[Bug 646614] Rename review: drupal-calendar - drupal6-calendar
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=646614 --- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-03-28 02:09:46 EDT --- drupal6-date-2.7-1.fc15, drupal6-calendar-2.4-1.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 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 646612] Rename review: drupal-date - drupal6-date
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=646612 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|drupal6-date-2.7-1.el6 |drupal6-date-2.7-1.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 646611] Rename review: drupal-cck - drupal6-cck
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=646611 --- Comment #29 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-03-28 02:13:31 EDT --- drupal6-cck-2.9-1.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 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 688659] Review Request: thunarx-python - Python bindings for the Thunar Extension Framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=688659 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-03-28 02:12:05 EDT --- thunarx-python-0.2.3-3.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 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 673030] Review Request: perl-Locale-US - Two letter codes for state identification in the United States and vice versa
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=673030 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-03-28 02:11:20 EDT --- perl-Locale-US-1.2-2.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 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 688659] Review Request: thunarx-python - Python bindings for the Thunar Extension Framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=688659 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||thunarx-python-0.2.3-3.fc15 Resolution||ERRATA Last Closed||2011-03-28 02:12:18 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 627032] Review Request: w3c-linkchecker - W3C Link Checker
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=627032 elad el...@doom.co.il changed: What|Removed |Added CC||el...@doom.co.il Bug 627032 depends on bug 627024, which changed state. Bug 627024 Summary: Review Request: perl-CSS-DOM - Document Object Model for Cascading Style Sheets https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=627024 What|Old Value |New Value Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA Resolution||ERRATA Status|ON_QA |CLOSED --- Comment #1 from elad el...@doom.co.il 2011-03-28 02:17:37 EDT --- I'll do an unofficial 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 646612] Rename review: drupal-date - drupal6-date
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=646612 --- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-03-28 02:09:40 EDT --- drupal6-date-2.7-1.fc15, drupal6-calendar-2.4-1.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 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 646611] Rename review: drupal-cck - drupal6-cck
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=646611 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|drupal6-views-2.12-2.el6|drupal6-cck-2.9-1.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 646614] Rename review: drupal-calendar - drupal6-calendar
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=646614 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|drupal6-calendar-2.4-1.el6 |drupal6-date-2.7-1.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 673030] Review Request: perl-Locale-US - Two letter codes for state identification in the United States and vice versa
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=673030 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||perl-Locale-US-1.2-2.fc15 Resolution||ERRATA Last Closed||2011-03-28 02:11:26 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 691096] Review Request: iperf3 - Measurement tool for TCP/UDP bandwidth performance
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691096 Balaji G balaji...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 627032] Review Request: w3c-linkchecker - W3C Link Checker
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=627032
--- Comment #2 from elad el...@doom.co.il 2011-03-28 03:13:27 EDT ---
This is an unofficial review. You'll need someone else to do the official
review for you.
+ = OK
- = NA
? = issue
+ Package meets naming and packaging guidelines
+ Spec file matches base package name.
+ Spec has consistant macro usage.
? Meets Packaging Guidelines.
+ License
+ License field in spec matches
? License file included in package
+ Spec in American English
+ Spec is legible.
- Sources match upstream md5sum:
Upstream does not provide md5 sum or any other hash for the tar.gz file.
Please report a bug in the upstream and ask them to add an md5sum.
- Package needs ExcludeArch
+ BuildRequires correct
- Spec handles locales/find_lang
- Package is relocatable and has a reason to be.
+ Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good.
+ Package has a correct %clean section.
+ Package has correct buildroot
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
+ Package is code or permissible content.
- Doc subpackage needed/used.
- Packages %doc files don't affect runtime.
- Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage.
- Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun
- .pc files in -devel subpackage/requires pkgconfig
- .so files in -devel subpackage.
- -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
- .la files are removed.
- Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file
+ Package compiles and builds on at least one arch.
+ Package has no duplicate files in %files.
+ Package doesn't own any directories other packages own.
- Package owns all the directories it creates.
? No rpmlint output.
Please fix the following errors:
w3c-linkchecker.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dereferenceable -
teleconference
w3c-linkchecker.src: E: unknown-key (MD5
w3c-linkchecker.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
http://www.cpan.org/authors/id/S/SC/SCOP/W3C-LinkChecker-4.6.tar.gz HTTP Error
404: Not Found
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings.
+ final provides and requires are sane.
SHOULD Items:
- Should build in mock.
- Should build on all supported archs
- Should function as described.
- Should have sane scriptlets.
- Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend.
+ Should have dist tag
? Should package latest version
- check for outstanding bugs on package. (For core merge reviews)
Issues:
1. Please ask upstream to include the license in the tarball.
2. Upstream does not provide md5 sum or any other hash for the tar.gz file.
Please report a bug in the upstream and ask them to add an md5sum.
3. rpmlint couldn't find the Source URL because it is no longer avilable in
upstream. Please update the package to the latest version.
4. Do not place files in /var/www. Please read:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Web_Applications
Warnings:
1. Clean section is not required for Fedora 13 or above.
2. I'm not sure about it, but I think the upstream URL should be
http://search.cpan.org/dist/W3C-LinkChecker/
Read https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Perl#URL_tag for more info.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 636819] Review Request: gnome-exe-thumbnailer - gnome thumbnailer for exe files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=636819 --- Comment #19 from elad el...@doom.co.il 2011-03-28 03:15:39 EDT --- I did another unofficial package review: Bug #627032 But I think I'll have to drop my two other packages that are pending review because of dead upstream... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 662604] Review Request: ibus-unikey - A Vietnamese engine for IBus input platform that uses Unikey.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=662604 --- Comment #17 from Christoph Wickert cwick...@fedoraproject.org 2011-03-28 03:28:31 EDT --- No need for further review, the package is APPROVED. You can now continue with the SCM admin request as described in http://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 656421] Review Request: gedit-collaboration - Gedit's support for collaborative editing in gedit
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=656421 elad el...@doom.co.il changed: What|Removed |Added CC||el...@doom.co.il --- Comment #2 from elad el...@doom.co.il 2011-03-28 03:26:53 EDT --- I wanted to do an unofficial review but the link to the spec is broken. Please fix the link. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 691088] Review Request: zeromq-ada - Ada bindings for zeromq
