2.src:30: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 4, tab: line
30)
goocanvasmm2.src: I: checking-url
http://ftp.gnome.org/pub/GNOME/sources/goocanvasmm2/1.90/goocanvasmm-1.90.3.tar.bz2
(timeout 10 seconds)
goocanvasmm2.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
http://ftp.gnome.org/pub/GNOME/sources/goocanvasmm2/1.90/goocanvasmm-1.90.3.tar.bz2
HTTP Error 404: Not Found
goocanvasmm2.x86_64: I: checking
goocanvasmm2.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US goocanvas - goo
canvas, goo-canvas, canvasser
goocanvasmm2.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US subpackage - sub
package, sub-package, prepackage
goocanvasmm2.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gtkmm
goocanvasmm2.x86_64: I: checking-url http://www.gtkmm.org/ (timeout 10 seconds)
goocanvasmm2-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking
goocanvasmm2-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking-url http://www.gtkmm.org/ (timeout
10 seconds)
goocanvasmm2-devel.x86_64: I: checking
goocanvasmm2-devel.x86_64: I: checking-url http://www.gtkmm.org/ (timeout 10
seconds)
goocanvasmm2-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
goocanvasmm2-doc.noarch: I: checking
goocanvasmm2-doc.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US goocanvas -
goo canvas, goo-canvas, canvasser
goocanvasmm2-doc.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US goocanvasmm -
canvasback, canvasser, canvass
goocanvasmm2-doc.noarch: I: checking-url http://www.gtkmm.org/ (timeout 10
seconds)
5 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 13 warnings.
[x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines
[x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type: LGPLv2+
[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.
[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 : 188a81fbfcd3ecbc7ed85617e3735a8e goocanvasmm-1.90.3.tar.bz2
[x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture.
Tested on: rawhide, x86_64
[x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch
[!] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[-] The spec file handles locales properly.
[x] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x] Packages don't bundle copies of system librarie
[x] Package is not relocatable.
[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.
[x] Package consistently uses macros.
[x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Static libraries in -static subpackage, if present.
[x] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages with %{?_isa}, if present.
[x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
[-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
[-] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8
[x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
[!] Final requires
--- goocanvasmm2
/sbin/ldconfig
snip
---
[Bug 678680] Review Request: transifex-client - Command line tool for Transifex translation management
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=678680 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 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 678680] Review Request: transifex-client - Command line tool for Transifex translation management
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=678680 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-02-23 07:52:38 EST --- transifex-client-0.4.2-0.3.226a185088efhg.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/transifex-client-0.4.2-0.3.226a185088efhg.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 676853] Review Request: goocanvasmm2 - goocanvasmm2 goodness for Gtk3
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=676853 --- Comment #7 from Haïkel Guémar karlthe...@gmail.com 2011-02-23 07:56:14 EST --- * source URL fixed * cairomm-doc and pangomm-doc should be pulled by gtkmm30-doc (it will be fixed by the upcoming gtkmm mega-update) * mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs == fixed * typo fixed * BR doxygen and graphviz have been reparented to doc sub-package. spec and src.rpm have been updated accordingly -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 676853] Review Request: goocanvasmm2 - goocanvasmm2 goodness for Gtk3
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=676853 Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #8 from Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com 2011-02-23 08:00:06 EST --- (In reply to comment #7) * cairomm-doc and pangomm-doc should be pulled by gtkmm30-doc (it will be fixed by the upcoming gtkmm mega-update) Ok, sounds good. All MUST/SHOULD fixed. 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 678680] Review Request: transifex-client - Command line tool for Transifex translation management
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=678680 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-02-23 08:07:05 EST --- transifex-client-0.4.2-0.3.226a185088efhg.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/transifex-client-0.4.2-0.3.226a185088efhg.fc13 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 668052] Review Request: libtpms - Library providing Trusted Platform Module (TPM) functionality
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=668052
Tomas Mraz tm...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag||needinfo?(stef...@us.ibm.co
||m)
--- Comment #6 from Tomas Mraz tm...@redhat.com 2011-02-23 08:13:27 EST ---
A few more comments:
1. Not that it is blocker by any means but why do you use your own space on
sourceforge? The sourceforge project files can be properly referenced too:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Sourceforge.net
2. You should not use the %release in the upstream tarball - this should be
used only for the package n-v-r bumps for the spec file changes.
3. The parallel make flags are %{_smp_mflags} - do not hardcode -j9 there.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Parallel_make
4. Use %post -p /sbin/ldconfig etc. - see
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Shared_Libraries
You do not have anything else in the %post %postun scripts so this is the
better way because it also adds automatically the Requires(post). Also do not
call ldconfig in %post/%postun of the devel package.
