[Bug 675649] Review Request: perl-Log-Any-Adapter-Dispatch - Log::Any::Adapter::Dispatch Perl module
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=675649 Iain Arnell changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 675649] Review Request: perl-Log-Any-Adapter-Dispatch - Log::Any::Adapter::Dispatch Perl module
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=675649 Iain Arnell changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|iarn...@gmail.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 579449] Review Request: emacs-common-riece - Yet Another IRC Client for Emacs and XEmacs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=579449 Daiki Ueno changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2011-03-18 03:06:41 --- Comment #12 from Daiki Ueno 2011-03-18 03:06:41 EDT --- Closing. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 675649] Review Request: perl-Log-Any-Adapter-Dispatch - Log::Any::Adapter::Dispatch Perl module
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=675649 Iain Arnell changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Iain Arnell 2011-03-18 03:13:07 EDT --- A nice clean package. APPROVED. koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2922810 Spec looks sane, clean and consistent; license is correct (GPL+ or Artistic); make test passes cleanly. Source tarballs match upstream (sha1sum): a0554ce0b2b475a44654ee7462d16230ccd949e2 Log-Any-Adapter-Dispatch-0.06.tar.gz a0554ce0b2b475a44654ee7462d16230ccd949e2 Log-Any-Adapter-Dispatch-0.06.tar.gz.srpm Final provides / requires are sane: ==> perl-Log-Any-Adapter-Dispatch-0.06-1.fc16.noarch.rpm <== > rpmlint 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. > provides perl(Log::Any::Adapter::Dispatch) = 0.06 perl-Log-Any-Adapter-Dispatch = 0.06-1.fc16 > requires perl(base) perl(Log::Any::Adapter::Base) perl(Log::Any::Adapter::Util) perl(Log::Dispatch) perl(Log::Dispatch) >= 2.26 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.12.3) perl(strict) perl(warnings) > obsoletes > conflicts ==> perl-Log-Any-Adapter-Dispatch-0.06-1.fc16.src.rpm <== > rpmlint 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. > provides > requires perl(ExtUtils::MakeMaker) perl(Log::Any::Adapter) perl(Log::Dispatch) >= 2.26 perl(Test::More) > obsoletes > conflicts > mock install INFO: mock.py version 1.1.9 starting... State Changed: init plugins INFO: selinux enabled State Changed: start Mock Version: 1.1.9 INFO: Mock Version: 1.1.9 State Changed: lock buildroot INFO: installing package(s): perl-Log-Any-Adapter-Dispatch-0.06-1.fc16.noarch.rpm INFO: Package Arch Version Repository Size Installing: perl-Log-Any-Adapter-Dispatch noarch 0.06-1.fc16 /perl-Log-Any-Adapter-Dispatch-0.06-1.fc16.noarch 5.1 k Installing for dependencies: perl-CPAN noarch 1.9402-156.fc16 fedora246 k perl-Digest-SHA x86_64 1:5.47-156.fc16 fedora 63 k perl-Email-Date-Formatnoarch 1.002-9.fc15 fedora 16 k perl-ExtUtils-MakeMaker noarch 6.56-156.fc16 fedora289 k perl-ExtUtils-ParseXS noarch 1:2.2206-156.fc16 fedora 44 k perl-IO-Socket-SSLnoarch 1.39-1.fc16 fedora 71 k perl-Log-Any noarch 0.11-3.fc15 fedora 25 k perl-Log-Any-Adapter noarch 0.03-1.fc16 fedora 20 k perl-Log-Dispatch noarch 2.27-2.fc15 fedora 71 k perl-MIME-Litenoarch 3.027-6.fc15 fedora 88 k perl-MIME-Types noarch 1.31-1.fc16 fedora 34 k perl-Mail-Sender noarch 0.8.16-7.fc15 fedora 54 k perl-Mail-Sendmailnoarch 0.79-16.fc15 fedora 28 k perl-MailToolsnoarch 2.07-2.fc15 fedora102 k perl-Net-LibIDN x86_64 0.12-6.fc15 fedora 33 k perl-Net-SMTP-SSL noarch 1.01-7.fc15 fedora8.3 k perl-Net-SSLeay x86_64 1.36-4.fc15 fedora173 k perl-Params-Validate x86_64 0.95-4.fc15 fedora 76 k perl-Scope-Guard noarch 0.20-3.fc15 fedora 11 k perl-Test-Harness noarch 3.17-156.fc16 fedora239 k perl-Test-Simple noarch 0.98-1.fc16 fedora117 k perl-TimeDate noarch 1:1.20-4.fc15 fedora 42 k perl-develx86_64 4:5.12.3-156.fc16 fedora448 k pythonx86_64 2.7.1-6.fc15 fedora 73 k systemtap-sdt-devel x86_64 1.4-5.fc16fedora 41 k Transaction Summary Install 26 Package(s) Total size: 2.4 M Total download size: 54 k Installed size: 6.0 M Installed: perl-Log-Any-Adapter-Dispatch.noarch 0:0.06-1.fc16 Dependency Installed: perl-CPAN.noarch 0:1.9402-156.fc16 perl-Digest-SHA.x86_64 1:5.47-156.fc16 perl-Email-Date-Format.noarch 0:1.002-9.fc15
[Bug 688035] Review Request: perl-CHI - Unified cache handling interface
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=688035 Iain Arnell changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 688035] Review Request: perl-CHI - Unified cache handling interface
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=688035 Iain Arnell changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|iarn...@gmail.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 675478] Review Request: gprbuild - Ada project builder
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=675478 --- Comment #16 from Mikhail Kulemin 2011-03-18 03:56:15 EDT --- [mih@localhost result]$ rpmlint gprbuild-2010-7.fc15.x86_64.rpm gprbuild.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi -> mulch, mufti gprbuild.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US extendable -> expendable, extend able, extend-able gprbuild.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US toolchains -> tool chains, tool-chains, toolmaking gprbuild.x86_64: W: executable-stack /usr/bin/gprclean gprbuild.x86_64: W: executable-stack /usr/libexec/gprbuild/gprbind gprbuild.x86_64: W: executable-stack /usr/bin/gprconfig gprbuild.x86_64: W: executable-stack /usr/libexec/gprbuild/gprlib gprbuild.x86_64: W: executable-stack /usr/bin/gprbuild gprbuild.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/gprbuild-2010/README gprbuild.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/gprbuild-2010/COPYING gprbuild.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/gprbuild-2010/CHANGE_160803 gprbuild.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gprclean gprbuild.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gprconfig gprbuild.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gprbuild 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 14 warnings. Some comments: To fix: exec perm on README, COPYING, CHANGE_160803 files To ignore: spelling, man pages, executable stack is normal for Ada programs too. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 675478] Review Request: gprbuild - Ada project builder
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=675478 --- Comment #17 from Pavel Zhukov 2011-03-18 04:14:35 EDT --- fixed tab and spaces. Fixed summary, Fixed perms http://landgraf.fedorapeople.org/packages/requested/gprbuild/gprbuild-2010-7.fc14.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 675478] Review Request: gprbuild - Ada project builder
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=675478 Mikhail Kulemin 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 688157] Review Request: cpupowerutils - Tools to determine and set CPU power related settings
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=688157 Petr Sabata changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Petr Sabata 2011-03-18 04:29:05 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: cpupowerutils Short Description: Tools to determine and set CPU power related settings Owners: psabata Branches: f14 f15 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 675478] Review Request: gprbuild - Ada project builder
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=675478
--- Comment #18 from Mikhail Kulemin 2011-03-18 04:30:07
EDT ---
MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package.