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691088 Oxana Kurysheva okurysh...@yahoo.com 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 636819] Review Request: gnome-exe-thumbnailer - gnome thumbnailer for exe files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=636819 --- Comment #20 from Hans de Goede hdego...@redhat.com 2011-03-28 03:50:55 EDT --- (In reply to comment #19) I did another unofficial package review: Bug #627032 But I think I'll have to drop my two other packages that are pending review because of dead upstream... Hi, Great to see that you're still working actively to become a Fefora packager. And I'm so sorry for not responding sooner. I've changed teams at my work and I've been crazy busy with tasks for the new team ever since. I've put looking at your package submissions high on my to do list and I hope to get around to them sometime this week. WRT dead upstreams, that is unfortunate. However if the software in question is reasonably complete and stable, and you're actively using it (ie have a purpose for it), then it is fine to package software with a dead upstream. We've plenty of examples of that. It is not an ideal solution though. So you'll need to decide if you want to move forward with those 2 submissions as well, or if you want to drop them. If you want to drop them, you can simply close the bugs, with a short explanation why you're dropping them. Thanks Regards, Hans -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 636819] Review Request: gnome-exe-thumbnailer - gnome thumbnailer for exe files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=636819 --- Comment #21 from elad el...@doom.co.il 2011-03-28 04:15:57 EDT --- The problem with packaging software with dead upstream is that I'll have to handle all bugs myself, and I don't know enough C or C++. I'm trying to find a way to make stopmotion use gstreamer instead of vgrabbj, but I haven't succeeded yet. Although I use stopmotion and it works well for my usage, it has many bugs and problems. I would fork it an continue working on it (I have a lot of ideas on how to improve it) but I don't have the programming skills to do so. Therefore I think it's better if I'll drop vgrabbj (which is only used for stopmotion) and stopmotion... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 645857] Review Request: xorg-x11-drv-omapfb - Xorg X11 omap frame buffer driver
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=645857 --- Comment #6 from Niels de Vos nde...@redhat.com 2011-03-28 04:32:12 EDT --- Upstream provided a COPYING file: - http://cgit.pingu.fi/xf86-video-omapfb/tree/COPYING?id=33e36c Dennis, please revise your spec-file and src.rpm so that the review can continue. Many thanks, Niels -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 678195] Review Request: perl-MooseX-OneArgNew - Teach -new to accept single, non-hashref arguments
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=678195
Marcela Mašláňová mmasl...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mmasl...@redhat.com
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Marcela Mašláňová mmasl...@redhat.com 2011-03-28 04:37:36
EDT ---
- rpmlint OK
- package must be named according to Guidelines OK
- spec file name must match the base package %{name} OK
- package must meet the Packaging Guidelines OK
- package must be licensed with Fedora approved license OK
- license field must match actual license OK
- text of the license in its own file must be included in %doc OK
- sources must match the upstream source 87675d2bb98525d787e7509e6d581f50 OK
- package MUST successfully compile and build OK
- architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in bugzilla OK
- build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires OK
- handle locales properly with %find_lang macro OK
- shared library files must call ldconfig in %post(un) OK
- packages must NOT bundle system libraries OK
- package must own all directories that it creates OK
- permissions on files must be set properly OK
- package must consistently use macros OK
- package must contain code, or permissable content OK
- large documentation must go in a -doc OK
- %doc must not affect the runtime of the application OK
- header files must be in a -devel package OK
- static libraries must be in a -static package OK
- library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel OK
- devel package usually require base package OK
- packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives OK
- GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file OK
- packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages OK
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2953107
rpm -qp --provides ~/Downloads/perl-MooseX-OneArgNew-0.001-1.fc16.noarch.rpm
perl(MooseX::OneArgNew) = 0.001
perl-MooseX-OneArgNew = 0.001-1.fc16
rpm -qp --requires ~/Downloads/perl-MooseX-OneArgNew-0.001-1.fc16.noarch.rpm
perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.12.3)
rpmlib(FileDigests) = 4.6.0-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) = 4.0-1
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) = 3.0.4-1
perl(Moose::Util::TypeConstraints)
perl(MooseX::Role::Parameterized)
perl(namespace::autoclean)
rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) = 5.2-1
ACCEPTED
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 690953] Review Request: dexter - A sexy, simple address book with end users in mind
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=690953 --- Comment #2 from Thomas Moschny thomas.mosc...@gmx.de 2011-03-28 04:41:19 EDT --- Thanks for the review! Can you please set the fedora-review flag? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 690954] Review Request: postler - A super sexy, ultra simple desktop mail client built in vala
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=690954 --- Comment #2 from Thomas Moschny thomas.mosc...@gmx.de 2011-03-28 04:44:41 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1) Shouldn't libidentify included first? Sorry, a typo on my side. It is libindicate, and I'm currently preparing a package. But it seems not strictly necessary for postler and can be enabled later. (And for various reasons it seems unlikely we can have libindicate in F14.) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 672832] Review Request: perl-Perl-Critic-PetPeeves-JTRAMMELL - Policies to prohibit/require my pet peeves
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=672832
Marcela Mašláňová mmasl...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mmasl...@redhat.com
--- Comment #1 from Marcela Mašláňová mmasl...@redhat.com 2011-03-28 04:47:23
EDT ---
- rpmlint OK
- package must be named according to Guidelines OK
- spec file name must match the base package %{name} OK
- package must meet the Packaging Guidelines OK
- package must be licensed with Fedora approved license OK
- license field must match actual license OK
- text of the license in its own file must be included in %doc OK
- sources must match the upstream source OK
- package MUST successfully compile and build OK
- architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in bugzilla OK
- build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires OK
- handle locales properly with %find_lang macro OK
- shared library files must call ldconfig in %post(un) OK
- packages must NOT bundle system libraries OK
- package must own all directories that it creates OK
- permissions on files must be set properly OK
- package must consistently use macros OK
- package must contain code, or permissable content OK
- large documentation must go in a -doc OK
- %doc must not affect the runtime of the application OK
- header files must be in a -devel package OK
- static libraries must be in a -static package OK
- library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel OK
- devel package usually require base package OK
- packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives OK
- GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file OK
- packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages OK
rpm -qp --provides
../RPMS/noarch/perl-Perl-Critic-PetPeeves-JTRAMMELL-0.01-1.fc14.noarch.rpm
perl(Perl::Critic::PetPeeves::JTRAMMELL) = 0.01
perl(Perl::Critic::Policy::Variables::ProhibitUselessInitialization) = 0.01
perl-Perl-Critic-PetPeeves-JTRAMMELL = 0.01-1.fc14
rpm -qp --requires
../RPMS/noarch/perl-Perl-Critic-PetPeeves-JTRAMMELL-0.01-1.fc14.noarch.rpm
perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.12.3)
perl(Data::Dumper)
perl(Perl::Critic::Policy)
perl(Perl::Critic::Utils)
perl(base)
perl(strict)
perl(warnings)
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) = 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) = 4.0-1
FPC didn't agree with core installation path (yet). I can't approve 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 691317] Review Request: libmash - Mash is a small library for using real 3D models within a Clutter scene
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691317 --- Comment #1 from Richard Hughes rhug...@redhat.com 2011-03-28 04:53:50 EDT --- Output of rpmlint: [hughsie@hughsie-t510-rawhide rpmbuild]$ rpmlint */libmash* libmash.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US animatable - stableman, imitable libmash.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US animatable - stableman, imitable 4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 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 678195] Review Request: perl-MooseX-OneArgNew - Teach -new to accept single, non-hashref arguments