5. Do not use %defattr(755, root, root) - it is confusing and may lead to
mistakes use %defattr(-, root, root, -)
6. Although it is not strictly required I suggest adding V-R of the package to
the changelog entries as in
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Changelogs Also the
changelog entries should be separated by empty line for better readability.
7. The license of the package should be included in the tarball in a separate
COPYING or LICENSE file and included as %doc in the main package.
8. You should use $RPM_BUILD_ROOT in %clean consistently with the rest of the
spec.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 678680] Review Request: transifex-client - Command line tool for Transifex translation management
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=678680 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-02-23 08:13:53 EST --- transifex-client-0.4.2-0.3.226a185088efhg.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/transifex-client-0.4.2-0.3.226a185088efhg.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 678680] Review Request: transifex-client - Command line tool for Transifex translation management
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=678680 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-02-23 08:21:44 EST --- transifex-client-0.4.2-0.3.226a185088efhg.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/transifex-client-0.4.2-0.3.226a185088efhg.fc15 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 666409] Review Request: t4k_common - Library for Tux4Kids applications
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=666409 --- Comment #2 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2011-02-23 09:11:58 EST --- SPEC: http://zanoni.jcomserv.net/fedora/t4k_common/t4k_common.spec SRPM: http://zanoni.jcomserv.net/fedora/t4k_common/t4k_common-0.0.3-2.fc14.src.rpm Addressed macro and owndership issues. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 226209] Merge Review: nut
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226209
--- Comment #4 from Vitezslav Crhonek vcrho...@redhat.com 2011-02-23 09:12:01
EST ---
OK source files match upstream:
$ sha256sum nut-2.6.0.tar.gz*
febaa230b6b5f0ad27d780851047527d36c8c7a34e557b3832d6d55174d7a0d5
nut-2.6.0.tar.gz
febaa230b6b5f0ad27d780851047527d36c8c7a34e557b3832d6d55174d7a0d5
nut-2.6.0.tar.gz.orig
OK package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
OK specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros
consistently.
The spec file look fine, just two comments:
- Please use %global instead of %define, see:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#.25global_preferred_over_.25define
- Buildroot tag is no longer required, see:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag
OK dist tag is present.
BAD license field matches the actual license.
Only GPLv2+ is in the spec file, but the nut-client subpackage holds GPLv3+
files also. I think nut-client should have own license field with dual
licensing scenario, see:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines
BAD license is open source-compatible. License text included in package.
License texts are not included, but are not included in upstream tarball too
(although both are mentioned in COPYING - LICENSE-GPL2, LICENSE.GPL3). It would
be nice to point upstream to ship them.
OK latest version is being packaged.
OK BuildRequires are proper.
OK compiler flags are appropriate.
OK package builds in mock (Rawhide/i686).
OK debuginfo package looks complete.
BAD rpmlint is silent.
$ rpmlint nut.spec
nut.spec:177: W: macro-in-comment %{buildroot}
nut.spec:177: W: macro-in-comment %{_mandir}
nut.spec:195: W: macro-in-comment %{buildroot}
nut.spec:320: E: files-attr-not-set
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings.
Warnings are OK, error on line 320 can be easily fixed by moving %doc COPYING
line after %defattr(-,root,root) line.
$ rpmlint nut-2.6.0-3.fc16.x86_64.rpm
nut.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/doc/nut-2.6.0/docs/website/css/ie-overrides.css
nut.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/doc/nut-2.6.0/docs/nut-qa.txt
nut.x86_64: E: non-readable /etc/ups/nut.conf 0640L
nut.x86_64: E: non-readable /etc/ups/upsd.users 0640L
nut.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/doc/nut-2.6.0/docs/website/scripts/filter_png.js
nut.x86_64: E: non-readable /etc/ups/ups.conf 0640L
nut.x86_64: E: non-readable /etc/ups/upsd.conf 0640L
nut.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary blazer_usb
nut.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary upslog
nut.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary newmge-shut
nut.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary skel
nut.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary clone-outlet
nut.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary blazer_ser
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 9 warnings.
Some manual pages missing (please check it, probably minor utilities, where man
page is not needed), some non-readable files for everybody (if it's expected,
it should be possible to add these files to the exception list), some files
with CRLF line terminators (should be fixed).