->OK, There're executable-stack and spelling warnings. Executable-stack is
normal for Ada.
MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
->OK
MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
->OK
MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
->OK
MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines.
->OK GPLv2+
MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
->OK
MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package must be included in %doc.
->OK
MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
->OK
MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
->OK
MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
->OK, md5sum = ca3dd79405d08d04744b1356cf3c71cc Direct download unavailable.
MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture.
->OK
MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch.
->N/A
MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional.
->OK
MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
->N/A
MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library
files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must
call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
->N/A
MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
->OK
MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker.
->N/A
MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create
a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create
that directory.
>OK
MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings.
->OK
MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with
executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
%defattr(...) line.
->OK
MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
->OK
MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
->OK
MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
->N/A
MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime
of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run
properly if it is not present.
->OK
MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
->OK
MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
->N/A
MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1),
then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel
package.
->N/A
MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release}.
->OK
MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed
in the spec if they are built.
->OK
MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file,
and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the
%install section.
->N/A
MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
->OK
MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
->OK
== ADA GuideLines
Ada code in Fedora MUST be compiled using GNAT
-> OK
All packages that contain Ada code MUST have "BuildRequires:
fedora-gnat-project-common"
-> OK
Ada library packages MUST have a -devel subpackage containing all the files
that are necessary for compilation of code that uses the library.
-> N/A
The -devel package MUST NOT contain all the source files of the library, only
those that are necessary for compilation of code that uses the library.
-> OK
The -devel package MUST NOT contain any makefiles or other files that are only
used for recompiling the library.
-> OK
The -devel package MUST NOT contain any *.o files.
-> OK
The -devel package MUST contain one or more GNAT project files to be imported
by other projects that use the library.
[Bug 688239] Review Request: perl-File-Listing - Parse directory listing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=688239 Petr Sabata changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Petr Sabata 2011-03-18 04:31:26 EDT --- Approving. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 688513] Review Request: perl-HTTP-Message - HTTP style message
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=688513 Petr Sabata changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Petr Sabata 2011-03-18 04:37:47 EDT --- Builds fine in Koji, approving. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 675587] Review Request: pytest - Simple powerful testing with Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=675587 --- Comment #3 from Thomas Moschny 2011-03-18 04:33:01 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2) > It seems that python3-py and python3-sphinx are not available in F14. - python3-sphinx is not needed (docs are only built once) - for python3-py, see above: it's in http://thm.fedorapeople.org/python-py/ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 688513] Review Request: perl-HTTP-Message - HTTP style message
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=688513 Marcela Mašláňová changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Marcela Mašláňová 2011-03-18 04:44:52 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: perl-HTTP-Message Short Description: HTTP style message Owners: ppisar psabata mmaslano Branches: (only rawhide) InitialCC: perl-sig Comment: Could you please create this SCM? The main owner ppisar will not be available for few days and we three are co-maintainers of all our Perl modules. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 688239] Review Request: perl-File-Listing - Parse directory listing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=688239 Marcela Mašláňová changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Marcela Mašláňová 2011-03-18 04:46:01 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: perl-File-Listing Short Description: Parse directory listing Owners: ppisar psabata mmaslano Branches: (only rawhide) InitialCC: perl-sig Comment: Could you please create this SCM? The main owner ppisar will not be available for few days and we three are co-maintainers of all our Perl modules. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 675478] Review Request: gprbuild - Ada project builder
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=675478 Pavel Zhukov changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #19 from Pavel Zhukov 2011-03-18 04:52:44 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: gprbuild Short Description: Ada project builder Owners: landgraf Branches: f15 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 565949] Review Request: perl-VOMS-Lite - Perl extension for VOMS Attribute certificate creation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=565949 --- Comment #29 from Fedora Update System 2011-03-18 05:01:44 EDT --- perl-VOMS-Lite-0.12-1.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-VOMS-Lite-0.12-1.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 565949] Review Request: perl-VOMS-Lite - Perl extension for VOMS Attribute certificate creation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=565949 --- Comment #31 from Fedora Update System 2011-03-18 05:02:03 EDT --- perl-VOMS-Lite-0.12-1.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-VOMS-Lite-0.12-1.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 565949] Review Request: perl-VOMS-Lite - Perl extension for VOMS Attribute certificate creation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=565949 --- Comment #32 from Fedora Update System 2011-03-18 05:02:11 EDT --- perl-VOMS-Lite-0.12-1.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-VOMS-Lite-0.12-1.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 688786] Review Request: perl-NTLM - perl module for NTLM authentication
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=688786 Matej Cepl changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||182235(FE-Legal) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 565949] Review Request: perl-VOMS-Lite - Perl extension for VOMS Attribute certificate creation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=565949 --- Comment #30 from Fedora Update System 2011-03-18 05:01:54 EDT --- perl-VOMS-Lite-0.12-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-VOMS-Lite-0.12-1.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 676308] Review Request: rubygem-net-scp - A pure Ruby implementation of the SCP client protocol
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=676308
--- Comment #8 from Vít Ondruch 2011-03-18 06:14:16 EDT
---
(In reply to comment #7)
> (In reply to comment #6)
> > (In reply to comment #4)
> >
> > I agree that we have to avoid pollution. But at the end, if the test
> > pollutes
> > the %buildroot of %_builddir, you still have to either do cleanup or exclude
> > these files from installing/copying. So building into %buildroot cannot save
> > you and it is invalid argument in this discussion.