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=678195 Iain Arnell iarn...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Iain Arnell iarn...@gmail.com 2011-03-28 04:55:39 EDT --- Thanks, Marcela. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: perl-MooseX-OneArgNew Short Description: Teach -new to accept single, non-hashref arguments Owners: iarnell Branches: f13 f14 f15 InitialCC: perl-sig -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 690360] Review Request: weave - Firefox Registration/Sync Server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=690360 Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net changed: What|Removed |Added CC||fab...@bernewireless.net --- Comment #2 from Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net 2011-03-28 05:31:06 EDT --- Are the BuildRequires really needed? Please preserve the timestamps (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Timestamps). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 683638] Review Request: pyes- Python library for connecting to and managing Elasticsearch
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=683638 Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net changed: What|Removed |Added CC||fab...@bernewireless.net --- Comment #2 from Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net 2011-03-28 05:47:58 EDT --- Just some quick comments... - Why not place all doc files on one line? - The website says This version requires elasticsearch 0.12 or above.. elasticsearch is not available in the Fedora Package Collection. This will make it hard for reviewer to test the package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 674008] Review Request: openrave - Open Robotics Automation Virtual Environment
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=674008 --- Comment #34 from Rosen Diankov rosen.dian...@gmail.com 2011-03-28 05:54:31 EDT --- Just released openrave 0.2.20 (r2199). You can see change log at: https://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/openrave/wiki/ChangeLog -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 672832] Review Request: perl-Perl-Critic-PetPeeves-JTRAMMELL - Policies to prohibit/require my pet peeves
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=672832 --- Comment #2 from Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com 2011-03-28 06:02:21 EDT --- And what am I supposed to do now? To change the path to different value that's not standardized 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 672832] Review Request: perl-Perl-Critic-PetPeeves-JTRAMMELL - Policies to prohibit/require my pet peeves
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=672832 Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rc040...@freenet.de --- Comment #3 from Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de 2011-03-28 06:23:59 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2) And what am I supposed to do now? To install to vendordir, like any other perl module in RH and Fedora does. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 649802] Review Request: perl-RT-Extension-CommandByMail - Change metadata of a RT ticket via email
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=649802 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-03-28 07:09:04 EDT --- perl-RT-Extension-CommandByMail-0.07-3.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-RT-Extension-CommandByMail-0.07-3.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 649802] Review Request: perl-RT-Extension-CommandByMail - Change metadata of a RT ticket via email
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=649802 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 649802] Review Request: perl-RT-Extension-CommandByMail - Change metadata of a RT ticket via email
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=649802 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-03-28 07:04:31 EDT --- perl-RT-Extension-CommandByMail-0.07-3.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-RT-Extension-CommandByMail-0.07-3.fc14 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 672418] Review Request: fpdns - Fingerprint DNS
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=672418 Frank Crawford fr...@crawford.emu.id.au changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|fr...@crawford.emu.id.au -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 679913] Review Request: ftop - Shows progress of open files and file systems
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=679913 Sergio Belkin seb...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #20 from Sergio Belkin seb...@gmail.com 2011-03-28 07:34:48 EDT --- Package Change Request == Package Name: ftop New Branches: el5 Owners: sebelk -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 533167] Review Request: emacs-ecb - Emacs Code Browser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=533167
Karel Klíč kk...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|needinfo?(kk...@redhat.com) |
--- Comment #14 from Karel Klíč kk...@redhat.com 2011-03-28 07:41:39 EDT ---
Ruediger, thank you. I have fixed the issues you pointed out.
Spec URL: http://kklic.fedorapeople.org/emacs-ecb.spec
SRPM URL:
http://kklic.fedorapeople.org/emacs-ecb-2.40.1-0.4.cvs20101021.fc14.src.rpm
* Mon Mar 28 2011 Karel Klic kk...@redhat.com - 2.40.1-0.4.cvs20101021
- Fixed version tag (2.40 - 2.40.1)
- Fixed typo in macro _emacs_version
- Removed `rm -rf %%{buildroot}` from %%install section
- Converted NEWS and ecb.texi to UTF-8
- Added emacs-ecb-requires.patch to properly include semantic in
ecb-semantic-wrapper.el
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 691376] New: Review Request: perl-Mozilla-CA - Mozilla's CA cert bundle in PEM format
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: perl-Mozilla-CA - Mozilla's CA cert bundle in PEM format https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691376 Summary: Review Request: perl-Mozilla-CA - Mozilla's CA cert bundle in PEM format Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: ppi...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Spec URL: http://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/perl-Mozilla-CA/perl-Mozilla-CA.spec SRPM URL: http://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/perl-Mozilla-CA/perl-Mozilla-CA-20110301-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: Mozilla::CA provides a copy of Mozilla's bundle of certificate authority certificates in a form that can be consumed by modules and libraries based on OpenSSL. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 691381] Review Request: perl-LWP-Protocol-https - Provide HTTPS support for LWP::UserAgent
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691381 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||691376 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 691376] Review Request: perl-Mozilla-CA - Mozilla's CA cert bundle in PEM format
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691376 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||691381 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 691381] New: Review Request: perl-LWP-Protocol-https - Provide HTTPS support for LWP::UserAgent
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: perl-LWP-Protocol-https - Provide HTTPS support for LWP::UserAgent https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691381 Summary: Review Request: perl-LWP-Protocol-https - Provide HTTPS support for LWP::UserAgent Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: ppi...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Spec URL: http://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/perl-LWP-Protocol-https/perl-LWP-Protocol-https.spec SRPM URL: http://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/perl-LWP-Protocol-https/perl-LWP-Protocol-https-6.02-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: The LWP::Protocol::https module provides support for using HTTPS schemed URLs with LWP. This module is a plug-in to the LWP protocol handling, so you don't use it directly. Once the module is installed LWP is able to access sites using HTTP over SSL/TLS. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 672832] Review Request: perl-Perl-Critic-PetPeeves-JTRAMMELL - Policies to prohibit/require my pet peeves
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=672832 --- Comment #4 from Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com 2011-03-28 08:25:08 EDT --- Updated package published: Spec URL: http://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/perl-Perl-Critic-PetPeeves-JTRAMMELL/perl-Perl-Critic-PetPeeves-JTRAMMELL.spec SRPM URL: http://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/perl-Perl-Critic-PetPeeves-JTRAMMELL/perl-Perl-Critic-PetPeeves-JTRAMMELL-0.01-1.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 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 l...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #8 from Lukáš Zapletal l...@redhat.com 2011-03-28 08:24:37 EDT --- All done. Thank you. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: rubygem-net-ping Short Description: Net::Ping rubygem library Owners: lzap Branches: f15 InitialCC: ruby-sig -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 672832] Review Request: perl-Perl-Critic-PetPeeves-JTRAMMELL - Policies to prohibit/require my pet peeves