$ rpmlint nut-client-2.6.0-3.fc16.x86_64.rpm
nut-client.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libupsclient.so.1.0.0
exit@GLIBC_2.2.5
nut-client.x86_64: E: non-readable /etc/ups/upssched.conf 0640L
nut-client.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/ups 0750L
nut-client.x86_64: E: non-readable /etc/ups/upsmon.conf 0640L
nut-client.x86_64: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/PyNUT.py 0644L /usr/bin/env
nut-client.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary upssched-cmd
nut-client.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary nut-monitor
nut-client.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%post install
nut-client.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%preun rm
nut-client.x86_64: W: incoherent-init-script-name ups ('nut-client',
'nut-clientd')
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 6 warnings.
Same as above, plus directory and script permission - please take a look if
it's correct (directory permission is probably desired - this permission is set
in the spec file, I'm not sure about python script).
$ rpmlint nut-cgi-2.6.0-3.fc16.x86_64.rpm
nut-cgi.x86_64: E: non-readable /etc/ups/upsset.conf 0600L
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings.
$ rpmlint nut-hal-2.6.0-3.fc16.x86_64.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
$ rpmlint nut-devel-2.6.0-3.fc16.x86_64.rpm
nut-devel.x86_64: W: no-dependency-on nut/nut-libs/libnut
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
$ rpmlint nut-xml-2.6.0-3.fc16.x86_64.rpm
nut-xml.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US netxml - netball,
nettle, nether
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
Almost OK:)
OK final
[Bug 679797] New: Review Request: apache-mime4j - Apache JAMES Mime4j
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: apache-mime4j - Apache JAMES Mime4j https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=679797 Summary: Review Request: apache-mime4j - Apache JAMES Mime4j Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: akurt...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://akurtakov.fedorapeople.org/apache-mime4j.spec SRPM URL: http://akurtakov.fedorapeople.org/apache-mime4j-0.6.1-1.fc14.src.rpm Description: Java stream based MIME message parser -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 679797] Review Request: apache-mime4j - Apache JAMES Mime4j
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=679797 Severin Gehwolf sgehw...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|sgehw...@redhat.com Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 666409] Review Request: t4k_common - Library for Tux4Kids applications
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=666409
Martin Gieseking martin.giesek...@uos.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||martin.giesek...@uos.de
--- Comment #3 from Martin Gieseking martin.giesek...@uos.de 2011-02-23
09:56:52 EST ---
(In reply to comment #1)
[+] Meet the Packaging Guidelines
*** NOTE: no longer need %clean/cleaning of the buildroot in %install
unless building for F12 and below or EPEL
Right. F12 has reached end of life, so we don't have to care about it any
longer. The buildroot stuff is still required for EPEL 6. Jon, if you intend
to keep it, please adapt the BuildRoot field according to
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/GuidelinesAndPolicies#BuildRoot_tag
[+] The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source
That's OK. Brendan, please copy the md5sums of the tarballs into your reviews
so that we can easily verify the identity.
$ md5sum t4k_common-0.0.3.tar.gz*
28ad0818aa79d701fd33019e756340f8 t4k_common-0.0.3.tar.gz
28ad0818aa79d701fd33019e756340f8 t4k_common-0.0.3.tar.gz.upstream
[!] A package must own all directories that it creates
*** line 54: must own %{_datadir}/%{name} - do not need to qualify files
or
directories under this
Yes, %{_datadir}/%{name} is currently unowned. Either replace
%{_datadir}/%{name}/images with %{_datadir}/%{name}/
or add %dir %{_datadir}/%{name}
[+] Permissions on files must be set properly. Every %files section must
include a %defattr(...) line
The %defattrs should look like this: %defattr(-,root,root,-)
[!] Each package must consistently use macros
*** use %{name} macro in Source0
OK, but using %{name} in Source0 is optional.