>
> - Well, perhaps you are just confused about %_builddir vs %buildroot
> (I don't know what you mean here by "the %buildroot of %_builddir")
This is clear to me.
> Usually
> * %_builddir is ~/rpmbuild/BUILD
> With normal %setup -q,
> - rpmbuild firstly moves to ~/rpmbuild/BUILD (%_builddir)
> - unpack tarball
> - then move to ~/rpmbuild/BUILD/%name-%version
> - And then, when %build, %install, %check begins, rpmbuild
> will always move to ~/rpmbuild/BUILD/%name-%version first
> * On the other hand, %buildroot is usually ~/
> rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-%{_arch}.
> On install, files must be installed under %buildroot.
>
> So what I am saying is that usually
> - %install section should generally just do copy files under
> ~/rpmbuild/BUILD into ~/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT
> - and do not touch files under ~/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT during %check
> and touch only files under ~/rpmbuild/BUILD
> And rpmbuild always do the scripts in the order of
> %prep -> %build -> %install -> %check (not %prep -> %build -> %check
> -> %install).
I did not realized the order, you are right.
>
> So even if testsuite may pollute files under %_builddir on %check,
> files under %buildroot won't be polluted (again %install is done
> before %check).
>
> Also please check this:
>
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Scriplets_are_only_allowed_to_write_in_certain_directories
>
> (%_builddir and %buildroot are clearly distinguished and it is written
>that %check should not write anything under %buildroot).
While I agree that pollution is wrong and the guideline is reasonable, I have
the feeling that the guideline comes from C/C++ world. For such applications,
you are typically executing test suite using "make test" and it is hard to
adjust the test suite to run from different place, so nobody bothers. In this
case the test suite ensures that the build was correct, but does not ensure
that much that the installation itself will be working.
But we can do this with Ruby. We can try to ensure that the installation
structure, i.e. the %buildroot, is correct, although it is not free of
penalties. Even better, we should foster upstream in preventing pollution of
the %buildroot, i.e. they should place temporary files on suitable places, such
as /tmp folder.
>
> > It is always good to follow parallels. So I agree that we should probably
> > follow the %prep, %build and %install as you described above, although in
> > this
> > particular case it will be more work. But we should be strict about it,
> > therefore I would like to see this in Ruby packaging guidelines, instead of
> > this paragraph: "The %prep and %build sections of the specfile should be
> > empty."
>
> - Note that when containing C extension modules, the paragraph is already
> invalid (as written in ruby packaging guidelines).
> Well, we may really have to revise current ruby packaging guideline
> (even for arch-independent gem based srpm).
+1
>
> > But I can't agree that the test suite should be always executed in
> > %_builddir,
> > because as I already pointed above, it might happen that you will not catch
> > all
> > possible bugs and you have to care about pollution anyway.
>
> - Well, I don't think we can catch all possible bugs anyway...
Everybody knows that, but we can't reconcile with it.
> And for %buildroot pollution issue, please check my comments above.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 688867] New: Review Request: bharati-m17n - An Input Method (based on InScript layout)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: bharati-m17n - An Input Method (based on InScript layout) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=688867 Summary: Review Request: bharati-m17n - An Input Method (based on InScript layout) Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: Unspecified OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: unspecified Priority: unspecified Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: sshed...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com, panem...@gmail.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://sandeeps.fedorapeople.org/bharati-m17n.spec SRPM URL: http://sandeeps.fedorapeople.org/bharati-m17n-1.1-1.fc14.src.rpm Description: bharati is an input method (based on InScript layout) that implements unique transformation rule of deleting on the fly the previous dependent vowel for Indic languages. Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2923110 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 688786] Review Request: perl-NTLM - perl module for NTLM authentication
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=688786 --- Comment #4 from Nick Bebout 2011-03-18 06:38:02 EDT --- Updated. Spec URL: http://nb.fedorapeople.org/review/perl-NTLM.spec SRPM URL: http://nb.fedorapeople.org/review/perl-NTLM-1.05-2.fc15.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 672845] Review Request: rubygem-net-ping - Net::Ping rubygem 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=672845 Lukáš Zapletal changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo?(vondruch@redhat.c ||om) --- Comment #6 from Lukáš Zapletal 2011-03-18 06:45:32 EDT --- Thank to the upstream I managed to have all unit tests working (using mock server) except three: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=2923113&name=build.log I disabled these. http://lzap.fedorapeople.org/fedora-packaging/rubygem-net-ping/1.4.1-1/ It builds in the Koji without any problems including unit tests. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2923143 All remarks were also fixed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 676308] Review Request: rubygem-net-scp - A pure Ruby implementation of the SCP client protocol
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=676308 --- Comment #9 from Mamoru Tasaka 2011-03-18 07:28:16 EDT --- (Anyway for now this [i.e. installing gem under %_builddir first] is for now just my recommendation and again I won't make this as a blocker). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 688867] Review Request: bharati-m17n - An Input Method (based on InScript layout)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=688867 Parag AN(पराग) changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|panem...@gmail.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 501960] Review Request: webinject - Web/HTTP Test Tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=501960 Jan Klepek changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #30 from Jan Klepek 2011-03-18 07:38:19 EDT --- approved if you want, you could specify me as 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 672845] Review Request: rubygem-net-ping - Net::Ping rubygem 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=672845
Vít Ondruch changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review?, |fedora-review+
|needinfo?(vondruch@redhat.c |
|om) |
--- Comment #7 from Vít Ondruch 2011-03-18 07:44:01 EDT
---
* MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates.