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=672832 Marcela Mašláňová mmasl...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Marcela Mašláňová mmasl...@redhat.com 2011-03-28 08:33:59 EDT --- Thank you, 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 672832] Review Request: perl-Perl-Critic-PetPeeves-JTRAMMELL - Policies to prohibit/require my pet peeves
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=672832 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com 2011-03-28 08:47:12 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: perl-Perl-Critic-PetPeeves-JTRAMMELL Short Description: Policies to prohibit/require my pet peeves Owners: ppisar mmaslano psabata Branches: InitialCC: perl-sig -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 691376] Review Request: perl-Mozilla-CA - Mozilla's CA cert bundle in PEM format
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691376 Petr Sabata psab...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||psab...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|psab...@redhat.com Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 691381] Review Request: perl-LWP-Protocol-https - Provide HTTPS support for LWP::UserAgent
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691381 Petr Sabata psab...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||psab...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|psab...@redhat.com Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 691403] New: Review Request: perl-IO-Stty - IO::Stty Perl module
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: perl-IO-Stty - IO::Stty Perl module https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691403 Summary: Review Request: perl-IO-Stty - IO::Stty Perl module Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: Unspecified OS/Version: Unspecified Status: NEW Severity: unspecified Priority: unspecified Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: mmasl...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- SRPM: http://mmaslano.fedorapeople.org/review/perl-IO-Stty-0.03-1.fc14.src.rpm SPEC: http://mmaslano.fedorapeople.org/review/perl-IO-Stty.spec Description: This is the PERL POSIX compliant stty. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 691403] Review Request: perl-IO-Stty - IO::Stty 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=691403 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||ppi...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ppi...@redhat.com Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 670127] Review Request: the-board - A space for placing daily records in your GNOME desktop
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=670127 --- Comment #13 from Cosimo Cecchi ccec...@redhat.com 2011-03-28 09:27:55 EDT --- Ok, I gave this another pass, and upadted the package to the latest 0.1.1.1 too. SPEC: http://people.gnome.org/~cosimoc/the-board-pkg/the-board.spec SRPM: http://people.gnome.org/~cosimoc/the-board-pkg/the-board-0.1.1.1-1.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 689685] Review Request: Anchorman - The recording-studio-in-a-box
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=689685 elad el...@doom.co.il changed: What|Removed |Added CC||el...@doom.co.il --- Comment #1 from elad el...@doom.co.il 2011-03-28 09:37:23 EDT --- I'll do an unofficial 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 663405] Review Request: python-sqlamp - Library for working with hierarchical data structures using SQLAlchemy
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=663405 --- Comment #2 from Martin Bacovsky mbaco...@redhat.com 2011-03-28 09:45:32 EDT --- Hi Fabian, it seems sqlalchemy and sqlite version changed in f14 since this review request was posted. I fixed the build using upstream patches. The spec and srpm on my fp.o were updated. http://mbacovsk.fedorapeople.org/python-sqlamp/python-sqlamp.spec http://mbacovsk.fedorapeople.org/python-sqlamp/python-sqlamp-0.5.2-2.fc14.src.rpm http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2953748 Thanks for your effort, Martin -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 659951] Review Request: stopmotion - An application for creating stopmotion animations
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=659951 Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo?(el...@doom.co.il) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 691403] Review Request: perl-IO-Stty - IO::Stty 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=691403 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com 2011-03-28 09:51:56 EDT --- Source file is original. Ok. TODO: Change Summary to more descriptive text. E.g. the one from NAME perldoc section. License verified from lib/IO/Stty.pm. Ok. Description verified from lib/IO/Stty.pm. Ok. No C binding, BuildArch Ok. TODO: BuildRequire perl(POSIX) for tests (lib/IO/Stty.pm:6). Minimal versions of Module::Build, Pod::Coverage, Test::Pod, Test::Pod::Coverage are provided by all Fedoras. Version can be left out. Ok. Build time dependencies Ok. All tests pass. Ok. $ rpmlint perl-IO-Stty.spec ../SRPMS/perl-IO-Stty-0.03-1.fc14.src.rpm ../RPMS/noarch/perl-IO-Stty-0.03-1.fc14.noarch.rpm perl-IO-Stty.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary stty.pl 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. rpmlint Ok. $ rpm -q -lv -p ../RPMS/noarch/perl-IO-Stty-0.03-1.fc14.noarch.rpm -rwxr-xr-x1 rootroot 273 bře 28 15:35 /usr/bin/stty.pl drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 bře 28 15:35 /usr/share/doc/perl-IO-Stty-0.03 -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 234 kvě 6 2010 /usr/share/doc/perl-IO-Stty-0.03/Changes -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 7271 kvě 6 2010 /usr/share/doc/perl-IO-Stty-0.03/README -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 4908 bře 28 15:35 /usr/share/man/man3/IO::Stty.3pm.gz drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 bře 28 15:35 /usr/share/perl5/IO -rw-r--r--1 rootroot21085 bře 28 15:35 /usr/share/perl5/IO/Stty.pm File layout and permissions are Ok. $ rpm -q --requires -p ../RPMS/noarch/perl-IO-Stty-0.03-1.fc14.noarch.rpm |sort |uniq -c 1 perl(IO::Stty) 1 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.12.3) 1 perl(POSIX) 1 perl(strict) 1 perl(warnings) 1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) = 3.0.4-1 1 rpmlib(FileDigests) = 4.6.0-1 1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) = 4.0-1 1 rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) = 5.2-1 1 /usr/bin/perl Binary requires Ok. $ rpm -q --provides -p ../RPMS/noarch/perl-IO-Stty-0.03-1.fc14.noarch.rpm |sort |uniq -c 1 perl(IO::Stty) 1 perl-IO-Stty = 0.03-1.fc14 TODO: Inject module version to perl(IO:Stty) Provides as stated in META.yml and lib/IO/Stty.pm:8. $ resolvedeps-f16 ../RPMS/noarch/perl-IO-Stty-0.03-1.fc14.noarch.rpm Binary dependencies resolvable. Ok. Package builds in F16 (http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2953758). Ok. Package is in line with Fedora and perl packaging guidelines. Please consider fixing all `TODO' prefixed issues before import package into repository. Resolution: Package APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 678195] Review Request: perl-MooseX-OneArgNew - Teach -new to accept single, non-hashref arguments
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=678195 --- Comment #3 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2011-03-28 09:59:10 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 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 --- Comment #9 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2011-03-28 09:58:52 EDT --- This ticket is not assigned to anyone; it should be assigned to the reviewer. ruby-sig is not a valid user. Please fix and re-raise the fedora-cvs flag. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 672832] Review Request: perl-Perl-Critic-PetPeeves-JTRAMMELL - Policies to prohibit/require my pet peeves
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=672832 --- Comment #7 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2011-03-28 09:57:35 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 691376] Review Request: perl-Mozilla-CA - Mozilla's CA cert bundle in PEM format
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691376
--- Comment #1 from Petr Sabata psab...@redhat.com 2011-03-28 09:55:56 EDT ---
Package: perl-Mozilla-CA
Version: 20110301
Release: 1.fc16
Sources: Mozilla-CA-20110301.tar.gz
Patches:
--
Package successfully built locally.
Package successfully built in mock, fedora-rawhide-x86_64.
Package successfully built in mock, fedora-rawhide-i386.
