[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 690751, which changed state. Bug 690751 Summary: Review Request: perl-criticism - Perl pragma to enforce coding standards and best-practices https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=690751 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 690751] Review Request: perl-criticism - Perl pragma to enforce coding standards and best-practices
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=690751 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Fixed In Version||perl-criticism-1.02-1.fc16 Resolution||RAWHIDE Last Closed||2011-03-29 03:04:45 --- Comment #4 from Petr Pisar 2011-03-29 03:04:45 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 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 #6 from elad 2011-03-29 03:06:04 EDT --- (In reply to comment #5) > (In reply to comment #4) > > (regarding upstream md5sum etc) > > I'm not sure if it is a requirement, but it is recommended. > > Where is it recommended? This is the first time I've heard of such a > recommendation. > > (regarding placing files in /var/www) > > This IS required, sorry. > > Note that the packaging guidelines say "should", not "MUST". The "not" is in capital letters, which made me think it is important. I'll ask more experienced developers about it. > > > You won't need configuration for every web server, you > > can select just few common ones > > ...and if those config files are installed in proper locations, there either > a) Needs to be a dependency on the servers that provide those dirs which is a > no go because the software will run on command line without any web server, or You can make sub-packages in your package, eg. w3c-linkchecker-apache that will supply the configuration files for apache, and do so for every sever you like (one is enough, if you don't want too many subpackages), and the main package would only provide the command line application. > b) The config files need to be in web server specific subpackages that have > the > dependencies which is IMO quite ugly, or > c) This package would need to own those dirs, which is also quite ugly. > C is not an option, it is against the guidelines. > > or put a simple file somewhere in /usr/share > > and write in a readme file or a manual that it should be copied to the > > appropriate directory. > > That's not what I personally would expect of a properly packaged application. > That's was just an idea. > So given the options above, my opinion remains that simply placing the script > in /var/www/cgi-bin is a superior approach, even if it's a "should not" per > the > packaging guidelines. > > > I'm sorry to hear that. Hope you'll find someone else to maintain it. > > You wouldn't happen to be interested, would you? As I'm not a packager yet (I'm doing unofficial reviews to prove that I am "worthy"), I don't know how to take this review request. I'll try to ask someone in #fedora-devel, to see if (and how) I can do 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 691635] Review Request: ppm - An applet for the GNOME Desktop for GSM mobile prepaid SIM cards
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691635 elad changed: What|Removed |Added CC||el...@doom.co.il --- Comment #2 from elad 2011-03-29 03:10:43 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 691403] Review Request: perl-IO-Stty - Change and print terminal line settings
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691403 Marcela Mašláňová changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |perl-IO-Stty - IO::Stty |perl-IO-Stty - Change and |Perl module |print terminal line ||settings Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Marcela Mašláňová 2011-03-29 03:28:09 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: perl-IO-Stty Short Description: Change and print terminal line settings Owners: mmaslano ppisar 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 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 #23 from elad 2011-03-29 03:48:43 EDT --- I did another unofficial review: bug #691635 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 691635] Review Request: ppm - An applet for the GNOME Desktop for GSM mobile prepaid SIM cards
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691635
--- Comment #3 from elad 2011-03-29 03:47:24 EDT ---
Unofficial review:
+ = OK
- = NA
? = issue
+ Package meets naming 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.
? 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. I'm not sure about the directory in which you located the py and pyc files
(seems wrong to me). Please read
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python for more information.
2. Please ask upstream to include license in the git repository (and tarballs,
when upstream releases those) so that you can include the license file in your
package.
3. Missing build dependency: pygtk2
4. Missing run-time dependencies: mobile-broadband-provider-info, ModemManager
5. You can use %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT, but you CAN NOT not both in the
same spec. Read
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Using_.25.7Bbuildroot.7D_and_.25.7Boptflags.7D_vs_.24RPM_BUILD_ROOT_and_.24RPM_OPT_FLAGS
for more information.