- Please add "%dir %{geminstdir}" at top of the files section to fulfill
this requirement
Please fix the error mentioned above. Otherwise, the package looks good.
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 688886] New: Review Request: kflickr - Standalone Flickr Uploader
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: kflickr - Standalone Flickr Uploader https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=66 Summary: Review Request: kflickr - Standalone Flickr Uploader Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: jan.kle...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://hpejakle.fedorapeople.org/packages/kflickr.spec SRPM URL: http://hpejakle.fedorapeople.org/packages/kflickr-20100817-1.fc14.src.rpm Description: kflickr is an easy to use photo uploader for flickr. rpmlint: kflickr.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US uploader -> unloader, uploaded, up loader The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. kflickr.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US flickr -> flick, flicker, flicks The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2923227 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 676129] Review Request: qconf - Allows you to have a nice configure script for your qmake-based 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=676129
Michal Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mschm...@redhat.com
--- Comment #3 from Michal Schmidt 2011-03-18 08:05:46
EDT ---
"GPL" is not an acceptable value of the "License" tag.
>From a quick look at the license header in qconf.cpp and the COPYING file I'd
guess the correct value is "GPLv2+ with exceptions". See
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing
Can you use the "%configure" macro instead of passing arguments to ./configure
by yourself?
Please use parallel make whenever possible. See
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Parallel_make
You do not need to clean the buildroot at the beginning of %install. On all
current Fedora releases it is cleaned automatically. Only if you want the spec
file to work on EPEL-5, you still need to clean it yourself.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag
You may want to drop the %clean section. Again, it is only needed in EPEL-5.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#.25clean
Using macros for the standard utilities (as in "%{__rm}") is discouraged. See
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Macros
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 688663] Review Request: PyXB - Python XML Schema Bindings
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=688663 Lubomir Rintel changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||lkund...@v3.sk AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|lkund...@v3.sk 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 688663] Review Request: PyXB - Python XML Schema Bindings
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=688663 --- Comment #2 from Lubomir Rintel 2011-03-18 08:43:39 EDT --- Wouldn't the license name be ASL*? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 688663] Review Request: PyXB - Python XML Schema Bindings
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=688663
--- Comment #3 from Lubomir Rintel 2011-03-18 08:45:34 EDT ---
* Correctly named ("python-" prefix not required if the name contains Py*)
* Correct and latest version
! License tag does not seem correct
* Matching source tarball
* SPEC file clean and legible
* Builds fine in mock
* Filelist sane
* Requires/provides sane
* No scriptlets
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 688663] Review Request: PyXB - Python XML Schema Bindings
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=688663 --- Comment #4 from Marek Mahut 2011-03-18 08:51:53 EDT --- License and summary fixed. Sorry for that. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 688663] Review Request: PyXB - Python XML Schema Bindings
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=688663 Lubomir Rintel changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Lubomir Rintel 2011-03-18 08:53:46 EDT --- Thank you, seems fine now. 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 630644] Review Request: perl-Bio-SamTools - Bio::SamTools Perl module
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=630644 --- Comment #16 from Adam Huffman 2011-03-18 08:57:50 EDT --- New version at: http://verdurin.fedorapeople.org/reviews/perl-Bio-SamTools/perl-Bio-SamTools.spec http://verdurin.fedorapeople.org/reviews/perl-Bio-SamTools/perl-Bio-SamTools-1.27-2.fc16.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 688663] Review Request: PyXB - Python XML Schema Bindings
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=688663 Marek Mahut changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Marek Mahut 2011-03-18 08:56:48 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: PyXB Short Description: Python XML Schema Bindings Branches: f14 f15 el6 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 688597] Review Request: perl-Net-HTTP - Low-level HTTP connection (client)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=688597
--- Comment #1 from Petr Sabata 2011-03-18 09:33:14 EDT ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [1]
[x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x] Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x] Spec uses macros instead of hard-coded directory names.
[x] Package consistently uses macros.
[-] Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x] PreReq is not used.
[!] Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[!] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [2]
[-] Buildroot is correct
(%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)).
[-] Package run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) and the beginning of
%install.
[-] Package use %makeinstall only when ``make install DESTDIR=...'' doesn't
work.
[-] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
[-] The spec file handles locales properly.
[x] Changelog in prescribed format.
[x] Rpmlint output is silent.
[x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[-] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package is included in %doc.
[-] License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
[3,4]
[x] Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
MD5SUM this package : 936891e74e8e4b26ade1a2db8b57d2c3
MD5SUM upstream package : 936891e74e8e4b26ade1a2db8b57d2c3
[-] Compiler flags are appropriate.
[-] %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x] Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[-] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x] Permissions on files are set properly.
[x] Each %files section contains %defattr.
[x] No %config files under /usr.
[-] %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop using
desktop-file-install file if it is a GUI application. [5]
[-] Package contains a valid .desktop file.
[x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[-] Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one.
[x] File names are valid UTF-8.
[-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x] Package contains no bundled libraries.
[-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Static libraries in -static subpackage, if present.
[x] Package contains no static executables.
[-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present.
[-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
[-] Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[-] Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x] Package does not genrate any conflict.
[x] Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x] Package is not relocatable.
[-] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture.
[x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x] Package installs properly.
[x] Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines. [6]
=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
[?] Package functions as described.
[x] Latest version is packaged.
[-] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-] If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x] SourceX is a working URL.
[-] SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
[!] Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[x] %check is present and all tests pass.
[-] Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package
using a fully versioned dependency.