MUST items:
[ OK ] Package does NOT include pre-built binaries or libraries
[ OK ] Spec file is legible and written in American english
[ OK ] Package successfully builds on at least one supported primary
architecture
[ NA ] All ExcludeArch tags valid, referencing proper bug reports
[ OK ] Package obeys FHS (with _libexecdir and /srv exceptions)
[ OK ] No errors reported by rpmlint
[ OK ] Changelog present and properly formatted
[ OK ] Package does NOT include Packager, Vendor, Copyright or PreReq tags
[ OK ] Source tags are working URLs or justified otherwise
[ NOTE ] Requires correct or justified otherwise
[ NOTE ] BuildRequires correct or justified otherwise
[ OK ] All file names are in proper UTF-8 encoding
[ OK ] All plain text failes are in proper UTF-8 encoding
[ NA ] Large documentation files are located in doc subpackage
[ OK ] All documentation prefixed with %doc
[ OK ] Documentation is NOT executable
[ OK ] No files in %doc are needed at run-time
[ NA ] Compiler flags honor Fedora defaults or are justified
[ NA ] Package generates useful debuginfo packages
[ NA ] Header files are placed in devel subpackage
[ NA ] Unversioned shared libraries are placed in devel subpackage
[ NA ] Pkgconfig files are placed in devel subpackage
[ NA ] Full-versioned Requires of the base package in subpackages
[ NA ] Package calls ldconfig in post and postun sections for all
subpackages, if applicable
[ NA ] Static libraries are provided by static subpackage
[ OK ] Package contains no static executables unless approved by FESCo
[ OK ] Package does NOT bundle any system libraries
[ NA ] RPath not used for anything besides internal libraries
[ NA ] All config files are marked noreplace or justified otherwise
[ OK ] No config files are located under /usr
[ NA ] Package contains a SystemV-compatible initscript
[ NA ] A GUI application installs a proper desktop file
[ NA ] All desktop files are installed by desktop-file-install or justified
otherwise
[ OK ] Package consistently uses macros
[ NA ] makeinstall macro is used only if make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot}
does NOT work
[ NA ] Macros in Summary and description are expandable at build-time
[ NA ] globals used in place of defines
[ NA ] Locales handled correctly -- package requires gettext and uses
find_lang, if applicable
[ NA ] Scriptlets are sane
[ OK ] Package is not relocatable unless justified
[ OK ] Package contains only acceptable code or content
[ OK ] Package owns all the files and directories it creates, installs and/or
uses unless those are already owned by another package
[ OK ] files sections do NOT contain duplicate files except for licenses
[ OK ] All files sections use defattr or justify otherwise
[ OK ] Package does NOT cause any conflicts
[ OK ] Package does NOT contain kernel modules
[ OK ] Package does NOT bundle fonts or other general purpose data
[ OK ] Final Requires and Provides are sane
SHOULD items:
[ OK ] The Summary does NOT end with a period
[ OK ] Package does NOT include BuildRoot tag, clean section or buildroot
removal in install section
[ OK ] Package does NOT explicitly BuildRequire bash, bzip2, coreutils, cpio,
diffutils, fedora-release, findutils, gawk, gcc, gcc-c++, grep, gzip, info,
make, patch, redhat-rpm-config, rpm-build, sed, shadow-utils, tar, unzip,
util-linux-ng, which or xz
[ OK ] Description does NOT consist of lines longer than 80 characters
[ OK ] Package should preserve files timestamps
[ OK ] Package uses parallel make
[ NA ] In case of a web application, package installs date into /usr/share
instead of /var/www
[ NA ] All patches have a comment or an upstream bug link
[ NA ] Package installs manpages for all executables
[ OK ] Package contains check section and all tests pass
Notes:
--
Package should (build)require Cwd, File::BaseName and File::Spec
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 679913] Review Request: ftop - Shows progress of open files and file systems
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=679913 --- Comment #21 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2011-03-28 09:59:30 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 659951] Review Request: stopmotion - An application for creating stopmotion animations
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=659951 elad el...@doom.co.il changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||WONTFIX Flag|needinfo?(el...@doom.co.il) | Last Closed||2011-03-28 10:03:21 --- Comment #2 from elad el...@doom.co.il 2011-03-28 10:03:21 EDT --- As i've said in bug #636819 comment 19, I'm dropping this review request because of dead upstream. Feel free to take over this review request if you like. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 659951] Review Request: stopmotion - An application for creating stopmotion animations
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=659951 Bug 659951 depends on bug 659950, which changed state. Bug 659950 Summary: Review Request: vgrabbj - A command-line v4l grabber https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=659950 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||WONTFIX Status|NEW |CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 659950] Review Request: vgrabbj - A command-line v4l grabber
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=659950 elad el...@doom.co.il changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||WONTFIX Last Closed||2011-03-28 10:03:44 --- Comment #4 from elad el...@doom.co.il 2011-03-28 10:03:44 EDT --- As i've said in bug #636819 comment 19, I'm dropping this review request because of dead upstream. Feel free to take over this review request if you like. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 690746] Review Request: perl-Perl-Critic-Swift - Set of additional policies for Perl::Critic
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=690746
Marcela Mašláňová mmasl...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mmasl...@redhat.com
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Marcela Mašláňová mmasl...@redhat.com 2011-03-28 10:01:22
EDT ---
- rpmlint OK
- package must be named according to Guidelines OK
- spec file name must match the base package %{name} OK
- package must meet the Packaging Guidelines OK
- package must be licensed with Fedora approved license OK
- license field must match actual license OK
- text of the license in its own file must be included in %doc OK
- sources must match the upstream source OK
- package MUST successfully compile and build OK
- architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in bugzilla OK
- build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires OK
- handle locales properly with %find_lang macro OK
- shared library files must call ldconfig in %post(un) OK
- packages must NOT bundle system libraries OK
- package must own all directories that it creates OK
- permissions on files must be set properly OK
- package must consistently use macros OK
- package must contain code, or permissable content OK
- large documentation must go in a -doc OK
- %doc must not affect the runtime of the application OK
- header files must be in a -devel package OK
- static libraries must be in a -static package OK
- library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel OK
- devel package usually require base package OK
- packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives OK
- GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file OK
- packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages OK
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2953777
rpm -qp --provides
../RPMS/noarch/perl-Perl-Critic-Swift-1.0.3-1.fc14.noarch.rpm
perl(Perl::Critic::Policy::CodeLayout::RequireUseUTF8) = 1.0.3
perl(Perl::Critic::Policy::Documentation::RequirePODUseEncodingUTF8) = 1.0.3
perl(Perl::Critic::Swift) = 1.0.3
perl-Perl-Critic-Swift = 1.0.3-1.fc14
rpm -qp --requires
../RPMS/noarch/perl-Perl-Critic-Swift-1.0.3-1.fc14.noarch.rpm
perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.12.3)
perl(List::MoreUtils) = 0.21
perl(Perl::Critic::Policy) = 1.082
perl(Perl::Critic::Utils) = 1.082
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) = 4.0-1
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) = 3.0.4-1
perl = 0:5.006
perl(base)
perl(strict)
perl(utf8)
perl(version)
perl(warnings)
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 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 vondr...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|vondr...@redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 690569] Review Request: perl-Task-Perl-Critic - Install everything Perl::Critic
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=690569 Bug 690569 depends on bug 672832, which changed state. Bug 672832 Summary: Review Request: perl-Perl-Critic-PetPeeves-JTRAMMELL - Policies to prohibit/require my pet peeves https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=672832 What|Old Value |New Value Status|ASSIGNED|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 672832] Review Request: perl-Perl-Critic-PetPeeves-JTRAMMELL - Policies to prohibit/require my pet peeves
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=672832 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Fixed In Version||perl-Perl-Critic-PetPeeves- ||JTRAMMELL-0.01-1.fc16 Resolution||RAWHIDE Last Closed||2011-03-28 10:12:48 --- Comment #8 from Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com 2011-03-28 10:12:48 EDT --- Thank you for the review and the repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 691376] Review Request: perl-Mozilla-CA - Mozilla's CA cert bundle in PEM format
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691376 --- Comment #2 from Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com 2011-03-28 10:20:28 EDT --- Updated package on the same URLs. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 597681] Review Request: kupfer - A free software launcher
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=597681 hannes johannes.l...@googlemail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||johannes.l...@googlemail.co ||m --- Comment #13 from hannes johannes.l...@googlemail.com 2011-03-28 10:21:08 EDT --- Is there some progress on this review? I saw that 204 is released: http://kaizer.se/wiki/kupfer/ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 690746] Review Request: perl-Perl-Critic-Swift - Set of additional policies for Perl::Critic
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=690746 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com 2011-03-28 10:23:09 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: perl-Perl-Critic-Swift Short Description: Set of additional policies for Perl::Critic Owners: ppisar mmaslano psabata Branches: InitialCC: perl-sig -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 689685] Review Request: Anchorman - The recording-studio-in-a-box
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=689685
--- Comment #2 from elad el...@doom.co.il 2011-03-28 10:25:21 EDT ---
+ Package meets naming and packaging guidelines
+ Spec file matches base package name.