Some additional notes:
- you should preserve the timestamps by adding INSTALL='install -p' to
make install
- drop INSTALL as it's not of much use in a binary package
- move README to the base package, and also add file ChangeLog
- please be more specific in %files especially when only single files/folders
are added, e.g.:
%{_libdir}/*.so.* = %{_libdir}/lib%{name}.so.*
%{_libdir}/*.so = %{_libdir}/lib%{name}.so
%{_includedir}/* = %{_includedir}/%{name}.h
- if you want to use the %{name} macro in the %files section, please add the
.pc file with %{_libdir}/pkgconfig/%{name}.pc
- I suggest to also build the API docs (with doxygen) and add the HTML variant
to the -devel 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 678692] Review Request: drupal6-theme-ninesixty - 960 Grid System (960.gs) theme for Drupal 6
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=678692 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-02-23 10:26:33 EST --- drupal6-theme-ninesixty-1.0-3.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/drupal6-theme-ninesixty-1.0-3.el6 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 679820] New: Rename review: drupal7 - An open-source content-management platform
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Rename review: drupal7 - An open-source content-management platform https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=679820 Summary: Rename review: drupal7 - An open-source content-management platform Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: Unspecified OS/Version: Unspecified Status: NEW Severity: unspecified Priority: unspecified Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: l...@jcomserv.net QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Description: Equipped with a powerful blend of features, Drupal is a Content Management System written in PHP that can support a variety of websites ranging from personal weblogs to large community-driven websites. Drupal is highly configurable, skinnable, and secure. SPEC: http://zanoni.jcomserv.net/fedora/drupal7/drupal7.spec SRPM: http://zanoni.jcomserv.net/fedora/drupal7/drupal7-7.0-1.fc14.src.rpm Paralell-installable with Drupal 6, works, requires temporary disablng of httpd SELinux module during install, works once re-enabled. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 676853] Review Request: goocanvasmm2 - goocanvasmm2 goodness for Gtk3
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=676853 --- Comment #9 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2011-02-23 10:50:42 EST --- There is no SCM request to process. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 638647] Review Request: mom - Dynamically manage system resources on virtualization hosts
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=638647 --- Comment #27 from Adam Litke a...@us.ibm.com 2011-02-23 10:49:49 EST --- Hi everyone. I really want to move this process forward and, since I also know everyone is very busy, I am prepared to sweeten the deal for any person willing to help me get this package into Fedora. In addition to writing software, I also enjoy making beer. So, following OSS traditions, I am offering a 6-pack of quality home-brewed beer (you pick the style) shipped to the US address of the Fedora Packager who helps me complete the New Package Process for Memory Overcommitment Manager. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 627637] Review Request: qroneko - A front end of crontab application
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=627637 --- Comment #14 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2011-02-23 10:49:43 EST --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 672954] Review Request: python26-ldap - An object-oriented API to access LDAP directory servers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=672954 --- Comment #7 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2011-02-23 10:50:25 EST --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 674152] Review Request: mingw32-matahari - Matahari QMF Agents for Windows guests
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=674152 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-02-23 11:02:40 EST --- mingw32-matahari-0.4.0-0.11.8003b6c.git.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mingw32-matahari-0.4.0-0.11.8003b6c.git.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 674152] Review Request: mingw32-matahari - Matahari QMF Agents for Windows guests
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=674152 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |MODIFIED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 672954] Review Request: python26-ldap - An object-oriented API to access LDAP directory servers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=672954 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-02-23 11:16:12 EST --- python26-ldap-2.3.12-2.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python26-ldap-2.3.12-2.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 672954] Review Request: python26-ldap - An object-oriented API to access LDAP directory servers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=672954 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |MODIFIED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 674738] Review Request: kamoso - Application for taking pictures and videos from a webcam
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=674738 --- Comment #10 from nucleo alekc...@googlemail.com 2011-02-23 11:30:50 EST --- kamoso-2.0-beta1 http://nucleo.fedorapeople.org/pkg-reviews/kamoso/kamoso.spec http://nucleo.fedorapeople.org/pkg-reviews/kamoso/kamoso-2.0-0.4.beta1.fc16.src.rpm scratch build http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2860740 http://nucleo.fedorapeople.org/pkg-reviews/kamoso/scratch/ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 679797] Review Request: apache-mime4j - Apache JAMES Mime4j
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=679797
--- Comment #1 from Severin Gehwolf sgehw...@redhat.com 2011-02-23 11:33:20
EST ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x] Rpmlint output: 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[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.
[x] Buildroot definition is not present
[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:
[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.
[x] All independent sub-packages have license of their own
[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: 9dac4a5027d1dec0663f8d11d7e471e9
MD5SUM upstream package: 9dac4a5027d1dec0663f8d11d7e471e9
[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.
[x] Package does NOT have a %clean section which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}
(or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). (not needed anymore)
[x] Package consistently uses macros (no %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
mixing)
[x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[-] 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, ...)
[-] 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)
[x] If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even when
building with ant
[x] pom files has correct add_to_maven_depmap call which resolves to the pom
file (use JPP. and JPP- correctly)
=== Maven ===
[x] Use %{_mavenpomdir} macro for placing pom files instead of
%{_datadir}/maven2/poms
[-] If package uses -Dmaven.test.skip=true explain why it was needed in a
comment
[-] If package uses custom depmap -Dmaven2.jpp.depmap.file=* explain why
it's needed in a comment
[x] Package uses %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun
[x] Packages have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on jpackage-utils (for
%update_maven_depmap macro)
=== 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.