Warnings:
1. Clean section is not required for Fedora 13 and above.
Please fix these issues, 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 672845] Review Request: rubygem-net-ping - Net::Ping rubygem library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=672845 Lukáš Zapletal changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #10 from Lukáš Zapletal 2011-03-29 03:51:27 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: rubygem-net-ping Short Description: Net::Ping rubygem library Owners: lzap Branches: f15 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 691153] Review Request: pam_shield - pam module to block brute force attacks
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691153
Hushan Jia changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||h...@redhat.com
--- Comment #2 from Hushan Jia 2011-03-29 03:57:56 EDT ---
informal review :)
[ok] # MUST: rpmlint
[0k] # MUST: Package Naming Guidelines .
[ok] # MUST: The spec file name
[ok] # MUST: Packaging Guidelines .
[ok] # MUST: Package license
[ok] # MUST: The License field
[ok] # MUST: License in %doc
[ok] # MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[ok] # MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[ok] # MUST: The sources tarball matches upstream
[ok] # MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build
[N/A]# MUST: ExcludeArch
[ok] # MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires
[N/A] # MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly.
[N/A] # MUST: ldconfig for shared library
[N/A] # MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.[11]
[N/A] # MUST: Package relocatable
[ok] # MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates.
[ok] # MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file's %files listings
[ok] # MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
[ok] # MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[ok] # MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[N/A] # MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage
[ok] # MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application
[N/A] # MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package
[N/A] # MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package
[N/A] # MUST: Library with a suffix goes into -devel package
[N/A] # MUST: devel packages must require the base package
[ok] # MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives
[N/A] # MUST: Packages containing GUI applications include a %{name}.desktop
file
[ok] # MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages
[ok] # MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8
[1]$ rpmlint pam_shield.spec pam_shield-0.9.5-2.fc13.src.rpm
pam_shield.src: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US
1 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[2]$ md5sum pam_shield-0.9.5.tar.gz pam_shield/pam_shield-0.9.5.tar.gz
cbfcd96fad38943ed78fd4d37307aba2 pam_shield-0.9.5.tar.gz <-- upstream
cbfcd96fad38943ed78fd4d37307aba2 pam_shield/pam_shield-0.9.5.tar.gz
[3]http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2956281
- Please preserve the timestamps when installing
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 672543] Review Request: perl-Test-DistManifest - Author test that validates a package MANIFEST
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=672543 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Petr Pisar 2011-03-29 04:02:39 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: perl-Test-DistManifest Short Description: Author test that validates a package MANIFEST 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 691541] Review Request: icedtea-web - Additional Java components for OpenJDK
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691541 Alexander Kurtakov changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||akurt...@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 688035] Review Request: perl-CHI - Unified cache handling interface
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=688035 --- Comment #5 from Ralf Corsepius 2011-03-29 04:19:30 EDT --- Update: Spec URL: http://corsepiu.fedorapeople.org/packages/perl-CHI.spec SRPM URL: http://corsepiu.fedorapeople.org/packages/perl-CHI-0.44-1.fc16.src.rpm I've tried to implement all of your proposals (and a little bit more). One issue remains: The author_tests require Module::Mask, which is not (yet?) available in Fedora. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 623868] Review Request: abattis-cantarell-fonts - Contemporary humanist sans-serif font
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=623868 Luya Tshimbalanga changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2011-03-29 04:23:30 --- Comment #29 from Luya Tshimbalanga 2011-03-29 04:23:30 EDT --- Closing this report now that abattis-cantarell-fonts is available in repo. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 691635] Review Request: ppm - An applet for the GNOME Desktop for GSM mobile prepaid SIM cards
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691635
--- Comment #4 from Ankur Sinha 2011-03-29 04:29:06
EDT ---
Thank you for the review.
(In reply to comment #3)
> Unofficial review:
>
> + = OK
> - = NA
> ? = issue
>
> + Package meets naming 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.
> ? 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. I'm not sure about the directory in which you located the py and pyc files
> (seems wrong to me). Please read
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python for more information.