? Spec has consistent macro usage.
? Meets Packaging Guidelines.
+ License
+ License field in spec matches
+ License file included in package
+ Spec in American English
+ Spec is legible.
? Sources match upstream md5sum:
- Package needs ExcludeArch
? BuildRequires correct
- Spec handles locales/find_lang
- Package is relocatable and has a reason to be.
+ Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good.
+ Package has a correct %clean section.
+ Package has correct buildroot
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
+ Package is code or permissible content.
- Doc subpackage needed/used.
+ Packages %doc files don't affect runtime.
- Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage.
- Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun
- .pc files in -devel subpackage/requires pkgconfig
- .so files in -devel subpackage.
- -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
- .la files are removed.
- Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file
+ Package compiles and builds on at least one arch.
- Package has no duplicate files in %files.
+ Package doesn't own any directories other packages own.
+ Package owns all the directories it creates.
+ No rpmlint output. (Only spelling warnings, which are wrong)
- final provides and requires are sane:
SHOULD Items:
- Should build in mock.
- Should build on all supported archs
- Should function as described.
- Should have sane scriptlets.
- Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend.
+ Should have dist tag
+ Should package latest version
Issues:
1.Replace every instance of anchorman with %{name}
2.Replace the version in the source URL to %{version}
3.Use %{_bindir} instead of /usr/bin
4.BuildRequires missing: gcc-c++ (cmake didn't want to configure without this
package installed)
4.Please provide md5 sum for released tarball.
Warnings:
1.Clean section is not required for Fedora 13 or above
2.I think you should change the summary, it does not matching the description
(it's a webcam streaming application, not a recording studio)
3.Your test section is broken, It outputs
*
No test configuration file found!
*
and then the usage information.
4.(Not directly related to the review): Your project's fedorahosted page lists
the wrong link for anonymous git access.
Please fix these errors and warnings, and update the spec and SRPM accordingly.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 636819] Review Request: gnome-exe-thumbnailer - gnome thumbnailer for exe files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=636819 --- Comment #22 from elad el...@doom.co.il 2011-03-28 10:26:18 EDT --- Another unofficial review: bug #689685 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 672418] Review Request: fpdns - Fingerprint DNS
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=672418 Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net changed: What|Removed |Added Alias||fpdns -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 678195] Review Request: perl-MooseX-OneArgNew - Teach -new to accept single, non-hashref arguments
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=678195 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 690953] Review Request: dexter - A sexy, simple address book with end users in mind
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=690953 Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||fab...@bernewireless.net AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|fab...@bernewireless.net Flag||fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net 2011-03-28 10:35:21 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2) Can you please set the fedora-review flag? Sorry, I missed 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 678195] Review Request: perl-MooseX-OneArgNew - Teach -new to accept single, non-hashref arguments
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=678195 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-03-28 10:38:56 EDT --- perl-MooseX-OneArgNew-0.001-1.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-MooseX-OneArgNew-0.001-1.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 691376] Review Request: perl-Mozilla-CA - Mozilla's CA cert bundle in PEM format
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691376
Petr Sabata psab...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Petr Sabata psab...@redhat.com 2011-03-28 10:37:48 EDT ---
--- perl-Mozilla-CA.spec2011-03-28 13:50:08.0 +0200
+++ perl-Mozilla-CA.spec.new2011-03-28 16:19:38.0 +0200
@@ -8,6 +8,11 @@
Source0:
http://www.cpan.org/authors/id/A/AB/ABH/Mozilla-CA-%{version}.tar.gz
BuildArch: noarch
BuildRequires: perl(ExtUtils::MakeMaker)
+# Tests:
+BuildRequires: perl(Cwd)
+BuildRequires: perl(File::Spec)
+BuildRequires: perl(File::Basename)
+BuildRequires: perl(Test)
Requires: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_%(eval `%{__perl} -V:version`; echo
$version))
%description
--
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 662604] Review Request: ibus-unikey - A Vietnamese engine for IBus input platform that uses Unikey.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=662604 Truong Anh Tuan tua...@iwayvietnam.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #18 from Truong Anh Tuan tua...@iwayvietnam.com 2011-03-28 10:42:51 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: ibus-unikey Short Description: A Vietnamese engine for IBus input platform that uses Unikey. Owners: tuanta 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 518546] Review Request: libva - VAAPI video playback acceleration
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=518546 --- Comment #92 from Dirk Nehring dnehr...@gmx.net 2011-03-28 10:44:02 EDT --- Before releasing F15 beta, we should update to 1.0.11: http://cgit.freedesktop.org/libva/snapshot/libva-1.0.11.tar.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 691376] Review Request: perl-Mozilla-CA - Mozilla's CA cert bundle in PEM format
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691376 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com 2011-03-28 10:51:41 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: perl-Mozilla-CA Short Description: Mozilla's CA cert bundle in PEM format Owners: ppisar, mmaslano, psabata Branches: InitialCC: perl-sig -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 --- Comment #7 from Pavel Zhukov pa...@zhukoff.net 2011-03-28 10:54:01 EDT --- Fixed gpr files http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3349355/matreshka-0.1.0-20110326svn.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 690953] Review Request: dexter - A sexy, simple address book with end users in mind
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=690953 Thomas Moschny thomas.mosc...@gmx.de changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Thomas Moschny thomas.mosc...@gmx.de 2011-03-28 11:00:26 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: dexter Short Description: A sexy, simple address book with end users in mind Owners: thm Branches: f13 f14 f15 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 518546] Review Request: libva - VAAPI video playback acceleration
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=518546 --- Comment #93 from Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) kwiz...@gmail.com 2011-03-28 10:56:42 EDT --- (In reply to comment #92) Before releasing F15 beta, we should update to 1.0.11: http://cgit.freedesktop.org/libva/snapshot/libva-1.0.11.tar.bz2 All changes are related to the backend which this package doesn't bundle. So it doesn't matter to update it. Once that said the backend driver which is provided in 3rd part already have a git revision that match the content of 1.0.11. Thx for the report, but it's uneeded. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 683638] Review Request: pyes- Python library for connecting to and managing Elasticsearch
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=683638 --- Comment #3 from Tavis Aitken tavi...@gmail.com 2011-03-28 11:04:34 EDT --- Fabian, Thanks for the review. - Why not place all doc files on one line? - The docs are all separate so they can be easily reviewed or removed if the source changes. I can change it if that is the recommended way to do things. e website says This version requires elasticsearch 0.12 or above.. elasticsearch is not available in the Fedora Package Collection. This will make it hard for reviewer to test the package. - This is a client library for Elasticsearch, which is not packaged in Fedora as of yet because it requires some newer versions of Lucene ( 3.0.0 tree ) and other java projects that are not packaged. I have built a package that can be used but do not meet the Fedora packaging requirements as of now. I have plans to try and make it Fedora compatible but have not managed it as of yet. https://github.com/tavisto/elasticsearch-rpms/blob/master/SPECS/elasticsearch.spec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 683638] Review Request: pyes- Python library for connecting to and managing Elasticsearch