[?] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
Tested on: I tested with mock -r fedora-rawhide-x86_64 --rebuild
../SRPMS/apache-mime4j-0.6.1-1.fc14.src.rpm
but got Error: No Package found for apache-james-project This is due to rawhide
yum repository not being updated
instantly. I was able to rebuild locally by grabbing the package directly from
koji. I think that's OK.
=== Issues ===
1. One small issue, please fix before building in koji.
install -m 644 target/%{name}-%{version}.jar %{buildroot}%{_javadir}/%{name}
which should be changed to
install -m 644 target/%{name}-%{version}.jar
%{buildroot}%{_javadir}/%{name}.jar
*** 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 679797] Review Request: apache-mime4j - Apache JAMES Mime4j
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=679797 --- Comment #2 from Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com 2011-02-23 11:48:29 EST --- Nice catch. I will fix it on import. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 679797] Review Request: apache-mime4j - Apache JAMES Mime4j
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=679797 Severin Gehwolf sgehw...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 679797] Review Request: apache-mime4j - Apache JAMES Mime4j
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=679797 --- Comment #3 from Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com 2011-02-23 11:54:02 EST --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: apache-mime4j Short Description: Java stream based MIME message parser Owners: akurtakov Branches: F-15 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 679797] Review Request: apache-mime4j - Apache JAMES Mime4j
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=679797 Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com 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 676853] Review Request: goocanvasmm2 - goocanvasmm2 goodness for Gtk3
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=676853 Haïkel Guémar karlthe...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #10 from Haïkel Guémar karlthe...@gmail.com 2011-02-23 12:01:08 EST --- Sorry for that. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: goocanvasmm2 Short Description: goocanvas2 C++ bindings Owners: hguemar Branches: f15 InitialCC: hguemar -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 676853] Review Request: goocanvasmm2 - goocanvasmm2 goodness for Gtk3
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=676853 --- Comment #11 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2011-02-23 12:40:47 EST --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 679797] Review Request: apache-mime4j - Apache JAMES Mime4j
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=679797 --- Comment #4 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2011-02-23 12:41:41 EST --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 #5 from Stanislav Ochotnicky socho...@redhat.com 2011-02-23 12:57:18 EST --- Still working on this? Just making sure this is not becoming stale 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 650283] Review Request: rubygem-rspec-core - Rspec-2 runner and formatters
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=650283 Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #8 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2011-02-23 13:02:09 EST --- Thank you for review and comments. I will refrect them when I import this package into Fedora git. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: rubygem-rspec-core Short Description:Rspec-2 runner and formatters Owners: mtasaka Branches: f15 f14 f13 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 650282] Review Request: rubygem-rspec-expectations - Rspec-2 expectations (should and matchers)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=650282 Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2011-02-23 13:01:17 EST --- Thank you for review and comments. I will refrect them when I import this package into Fedora git. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: rubygem-rspec-expectations Short Description:Rspec-2 expectations (should and matchers) Owners: mtasaka Branches: f15 f14 f13 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 650280] Review Request: rubygem-rspec-mocks - Rspec-2 doubles (mocks and stubs)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=650280 Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2011-02-23 13:00:17 EST --- Thank you for review and comments. I will refrect them when I import this package into Fedora git. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: rubygem-rspec-mocks Short Description:Rspec-2 doubles (mocks and stubs) Owners: mtasaka Branches: f15 f14 f13 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 676879] Review Request: mpiexec - MPI job launcher that uses the PBS task interface directly
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=676879 Steve Traylen steve.tray...@cern.ch changed: What|Removed |Added CC||steve.tray...@cern.ch --- Comment #5 from Steve Traylen steve.tray...@cern.ch 2011-02-23 13:14:57 EST --- How does this relate to mpich2 which contains: /usr/lib/mpich2/bin/mpiexec and openmpi which contains /usr/lib/openmpi/bin/mpiexec http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/MPI may have some clues. As for your last question about signifying which torque version you build against then this is implicit since the package in a particular EPEL or Fedora release and so is built against which ever torque is in that platform. You don't need the toruqe_XXX in the release. Also the resulting requires $ rpm -qp --requires mpiexec-0.84-1_torque_2.3.13.fc14.x86_64.rpm | grep torque libtorque.so.2()(64bit) should be enough to tie version. The pbs location changes between EPEL5 and 6 and in Fedora so I recommend some conditionals: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DistTag#Conditionals However this review is by default for rawhide so it must be correct for that. I see there is both a GPL LICENSE file but also a LICENSE.mvapich file which is probably BSD. Is this dual licensed or something ? Can you clarify. 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 678727] Review Request: pam-afs-session - AFS PAG and AFS tokens on login (sponsor requested)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=678727 --- Comment #3 from Steve Traylen steve.tray...@cern.ch 2011-02-23 13:25:55 EST --- Some more reviews would be good. Preferably one you can find problems with, submitting another package is also builds a stronger case. Either pam_afs_session or pam_afs-session , probably the latter. Please provide direct links to the .src.rpm and .spec at each revision. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 178922] Review Request: asterisk - The Open Source PBX