[x] Reviewer
[Bug 670209] Review Request: rubygem-rsolr - A Ruby client for Apache Solr
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=670209 --- Comment #3 from Vít Ondruch 2011-03-18 09:44:44 EDT --- I have fixed the sunspot and submitted required changes upstream: https://github.com/outoftime/sunspot/pull/27 So somebody can go ahead with 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 642592] Review Request: rubygem-macaddr - Cross platform mac address determination for Ruby
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=642592 --- Comment #10 from Michal Fojtik 2011-03-18 09:55:24 EDT --- (In reply to comment #9) > Could you provide updates spec file please? I hope this one will be correct finally: http://mifo.sk/RPMS/rubygem-macaddr.spec http://mifo.sk/RPMS/rubygem-macaddr-1.0.0-1.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 642592] Review Request: rubygem-macaddr - Cross platform mac address determination for Ruby
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=642592 Vít Ondruch changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|jzigm...@redhat.com |vondr...@redhat.com --- Comment #11 from Vít Ondruch 2011-03-18 10:01:47 EDT --- I am taking this for review after Jozef. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 688605] Review Request: perl-WWW-RobotRules - Database of robots.txt-derived permissions
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=688605 Marcela Mašláňová changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Marcela Mašláňová 2011-03-18 10:03:51 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: perl-WWW-RobotRules Short Description: Database of robots.txt-derived permissions Owners: ppisar psabata mmaslano Branches: (only rawhide) InitialCC: perl-sig Comment: Could you please create this SCM? The main owner ppisar will not be available for few days and we three are co-maintainers of all our Perl modules. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 688605] Review Request: perl-WWW-RobotRules - Database of robots.txt-derived permissions
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=688605
Petr Sabata changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Petr Sabata 2011-03-18 10:01:04 EDT ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [1]
[x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x] Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x] Spec uses macros instead of hard-coded directory names.
[x] Package consistently uses macros.
[-] Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x] PreReq is not used.
[x] Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [2]
[-] Buildroot is correct
(%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)).
[-] Package run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) and the beginning of
%install.
[-] Package use %makeinstall only when ``make install DESTDIR=...'' doesn't
work.
[-] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
[-] The spec file handles locales properly.
[x] Changelog in prescribed format.
[x] Rpmlint output is silent.
[x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[-] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package is included in %doc.
[-] License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
[3,4]
[x] Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
MD5SUM this package : b1252da49727320a1b5e20b3521d2499
MD5SUM upstream package : b1252da49727320a1b5e20b3521d2499
[-] Compiler flags are appropriate.
[-] %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x] Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[-] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x] Permissions on files are set properly.
[x] Each %files section contains %defattr.
[x] No %config files under /usr.
[-] %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop using
desktop-file-install file if it is a GUI application. [5]
[-] Package contains a valid .desktop file.
[x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[-] Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one.
[x] File names are valid UTF-8.
[-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x] Package contains no bundled libraries.
[-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Static libraries in -static subpackage, if present.
[x] Package contains no static executables.
[-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present.
[-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
[-] Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[-] Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x] Package does not genrate any conflict.
[x] Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x] Package is not relocatable.
[-] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture.
[x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x] Package installs properly.
[x] Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines. [6]
=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
[?] Package functions as described.
[x] Latest version is packaged.
[-] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-] If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x] SourceX is a working URL.
[-] SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
[x] Final provides and requires
[Bug 688056] Review Request: sir - A simple application for resizing images
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=688056
Rahul Sundaram changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||methe...@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Rahul Sundaram 2011-03-18 10:09:09 EDT
---
Use macros in source0
INSTALL shouldn't be packaged
License tag must be GPLv2+. Don't just read the license. Look at the source
file headers.
rpmlint warnings to be fixed:
sir.spec:21: W: macro-in-comment %{name} (rpmlint on spec file)
sir.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/sir
sir.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/sir-2.1.1/TODO
sir.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sir
"#remove binary
rm %{name}"
Why is this necessary?
"%{_datadir}/applications/*.desktop"
better not to use a catch all for a single desktop file.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 688922] New: Review Request: python-cli - A CLI construction toolkit for Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: python-cli - A CLI construction toolkit for Python https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=688922 Summary: Review Request: python-cli - A CLI construction toolkit for Python Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: mma...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://mmahut.fedorapeople.org/reviews/python-cli/python-cli.spec SRPM URL: http://mmahut.fedorapeople.org/reviews/python-cli/python-cli-1.1-1.el6.src.rpm Description: This is Python-CLI, a CLI construction toolit for Python. It is similar in scope to Python's "cmd", "cmd2", and pyCLI. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 688922] Review Request: python-cli - A CLI construction toolkit for Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=688922 --- Comment #1 from Marek Mahut 2011-03-18 10:35:56 EDT --- Scratch build http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2923425 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 561484] Review Request: jruby - Pure Java implementation of the Ruby interpreter
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561484 --- Comment #11 from Alexander Kurtakov 2011-03-18 10:40:10 EDT --- Incidently JRuby 1.6.0 was released a few days ago. Would you be able to update to it? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 667403] Review Request: perl-Dist-CheckConflicts - Declare version conflicts for your dist
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=667403 Paul Howarth changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Fixed In Version||perl-Dist-CheckConflicts-0. ||02-2.fc14 Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2011-03-18 10:54:28 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 646789] Review Request: openturns - C++ reliability 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=646789 Julien Schueller changed: What|Removed |Added 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 646789] Review Request: openturns - C++ reliability 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=646789 Julien Schueller changed: What|Removed |Added 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 688580] Review Request: perl-HTTP-Daemon - Simple HTTP server class
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=688580
--- Comment #1 from Petr Sabata 2011-03-18 11:29:43 EDT ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [1]
[x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x] Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x] Spec uses macros instead of hard-coded directory names.
[x] Package consistently uses macros.
[-] Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x] PreReq is not used.
[x] Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [2]
[-] Buildroot is correct
(%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)).
[-] Package run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) and the beginning of
%install.
[-] Package use %makeinstall only when ``make install DESTDIR=...'' doesn't
work.
[-] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
[-] The spec file handles locales properly.
[x] Changelog in prescribed format.
[x] Rpmlint output is silent.
[x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[-] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package is included in %doc.
[-] License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
[3,4]
[x] Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
MD5SUM this package : 36c8048775b8b53a6fb7c9d781658926
MD5SUM upstream package : 36c8048775b8b53a6fb7c9d781658926
[-] Compiler flags are appropriate.