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=683638 --- Comment #4 from Tavis Aitken tavi...@gmail.com 2011-03-28 11:05:05 EDT --- Fabian, Thanks for the review. - Why not place all doc files on one line? - The docs are all separate so they can be easily reviewed or removed if the source changes. I can change it if that is the recommended way to do things. e website says This version requires elasticsearch 0.12 or above.. elasticsearch is not available in the Fedora Package Collection. This will make it hard for reviewer to test the package. - This is a client library for Elasticsearch, which is not packaged in Fedora as of yet because it requires some newer versions of Lucene ( 3.0.0 tree ) and other java projects that are not packaged. I have built a package that can be used but do not meet the Fedora packaging requirements as of now. I have plans to try and make it Fedora compatible but have not managed it as of yet. https://github.com/tavisto/elasticsearch-rpms/blob/master/SPECS/elasticsearch.spec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 690746] Review Request: perl-Perl-Critic-Swift - Set of additional policies for Perl::Critic
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=690746 --- Comment #3 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2011-03-28 11:18:57 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 662604] Review Request: ibus-unikey - A Vietnamese engine for IBus input platform that uses Unikey.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=662604 --- Comment #19 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2011-03-28 11:18:33 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 690953] Review Request: dexter - A sexy, simple address book with end users in mind
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=690953 --- Comment #5 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2011-03-28 11:19:13 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 691376] Review Request: perl-Mozilla-CA - Mozilla's CA cert bundle in PEM format
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691376 --- Comment #5 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2011-03-28 11:19:38 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 691027] Review Request: n2n - A layer-two peer-to-peer virtual private network
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691027 --- Comment #4 from Hushan Jia h...@redhat.com 2011-03-28 11:27:54 EDT --- Hi Fabian, I fixed license tag and source tallbar, please review, thanks! SPEC URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/24432462/n2n.spec SRPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/24432462/n2n-2.1.0-2.el6.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 690569] Review Request: perl-Task-Perl-Critic - Install everything Perl::Critic
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=690569 Bug 690569 depends on bug 690746, which changed state. Bug 690746 Summary: Review Request: perl-Perl-Critic-Swift - Set of additional policies for Perl::Critic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=690746 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||RAWHIDE Status|ASSIGNED|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 690746] Review Request: perl-Perl-Critic-Swift - Set of additional policies for Perl::Critic
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=690746 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Fixed In Version||perl-Perl-Critic-Swift-1.0. ||3-1.fc16 Resolution||RAWHIDE Last Closed||2011-03-28 11:34:27 --- Comment #4 from Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com 2011-03-28 11:34:27 EDT --- Thank you for the review and the repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 673099] Review Request: perl-Perl-Critic-Lax - Policies that let you slide on common exceptions
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=673099
Petr Sabata psab...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Petr Sabata psab...@redhat.com 2011-03-28 11:34:17 EDT ---
Package: perl-Perl-Critic-Lax
Version: 0.008
Release: 1.fc15
Sources: Perl-Critic-Lax-0.008.tar.gz
Patches:
--
Package failed to build locally!
Package successfully built in mock, fedora-rawhide-x86_64.
Package successfully built in mock, fedora-rawhide-i386.
MUST items:
[ OK ] Package does NOT include pre-built binaries or libraries
[ OK ] Spec file is legible and written in American english
[ OK ] Package successfully builds on at least one supported primary
architecture
[ -- ] All ExcludeArch tags valid, referencing proper bug reports
[ OK ] Package obeys FHS (with _libexecdir and /srv exceptions)
[ OK ] No errors reported by rpmlint
[ OK ] Changelog present and properly formatted
[ OK ] Package does NOT include Packager, Vendor, Copyright or PreReq tags
[ OK ] Source tags are working URLs or justified otherwise
[ OK ] Requires correct or justified otherwise
[ OK ] BuildRequires correct or justified otherwise
[ OK ] All file names are in proper UTF-8 encoding
[ OK ] All plain text failes are in proper UTF-8 encoding
[ -- ] Large documentation files are located in doc subpackage
[ OK ] All documentation prefixed with %doc
[ OK ] Documentation is NOT executable
[ OK ] No files in %doc are needed at run-time
[ -- ] Compiler flags honor Fedora defaults or are justified
[ -- ] Package generates useful debuginfo packages
[ -- ] Header files are placed in devel subpackage
[ -- ] Unversioned shared libraries are placed in devel subpackage
[ -- ] Pkgconfig files are placed in devel subpackage
[ -- ] Full-versioned Requires of the base package in subpackages
[ -- ] Package calls ldconfig in post and postun sections for all
subpackages, if applicable
[ -- ] Static libraries are provided by static subpackage
[ OK ] Package contains no static executables unless approved by FESCo
[ OK ] Package does NOT bundle any system libraries
[ -- ] RPath not used for anything besides internal libraries
[ -- ] All config files are marked noreplace or justified otherwise
[ OK ] No config files are located under /usr
[ -- ] Package contains a SystemV-compatible initscript
[ -- ] A GUI application installs a proper desktop file
[ -- ] All desktop files are installed by desktop-file-install or justified
otherwise
[ OK ] Package consistently uses macros
[ -- ] makeinstall macro is used only if make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot}
does NOT work
[ -- ] Macros in Summary and description are expandable at build-time
[ -- ] globals used in place of defines
[ -- ] Locales handled correctly -- package requires gettext and uses
find_lang, if applicable
[ -- ] Scriptlets are sane
[ OK ] Package is not relocatable unless justified
[ OK ] Package contains only acceptable code or content
[ OK ] Package owns all the files and directories it creates, installs and/or
uses unless those are already owned by another package
[ OK ] files sections do NOT contain duplicate files except for licenses
[ OK ] All files sections use defattr or justify otherwise
[ OK ] Package does NOT cause any conflicts
[ OK ] Package does NOT contain kernel modules
[ OK ] Package does NOT bundle fonts or other general purpose data
[ OK ] Final Requires and Provides are sane
SHOULD items:
[ OK ] The Summary does NOT end with a period
[ OK ] Package does NOT include BuildRoot tag, clean section or buildroot
removal in install section
[ OK ] Package should preserve files timestamps
[ OK ] Package does NOT explicitly BuildRequire bash, bzip2, coreutils, cpio,
diffutils, fedora-release, findutils, gawk, gcc, gcc-c++, grep, gzip, info,
make, patch, redhat-rpm-config, rpm-build, sed, shadow-utils, tar, unzip,
util-linux-ng, which or xz
[ OK ] Description does NOT consist of lines longer than 80 characters
[ OK ] Package uses parallel make
[ -- ] In case of a web application, package installs date into /usr/share
instead of /var/www
[ -- ] All patches have a comment or an upstream bug link
[ -- ] Package installs manpages for all executables
[ OK ] Package contains check section and all tests pass
[ ?? ] Package works as expected
NOTES:
--
Failed local build on Fedora 14 during test phase since PPI::Document wasn't
available. However, this isn't explicitly required by the package anywhere and
seems more like a test issue.