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=178922 --- Comment #165 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) pa...@hubbitus.info 2011-02-23 13:33:54 EST --- Is it hard to doing something similar for EPEL5? -- 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 678199] Review Request: perl-Role-Identifiable - Identifiable roles
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=678199 Steve Traylen steve.tray...@cern.ch changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||steve.tray...@cern.ch AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|steve.tray...@cern.ch Flag||fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Steve Traylen steve.tray...@cern.ch 2011-02-23 13:36:10 EST --- Informal review is good. APPROVED. 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 674692] Review Request: python-pyramid - The Pyramid web application framework, a Pylons project
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=674692 --- Comment #7 from Luke Macken lmac...@redhat.com 2011-02-23 13:50:06 EST --- Fixed source and %global, and removed tests completely after running them (as we do with many other python packages) Spec URL: http://lmacken.fedorapeople.org/rpms/python-pyramid.spec SRPM URL: http://lmacken.fedorapeople.org/rpms/python-pyramid-1.0-1.fc13.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 551763] Review Request: lua-sec - Lua binding for OpenSSL 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=551763 Toshio Ernie Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||a.bad...@gmail.com --- Comment #13 from Toshio Ernie Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com 2011-02-23 13:51:21 EST --- Does anybody want to take over this package submission? (Adam?) If not we should probably close it and if someone wants to take it up in the future, they can either reopen this request or start a new one. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 551765] Review Request: prosody - Flexible communications server for Jabber/XMPP
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=551765 Toshio Ernie Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||a.bad...@gmail.com --- Comment #14 from Toshio Ernie Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com 2011-02-23 13:51:00 EST --- Yeah, if someone doesn't want to take this up right away, it's better to close this -- the next person who wants to work on it can either reopen or file a new review request. hopefully they'll see your spec file and use it as a base to start from. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 551763] Review Request: lua-sec - Lua binding for OpenSSL 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=551763 --- Comment #14 from Adam Goode a...@spicenitz.org 2011-02-23 14:10:57 EST --- No, this package is a dead end as it stands. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 551763] Review Request: lua-sec - Lua binding for OpenSSL 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=551763 --- Comment #15 from Thom Carlin bugzilla.a...@gmail.com 2011-02-23 14:18:06 EST --- What about Prosody? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 551765] Review Request: prosody - Flexible communications server for Jabber/XMPP
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=551765 Johan Cwiklinski jo...@x-tnd.be changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||WONTFIX Last Closed||2011-02-23 14:25:46 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 551763] Review Request: lua-sec - Lua binding for OpenSSL 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=551763 Johan Cwiklinski jo...@x-tnd.be changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||WONTFIX Last Closed||2011-02-23 14:25:16 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 551765] Review Request: prosody - Flexible communications server for Jabber/XMPP
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=551765 Bug 551765 depends on bug 551763, which changed state. Bug 551763 Summary: Review Request: lua-sec - Lua binding for OpenSSL library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=551763 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||WONTFIX Status|NEW |CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 650667] Review Request: hitori - Hitori game for GNOME
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=650667 Mario Blättermann mari...@gnome.org changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #19 from Mario Blättermann mari...@gnome.org 2011-02-23 14:48:41 EST --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: hitori Short Description:Logic puzzle game for GNOME Owners: mariobl Branches: f15 f14 f13 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 668052] Review Request: libtpms - Library providing Trusted Platform Module (TPM) functionality
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=668052 Stefan Berger stef...@us.ibm.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|needinfo?(stef...@us.ibm.co | |m) | --- Comment #7 from Stefan Berger stef...@us.ibm.com 2011-02-23 15:04:06 EST --- I addressed comments 2 to 8. I am still using my own hosting space. SPEC: http://bergerstefan.users.sourceforge.net/libtpms/libtpms.spec SRPM: http://bergerstefan.users.sourceforge.net/libtpms/libtpms-0.5.1-3.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 551763] Review Request: lua-sec - Lua binding for OpenSSL 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=551763 --- Comment #16 from Adam Goode a...@spicenitz.org 2011-02-23 15:06:40 EST --- I love prosody and use it myself. If it can be built without lua-sec, then it should go into Fedora. Lack of IPv6 support is unfortunate, but not a total showshopper in my opinion. lua-sec being a fork of luasocket is. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 551765] Review Request: prosody - Flexible communications server for Jabber/XMPP