[-] %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x] Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[-] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x] Permissions on files are set properly.
[x] Each %files section contains %defattr.
[x] No %config files under /usr.
[-] %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop using
desktop-file-install file if it is a GUI application. [5]
[-] Package contains a valid .desktop file.
[x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[-] Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one.
[x] File names are valid UTF-8.
[-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x] Package contains no bundled libraries.
[-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Static libraries in -static subpackage, if present.
[x] Package contains no static executables.
[-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present.
[-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
[-] Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[-] Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x] Package does not genrate any conflict.
[x] Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x] Package is not relocatable.
[-] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture.
[x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x] Package installs properly.
[x] Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines. [6]
=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
[?] Package functions as described.
[x] Latest version is packaged.
[-] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-] If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x] SourceX is a working URL.
[-] SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
[x] Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[x] %check is present and all tests pass.
[-] Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package
using a fully versioned dependency.
[x] Reviewer
[Bug 688886] Review Request: kflickr - Standalone Flickr Uploader
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=66 Rex Dieter changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rdie...@math.unl.edu Blocks||656997(kde-reviews) --- Comment #1 from Rex Dieter 2011-03-18 11:34:14 EDT --- This combination looks out of place: BuildRequires: kdelibs >= 4 ... BuildRequires: qt3, kdelibs-devel You want kde *4*, but also qt 3? if it's really a kde4 app, all you really need is: BuildRequires: kdelibs4-devel -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 607405] Review Request: poppler-sharp - C Sharp Bindings for Poppler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=607405 --- Comment #3 from Claudio Rodrigo Pereyra DIaz 2011-03-18 12:04:15 EDT --- I just review .spec and .srpm files using fc14 Spec URL: http://elsupergomez.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/poppler-sharp.spec SRPM URL: http://elsupergomez.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/poppler-sharp-0.0.1-2.fc14.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 688590] Review Request: perl-HTTP-Negotiate - Choose a variant to serve
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=688590
--- Comment #1 from Petr Sabata 2011-03-18 12:00:31 EDT ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [1]
[x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x] Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x] Spec uses macros instead of hard-coded directory names.
[x] Package consistently uses macros.
[-] Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x] PreReq is not used.
[x] Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [2]
[-] Buildroot is correct
(%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)).
[-] Package run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) and the beginning of
%install.
[-] Package use %makeinstall only when ``make install DESTDIR=...'' doesn't
work.
[-] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
[-] The spec file handles locales properly.
[x] Changelog in prescribed format.
[x] Rpmlint output is silent.
[x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[-] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package is included in %doc.
[-] License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
[3,4]
[x] Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
MD5SUM this package : f2d89957d1c4f62a86f18b08e07c2328
MD5SUM upstream package : f2d89957d1c4f62a86f18b08e07c2328
[-] Compiler flags are appropriate.
[-] %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x] Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[-] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x] Permissions on files are set properly.
[x] Each %files section contains %defattr.
[x] No %config files under /usr.
[-] %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop using
desktop-file-install file if it is a GUI application. [5]
[-] Package contains a valid .desktop file.
[x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[-] Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one.
[x] File names are valid UTF-8.
[-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x] Package contains no bundled libraries.
[-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Static libraries in -static subpackage, if present.
[x] Package contains no static executables.
[-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present.
[-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
[-] Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[-] Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x] Package does not genrate any conflict.
[x] Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x] Package is not relocatable.
[-] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture.
[x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x] Package installs properly.
[x] Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines. [6]
=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
[?] Package functions as described.
[x] Latest version is packaged.
[-] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-] If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x] SourceX is a working URL.
[-] SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
[x] Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[x] %check is present and all tests pass.
[-] Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package
using a fully versioned dependency.
[!] Reviewer
[Bug 607405] Review Request: poppler-sharp - C Sharp Bindings for Poppler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=607405 Claudio Rodrigo Pereyra DIaz changed: What|Removed |Added Version|13 |rawhide -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 688056] Review Request: sir - A simple application for resizing images
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=688056
--- Comment #2 from Praveen Kumar 2011-03-18
12:51:33 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Use macros in source0
>
> INSTALL shouldn't be packaged
>
> License tag must be GPLv2+. Don't just read the license. Look at the source
> file headers.
Fixed
>
> rpmlint warnings to be fixed:
>
> sir.spec:21: W: macro-in-comment %{name} (rpmlint on spec file)
>
> sir.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/sir
Can't understand what's unstripped-binary-or-object mean, please explain.
> sir.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/sir-2.1.1/TODO
TODO is removed from doc section
> sir.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sir
>
> "#remove binary
> rm %{name}"
>
> Why is this necessary?
Source already contain a binary, before build section we have to remove all
binary IIRC.
>
> "%{_datadir}/applications/*.desktop"
>
> better not to use a catch all for a single desktop file.