Package seems fine for Fedora, approving.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail
[Bug 673099] Review Request: perl-Perl-Critic-Lax - Policies that let you slide on common exceptions
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=673099 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com 2011-03-28 11:46:09 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: perl-Perl-Critic-Lax Short Description: Policies that let you slide on common exceptions Owners: ppisar, mmaslano, psabata Branches: InitialCC: perl-sig -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 691381] Review Request: perl-LWP-Protocol-https - Provide HTTPS support for LWP::UserAgent
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691381 Bug 691381 depends on bug 691376, which changed state. Bug 691376 Summary: Review Request: perl-Mozilla-CA - Mozilla's CA cert bundle in PEM format https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691376 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||RAWHIDE Status|ASSIGNED|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 691376] Review Request: perl-Mozilla-CA - Mozilla's CA cert bundle in PEM format
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691376 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Fixed In Version||perl-Mozilla-CA-20110301-1. ||fc16 Resolution||RAWHIDE Last Closed||2011-03-28 11:46:47 --- Comment #6 from Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com 2011-03-28 11:46:47 EDT --- Thank you for the review and the repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 690539] Review Request: perl-File-PathList - Find a file within a set of paths (like @INC or Java classpaths)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=690539
--- Comment #1 from Petr Sabata psab...@redhat.com 2011-03-28 11:55:27 EDT ---
Package: perl-File-PathList
Version: 1.04
Release: 1.fc16
Sources: File-PathList-1.04.tar.gz
Patches:
--
Package successfully built locally.
Package successfully built in mock, fedora-rawhide-x86_64.
Package successfully built in mock, fedora-rawhide-i386.
MUST items:
[ OK ] Sources match upstream
[ OK ] Package does NOT include pre-built binaries or libraries
[ OK ] Spec file is legible and written in American english
[ OK ] Package successfully builds on at least one supported primary
architecture
[ -- ] All ExcludeArch tags valid, referencing proper bug reports
[ OK ] Package obeys FHS (with _libexecdir and /srv exceptions)
[ OK ] No errors reported by rpmlint
[ OK ] Changelog present and properly formatted
[ OK ] Package does NOT include Packager, Vendor, Copyright or PreReq tags
[ OK ] Source tags are working URLs or justified otherwise
[ FAIL ] Requires correct or justified otherwise
[ OK ] BuildRequires correct or justified otherwise
[ OK ] All file names are in proper UTF-8 encoding
[ OK ] All plain text failes are in proper UTF-8 encoding
[ -- ] Large documentation files are located in doc subpackage
[ OK ] All documentation prefixed with %doc
[ OK ] Documentation is NOT executable
[ OK ] No files in %doc are needed at run-time
[ -- ] Compiler flags honor Fedora defaults or are justified
[ -- ] Package generates useful debuginfo packages
[ -- ] Header files are placed in devel subpackage
[ -- ] Unversioned shared libraries are placed in devel subpackage
[ -- ] Pkgconfig files are placed in devel subpackage
[ -- ] Full-versioned Requires of the base package in subpackages
[ -- ] Package calls ldconfig in post and postun sections for all
subpackages, if applicable
[ -- ] Static libraries are provided by static subpackage
[ OK ] Package contains no static executables unless approved by FESCo
[ OK ] Package does NOT bundle any system libraries
[ -- ] RPath not used for anything besides internal libraries
[ -- ] All config files are marked noreplace or justified otherwise
[ OK ] No config files are located under /usr
[ -- ] Package contains a SystemV-compatible initscript
[ -- ] A GUI application installs a proper desktop file
[ -- ] All desktop files are installed by desktop-file-install or justified
otherwise
[ OK ] Package consistently uses macros
[ -- ] makeinstall macro is used only if make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot}
does NOT work
[ -- ] Macros in Summary and description are expandable at build-time
[ -- ] globals used in place of defines
[ -- ] Locales handled correctly -- package requires gettext and uses
find_lang, if applicable
[ -- ] Scriptlets are sane
[ OK ] Package is not relocatable unless justified
[ OK ] Package contains only acceptable code or content
[ OK ] Package owns all the files and directories it creates, installs and/or
uses unless those are already owned by another package
[ OK ] files sections do NOT contain duplicate files except for licenses
[ OK ] All files sections use defattr or justify otherwise
[ OK ] Package does NOT cause any conflicts
[ OK ] Package does NOT contain kernel modules
[ OK ] Package does NOT bundle fonts or other general purpose data
[ OK ] Final Requires and Provides are sane
SHOULD items:
[ OK ] The Summary does NOT end with a period
[ OK ] Package does NOT include BuildRoot tag, clean section or buildroot
removal in install section
[ OK ] Package should preserve files timestamps
[ OK ] Package does NOT explicitly BuildRequire bash, bzip2, coreutils, cpio,
diffutils, fedora-release, findutils, gawk, gcc, gcc-c++, grep, gzip, info,
make, patch, redhat-rpm-config, rpm-build, sed, shadow-utils, tar, unzip,
util-linux-ng, which or xz
[ OK ] Description does NOT consist of lines longer than 80 characters
[ OK ] Package uses parallel make
[ -- ] In case of a web application, package installs date into /usr/share
instead of /var/www
[ -- ] All patches have a comment or an upstream bug link
[ -- ] Package installs manpages for all executables
[ OK ] Package contains check section and all tests pass
[ ?? ] Package works as expected
NOTES:
--
Require File::Spec::Unix.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 518546] Review Request: libva - VAAPI video playback acceleration
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=518546 --- Comment #94 from Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com 2011-03-28 11:58:37 EDT --- also, it doesn't have any particular relevance to the Beta release. it's not even shipped on media. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 690539] Review Request: perl-File-PathList - Find a file within a set of paths (like @INC or Java classpaths)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=690539 --- Comment #2 from Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com 2011-03-28 12:08:19 EDT --- I get perl(File::Spec::Unix) in list of binary requires in F16 and F14: $ rpm -q --requires -p ../RPMS/noarch/perl-File-PathList-1.04-1.fc16.noarch.rpm |sort |uniq -c 1 perl = 0:5.005 1 perl(File::Spec) = 0.80 1 perl(File::Spec::Unix) 1 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.12.3) 1 perl(Params::Util) = 0.24 1 perl(strict) 1 perl(vars) 1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) = 3.0.4-1 1 rpmlib(FileDigests) = 4.6.0-1 1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) = 4.0-1 1 rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) = 5.2-1 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 674114] Review Request: rhino-appjet - JavaScript for Java as modified by Appjet
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=674114 --- Comment #3 from Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com 2011-03-28 12:12:25 EDT --- Any progress ? If not I'll close this review in 2 weeks. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 690539] Review Request: perl-File-PathList - Find a file within a set of paths (like @INC or Java classpaths)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=690539 Petr Sabata psab...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Petr Sabata psab...@redhat.com 2011-03-28 12:16:52 EDT --- /me rechecks... True, I must have missed that. 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