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=551765 --- Comment #15 from Adam Goode a...@spicenitz.org 2011-02-23 15:07:13 EST --- Please reopen if prosody can be built without lua-sec. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 674666] Review Request: python-translationstring - Utility library for i18n relied on by various Repoze packages
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=674666 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-02-23 15:28:03 EST --- python-translationstring-0.3-1.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 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 python-translationstring'. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-translationstring-0.3-1.fc15 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 678680] Review Request: transifex-client - Command line tool for Transifex translation management
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=678680 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-02-23 15:28:45 EST --- transifex-client-0.4.2-0.3.226a185088efhg.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 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 transifex-client'. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/transifex-client-0.4.2-0.3.226a185088efhg.fc15 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 677089] Review Request: php-pear-XML-RPC2 - XML-RPC client/server 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=677089 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-02-23 15:29:40 EST --- php-pear-XML-RPC2-1.0.6-1.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 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 php-pear-XML-RPC2'. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/php-pear-XML-RPC2-1.0.6-1.fc15 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 678891] Review Request: lcd4linux - Display system state on an external LCD display
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=678891 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-02-23 15:28:55 EST --- lcd4linux-0.11-0.2.svn1143.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 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 lcd4linux'. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/lcd4linux-0.11-0.2.svn1143.fc15 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 674671] Review Request: python-repoze-lru - A tiny LRU cache implementation and decorator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=674671 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-02-23 15:29:06 EST --- python-repoze-lru-0.3-1.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 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 python-repoze-lru'. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-repoze-lru-0.3-1.fc15 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 679913] Review Request: ftop - Shows shows progress of open files and file systems
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=679913 Sergio Belkin seb...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||seb...@gmail.com Blocks||177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 679913] New: Review Request: ftop - Shows shows progress of open files and file systems
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: ftop - Shows shows progress of open files and file systems https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=679913 Summary: Review Request: ftop - Shows shows progress of open files and file systems Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: unspecified Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: seb...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/14217893/ftop.spec SRPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/14217893/ftop-1.0-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: Hi I've made the ftop package. It's a tool alike top that show progress of open files and file systems. The program displays progress information for the open files and file systems in a Linux system I need your review and your sponsorhip. Also I've made the following packages: - UpTools: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=673589 - cdw: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=678128 And the following reviews: -duply - Wrapper for duplicity https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=675234 - os-prober - Probes disks on the system for installed operating systems https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=678442 - synce-connector - Connection framework and dccm-implementation https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=678728 - libst2205 - Library for accessing the display of hacked st2205 photo frames https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=678887 - pam_csync - a PAM module to provide Roaming Home Directories https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=565945 - amavisd-milter - Sendmail milter for amavisd-new with support for the AM.PDP protocol https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=634760 - mpiexec - MPI job launcher that uses the PBS task interface directly https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=676879 - libeiskaltdcpp - A client library for the DC file sharing protocol https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=676939 - lcd4linux - Display system state on an external LCD display https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=678891 (Bad Review included only for honesty) - perl-Crypt-Random-Source - Get weak or strong random data from pluggable sources https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=678929 Thanks in advance! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 674667] Review Request: python-venusian - A library for deferring decorator actions