Fixed
Here is updated spec and srpm urls
Spec URL: http://kumarpraveen.fedorapeople.org/sir/sir.spec
SRPM URL: http://kumarpraveen.fedorapeople.org/sir/sir-2.1.1-2.fc14.src.rpm
rpmlint Output :
$ rpmlint sir.spec
sir.spec: W: invalid-url Source0:
http://sir.googlecode.com/files/sir_2.1.1.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not Found
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
(may be due to proxy its not able to resolve url)
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 676129] Review Request: qconf - Allows you to have a nice configure script for your qmake-based 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=676129 --- Comment #4 from Ivan Romanov 2011-03-18 13:05:20 EDT --- Hello Michal. Thank you for review. I corrected .spec file. https://github.com/drizt/psi-plus/raw/aec116b07209ec55ed104ea56f8e9a1222e117d3/qconf.spec I must use ./configure instead macro. qconf don't use autotools configure. So number of macro arguments don't acceptable this ./configure. I trying used macro but get error. Also I wonder that it will prefer if i use .gz source tarball instead .bz2 . -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 688056] Review Request: sir - A simple application for resizing images
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=688056 --- Comment #3 from Rahul Sundaram 2011-03-18 13:10:29 EDT --- "Can't understand what's unstripped-binary-or-object mean, please explain." Debuginfo package is not being generated. Confirm with mock and check your Makefile/configure scripts to see why. "Source already contain a binary, before build section we have to remove all binary IIRC." Inform upstream of this. Merely not including it %files would omit it out of the package. Also rpmlint should be run on spec file, srpm and binary 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 643140] Review Request: autokey - A desktop automation utility
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=643140 --- Comment #17 from Raghu Udiyar 2011-03-18 13:34:18 EDT --- Contributions on : https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=682545 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=683150 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=678634 - Added desktop-file-validate SPEC : http://dl.dropbox.com/u/7899621/autokey/autokey.spec SRPM : http://dl.dropbox.com/u/7899621/autokey/autokey-0.71.2-6.fc14.src.rpm $ rpmlint autokey.spec ../RPMS/noarch/autokey-* ../SRPMS/autokey-0.71.2-6.fc14.src.rpm autokey.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: http://autokey.googlecode.com/files/autokey_0.71.2.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not Found autokey.noarch: W: no-documentation autokey.src: W: invalid-url Source0: http://autokey.googlecode.com/files/autokey_0.71.2.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not Found 5 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 675478] Review Request: gprbuild - Ada project builder
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=675478 --- Comment #20 from Jason Tibbitts 2011-03-18 13:49:06 EDT --- 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 688513] Review Request: perl-HTTP-Message - HTTP style message
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=688513 --- Comment #4 from Jason Tibbitts 2011-03-18 13:52:49 EDT --- Again, please do not make up your own request format. 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 688157] Review Request: cpupowerutils - Tools to determine and set CPU power related settings
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=688157 --- Comment #7 from Jason Tibbitts 2011-03-18 13:49:41 EDT --- 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 688264] Review Request: perl-Test-CPAN-Meta-YAML - Validate a META.yml file within a CPAN distribution
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=688264 --- Comment #4 from Jason Tibbitts 2011-03-18 13:52:06 EDT --- 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 688663] Review Request: PyXB - Python XML Schema Bindings
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=688663 --- Comment #7 from Jason Tibbitts 2011-03-18 13:53:41 EDT --- This request is invalid; is specifies no owners. Please do not deviate from the formats provided by https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_SCM_admin_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 688239] Review Request: perl-File-Listing - Parse directory listing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=688239 --- Comment #6 from Jason Tibbitts 2011-03-18 13:51:42 EDT --- These requests are processed by script. Please do not deviate or make up your own format for the templates provided in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_SCM_admin_requests. If you don't want any release branches, please just don't list any. 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 675478] Review Request: gprbuild - Ada project builder
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=675478 Pavel Zhukov changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||688986 --- Comment #21 from Pavel Zhukov 2011-03-18 14:08:19 EDT --- -- Fedora Bugzappers volunteer triage team https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 675478] Review Request: gprbuild - Ada project builder
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=675478 --- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System 2011-03-18 14:31:07 EDT --- gprbuild-2010-7.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gprbuild-2010-7.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 675478] Review Request: gprbuild - Ada project builder
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=675478 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 179237] Review Request: swaks - A command-line SMTP transaction tester
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=179237 --- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System 2011-03-18 15:27:38 EDT --- swaks-20100211.0-4.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. -- 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 638425] Review Request: nawk - "The one true awk" descended from UNIX V7
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=638425 --- Comment #29 from Fedora Update System 2011-03-18 15:26:24 EDT --- nawk-20100523-3.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 635875] Review Request: mawk - An interpreter for the AWK programming language
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=635875 --- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System 2011-03-18 15:26:57 EDT --- mawk-1.3.4-4.20100625.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 674007] Review Request: openni-primesense - PrimeSensor/Kinect Modules for OpenNI
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=674007 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System 2011-03-18 15:26:45 EDT --- openni-primesense-5.0.0.25-0.4.git894cea01.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 179237] Review Request: swaks - A command-line SMTP transaction tester
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=179237 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|swaks-20100211.0-4.el5 |swaks-20100211.0-4.el4 -- 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 197688] Review Request: inotify-tools - Command line utilities for inotify
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=197688 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|inotify-tools-3.14-1.el5|inotify-tools-3.14-1.el6 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 635875] Review Request: mawk - An interpreter for the AWK programming language
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=635875 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|mawk-1.3.4-5.20100625.el4 |mawk-1.3.4-4.20100625.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 179237] Review Request: swaks - A command-line SMTP transaction tester
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=179237 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version||swaks-20100211.0-4.el5 Resolution|NEXTRELEASE |ERRATA -- 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 179237] Review Request: swaks - A command-line SMTP transaction tester
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=179237 --- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System 2011-03-18 15:27:23 EDT --- swaks-20100211.0-4.el4 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 4 stable repository. -- 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 179237] Review Request: swaks - A command-line SMTP transaction tester
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=179237 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System 2011-03-18 15:25:55 EDT --- swaks-20100211.0-4.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository. -- 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 197688] Review Request: inotify-tools - Command line utilities for inotify
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=197688 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System 2011-03-18 15:26:10 EDT --- inotify-tools-3.14-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 638425] Review Request: nawk - "The one true awk" descended from UNIX V7
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=638425 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|nawk-20100523-3.el4 |nawk-20100523-3.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 179237] Review Request: swaks - A command-line SMTP transaction tester
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=179237 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|swaks-20100211.0-4.el4 |swaks-20100211.0-4.el6 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 676129] Review Request: qconf - Allows you to have a nice configure script for your qmake-based 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=676129
--- Comment #5 from Michal Schmidt 2011-03-18 15:25:54
EDT ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> I must use ./configure instead macro. qconf don't use autotools configure. So
> number of macro arguments don't acceptable this ./configure. I trying used
> macro but get error.
I see. This is a sufficient reason.
Next I was going to suggest that you need to ensure %{optflags} are used in the
build ( http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines#Compiler_flags ), but
apparently this somehow works already. I made a scratch build and I can see the
familiar compiler flags in the g++ invocations ("-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2
-fstack-protector ...").
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2923980
I do not understand where the ./configure script gets the flags from, so it may
or may not be the correct way.
> Also I wonder that it will prefer if i use .gz source tarball instead .bz2 .
You can choose whichever you like more. bz2 practically always achieves better
compression than gz, so most packagers select bz2 when choosing between the
two.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 688056] Review Request: sir - A simple application for resizing images
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=688056 --- Comment #4 from Praveen Kumar 2011-03-18 15:54:59 EDT --- (In reply to comment #3) > Debuginfo package is not being generated. Confirm with mock and check your > Makefile/configure scripts to see why. In my system debuginfo package is generated. Please take a look http://kumarpraveen.fedorapeople.org/sir/sir-debuginfo-2.1.1-2.fc14.i686.rpm > Inform upstream of this. Merely not including it %files would omit it out of > the package. I informed to upstream for removing the binaries. > Also rpmlint should be run on spec file, srpm and binary rpm $rpmlint sir.spec ../SRPMS/sir-2.1.1-2.fc14.src.rpm ../RPMS/i686/sir-2.1.1-2.fc14.i686.rpm sir.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: http://sir.googlecode.com/files/sir_2.1.1.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not Found sir.src: W: invalid-url Source0: http://sir.googlecode.com/files/sir_2.1.1.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not Found sir.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sir 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 688264] Review Request: perl-Test-CPAN-Meta-YAML - Validate a META.yml file within a CPAN distribution
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=688264 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System 2011-03-18 16:04:02 EDT --- perl-Test-CPAN-Meta-YAML-0.17-2.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Test-CPAN-Meta-YAML-0.17-2.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 688264] Review Request: perl-Test-CPAN-Meta-YAML - Validate a META.yml file within a CPAN distribution
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=688264 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 688264] Review Request: perl-Test-CPAN-Meta-YAML - Validate a META.yml file within a CPAN distribution
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=688264 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System 2011-03-18 16:04:17 EDT --- perl-Test-CPAN-Meta-YAML-0.17-2.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Test-CPAN-Meta-YAML-0.17-2.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 688264] Review Request: perl-Test-CPAN-Meta-YAML - Validate a META.yml file within a CPAN distribution
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=688264 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System 2011-03-18 16:03:55 EDT --- perl-Test-CPAN-Meta-YAML-0.17-2.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Test-CPAN-Meta-YAML-0.17-2.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 688264] Review Request: perl-Test-CPAN-Meta-YAML - Validate a META.yml file within a CPAN distribution
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=688264 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System 2011-03-18 16:04:10 EDT --- perl-Test-CPAN-Meta-YAML-0.17-2.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Test-CPAN-Meta-YAML-0.17-2.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 675478] Review Request: gprbuild - Ada project builder
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=675478 Pavel Zhukov changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2011-03-18 16:06:21 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 688408] Review Request: xfce4-cpufreq-plugin - CPU frequency scaling plugin for the Xfce4 panel
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=688408
--- Comment #2 from Hicham HAOUARI 2011-03-18
16:05:22 EDT ---
1) It is useless to requires hicolor-icon-theme as gtk2 already requires it
2) Right, I forgot to add the group since the spec was created from the
standard template for rpm >= 4.9, maybe I should file a bug against
rpmdevtools.
3) $RPM_BUILD_ROOT is standard in all specs, what is not allowed is mixing it
with %{buildroot}
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 676129] Review Request: qconf - Allows you to have a nice configure script for your qmake-based 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=676129 --- Comment #6 from Ivan Romanov 2011-03-18 16:04:58 EDT --- > I do not understand where the ./configure script gets the flags from, so it > may or may not be the correct way. Perphars it get flags from qt. > You can choose whichever you like more. bz2 practically always achieves better compression than gz, so most packagers select bz2 when choosing between the two. I thought that gz is standard. So should use this format when it's possible. But I prefer .bz2. So I will use it. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 675557] Review Request: matreshka - set of Ada libraries to help to develop information 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=675557 Bug 675557 depends on bug 675478, which changed state. Bug 675478 Summary: Review Request: gprbuild - Ada project builder https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=675478 What|Old Value |New Value Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Status|MODIFIED|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 675478] Review Request: gprbuild - Ada project builder
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=675478 Bug 675478 depends on bug 688986, which changed state. Bug 688986 Summary: Incorrect library path https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=688986 What|Old Value |New Value Status|ASSIGNED|ON_QA Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 688408] Review Request: xfce4-cpufreq-plugin - CPU frequency scaling plugin for the Xfce4 panel
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=688408 --- Comment #3 from Hicham HAOUARI 2011-03-18 16:14:47 EDT --- Updated, no release increment Thanks Mario for helping with 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 688056] Review Request: sir - A simple application for resizing images
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=688056 --- Comment #5 from Rahul Sundaram 2011-03-18 16:33:47 EDT --- Done a scratch build http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2924176 No debuginfo issue. So ignore that. Minor nit pick "But used C++/QT" Should be " but uses" in the description.I will let Arun SAG do the full review and approve since he has taken it. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 688056] Review Request: sir - A simple application for resizing images
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=688056 --- Comment #6 from Arun SAG 2011-03-18 16:56:47 EDT --- Praveen, Why wouldn't you use 'make install' instead of manually copying binaries and data to their corresponding directories? Also you seems to be ignoring the following files, which actually installs when using the default "make install" images/sir-128x128.png images/sir-32x32.png images/sir-64x64.png images/sir.ico sir_service.desktop -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 688056] Review Request: sir - A simple application for resizing images
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=688056 --- Comment #7 from Arun SAG 2011-03-18 16:57:22 EDT --- Thanks rahul, for the informal review :-). I will do the full 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 607873] Review Request: OTRS - Open Source Ticket Request System
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=607873 Vincent Danen changed: What|Removed |Added CC||vda...@redhat.com --- Comment #7 from Vincent Danen 2011-03-18 17:18:26 EDT --- Has there been any progress with this? If not, I highly recommend removing OTRS from EPEL5 (I'd even favour removing it until or if it gets updated to the latest version). There are over two dozen security flaws in our currently-shipping OTRS. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