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=674667 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-02-23 15:29:11 EST --- python-venusian-0.6-1.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 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 python-venusian'. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-venusian-0.6-1.fc15 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 #21 from Sergio Belkin seb...@gmail.com 2011-02-23 16:18:30 EST --- Hi, I am looking for a sponsor, besides UpTools I've made the following packages: - UpTools: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=673589 - cdw: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=678128 And the following reviews: -duply - Wrapper for duplicity https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=675234 - os-prober - Probes disks on the system for installed operating systems https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=678442 - synce-connector - Connection framework and dccm-implementation https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=678728 - libst2205 - Library for accessing the display of hacked st2205 photo frames https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=678887 - pam_csync - a PAM module to provide Roaming Home Directories https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=565945 - amavisd-milter - Sendmail milter for amavisd-new with support for the AM.PDP protocol https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=634760 - mpiexec - MPI job launcher that uses the PBS task interface directly https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=676879 - libeiskaltdcpp - A client library for the DC file sharing protocol https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=676939 - lcd4linux - Display system state on an external LCD display https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=678891 (Bad Review included only for honesty) - perl-Crypt-Random-Source - Get weak or strong random data from pluggable sources https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=678929 - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=679133 Thanks in advance! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 679133] Review Request: starcal - A desktop calendar with Gregorian, Jalali and Hijri support
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=679133 Sergio Belkin seb...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||seb...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Sergio Belkin seb...@gmail.com 2011-02-23 16:15:15 EST --- Hi Hedayat, I am bothering again :) seriously I hope you find this informal review useful: rpmlint -i -v starcal.spec starcal-1.5.3-1.fc16.noarch.rpm starcal.spec: I: checking-url http://downloads.sourceforge.net/starcal/starcal-1.5.3-src.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds) starcal.noarch: I: checking starcal.noarch: I: checking-url http://sourceforge.net/projects/starcal/ (timeout 10 seconds) starcal.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary starcal Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page. 1 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Being a gui applet, that is not a problem, is it? :) rpmlint -i -v starcal-1.5.3-1.fc16.src.rpm starcal.src: I: checking starcal.src: I: checking-url http://sourceforge.net/projects/starcal/ (timeout 10 seconds) starcal.src: I: checking-url http://downloads.sourceforge.net/starcal/starcal-1.5.3-src.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds) 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. File List: -rwxr-xr-x1 rootroot 77 feb 23 17:54 /usr/bin/starcal -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 229 feb 23 17:54 /usr/share/applications/starcal.desktop drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 feb 23 17:54 /usr/share/doc/starcal-1.5.3 -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 3441 mar 28 2009 /usr/share/doc/starcal-1.5.3/ChangeLog -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 774 mar 14 2010 /usr/share/doc/starcal-1.5.3/license lrwxrwxrwx1 rootroot 38 feb 23 17:54 /usr/share/pixmaps/starcal.png - /usr/share/starcal/pixmaps/starcal.png drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 feb 23 17:54 /usr/share/starcal drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 feb 23 17:54 /usr/share/starcal/pixmaps -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 61 mar 14 2010 /usr/share/starcal/pixmaps/README -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 1234 mar 14 2010 /usr/share/starcal/pixmaps/alarm-clock-2.png -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 1246 mar 14 2010 /usr/share/starcal/pixmaps/alarm-clock.png -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 1523 mar 14 2010 /usr/share/starcal/pixmaps/applications-graphics.png -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 1403 mar 14 2010 /usr/share/starcal/pixmaps/applications-system.png -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 316 mar 14 2010 /usr/share/starcal/pixmaps/ar.png -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 1091 mar 14 2010 /usr/share/starcal/pixmaps/balloons-2.png -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 1150 mar 14 2010 /usr/share/starcal/pixmaps/balloons.png -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 1038 mar 14 2010 /usr/share/starcal/pixmaps/computer.png -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 1154 mar 14 2010 /usr/share/starcal/pixmaps/evolution-18.png -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 1140 mar 14 2010 /usr/share/starcal/pixmaps/firefox-18.png -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 1134 mar 14 2010 /usr/share/starcal/pixmaps/flag-iq.png -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 1313 mar 14 2010 /usr/share/starcal/pixmaps/flag-ir.png -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 1036 mar 14 2010 /usr/share/starcal/pixmaps/flag-lb.png -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 1241 mar 14 2010 /usr/share/starcal/pixmaps/flag-us.png -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 982 mar 14 2010 /usr/share/starcal/pixmaps/gnome-web-browser-16.png -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 947 mar 14 2010 /usr/share/starcal/pixmaps/konqueror-16.png -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 829 mar 14 2010 /usr/share/starcal/pixmaps/marriage-2.png -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 900 mar 14 2010 /usr/share/starcal/pixmaps/marriage.png -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 804 mar 14 2010 /usr/share/starcal/pixmaps/note-2.png -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 806 mar 14 2010 /usr/share/starcal/pixmaps/note.png -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 752 mar 14 2010 /usr/share/starcal/pixmaps/preferences-desktop-theme.png -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 1390 mar 14 2010 /usr/share/starcal/pixmaps/preferences-other.png -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 1133 mar 14 2010 /usr/share/starcal/pixmaps/preferences-plugin.png -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 679 mar 14 2010