I checked up on this already. I'm not sure either. As of now, the files are
placed where the make script puts them. I'll contact upstream to confirm.
> 2. Please ask upstream to include license in the git repository (and tarballs,
> when upstream releases those) so that you can include the license file in your
> package.
I'll do that and include a license as a SOURCE: in the meantime.
> 3. Missing build dependency: pygtk2
Weird, it built in mock correctly.
> 4. Missing run-time dependencies: mobile-broadband-provider-info, ModemManager
Do I need to specify explicit requires?
> 5. You can use %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT, but you CAN NOT not both in
> the
> same spec. Read
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Using_.25.7Bbuildroot.7D_and_.25.7Boptflags.7D_vs_.24RPM_BUILD_ROOT_and_.24RPM_OPT_FLAGS
> for more information.
Corrected.
>
> Warnings:
> 1. Clean section is not required for Fedora 13 and above.
Removed.
>
> Please fix these issues, and update the spec and SRPM accordingly.
Thanks,
Ankur
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 #7 from elad 2011-03-29 04:29:40 EDT --- MD5 is not required. Sorry, my mistake. Also I have been told that if the guidelines says should, an exception can be made, but it should be avoided because of the reasons listed in the guidelines. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 685014] Review Request: perl-Sys-Path - Supply autoconf style installation directories
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=685014
Marcela Mašláňová changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mmasl...@redhat.com
--- Comment #1 from Marcela Mašláňová 2011-03-29 04:29:35
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 -q --provides perl-Sys-Path
perl(Sys::Path) = 0.10
perl(Sys::Path::SPc) = 0.10
perl-Sys-Path = 0.10-1.fc16
[marca@caladan SRPMS]$ rpm -q --requires perl-Sys-Path
perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.12.3)
perl(Carp)
perl(Digest::MD5)
perl(File::Spec)
perl(JSON::Util)
perl(JSON::Util)
perl(List::MoreUtils)
perl(List::MoreUtils)
perl(Sys::Path::SPc)
perl(Text::Diff)
perl(Text::Diff)
perl(base)
perl(strict)
perl(warnings)
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1
Specifying requires in spec file is useless, because RPM is able to find it and
it's twice in requires. Please remove "doubled" requires.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 561484] Review Request: jruby - Pure Java implementation of the Ruby interpreter
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561484 Richard W.M. Jones changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||691659 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 691635] Review Request: ppm - An applet for the GNOME Desktop for GSM mobile prepaid SIM cards
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691635
--- Comment #5 from elad 2011-03-29 04:36:56 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Thank you for the review.
>
> > 1. I'm not sure about the directory in which you located the py and pyc
> > files
> > (seems wrong to me). Please read
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python for more information.
>
> I checked up on this already. I'm not sure either. As of now, the files are
> placed where the make script puts them. I'll contact upstream to confirm.
>
Well I think it's not an upstream issue but rather a packaging issue. Please
try to install it in a normal location for python files (written in the
guidelines) and if it works, then use it. If not, report a bug to the upstream.
> > 2. Please ask upstream to include license in the git repository (and
> > tarballs,
> > when upstream releases those) so that you can include the license file in
> > your
> > package.
>
> I'll do that and include a license as a SOURCE: in the meantime.
Sounds fine.
>
> > 3. Missing build dependency: pygtk2
>
> Weird, it built in mock correctly.
Upstream list it as a dependency.
>
> > 4. Missing run-time dependencies: mobile-broadband-provider-info,
> > ModemManager
>
> Do I need to specify explicit requires?
I think so.
>
> > 5. You can use %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT, but you CAN NOT not both in
> > the
> > same spec. Read
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Using_.25.7Bbuildroot.7D_and_.25.7Boptflags.7D_vs_.24RPM_BUILD_ROOT_and_.24RPM_OPT_FLAGS
> > for more information.
>
> Corrected.
>
> >
> > Warnings:
> > 1. Clean section is not required for Fedora 13 and above.
>
> Removed.
>
> >
> > Please fix these issues, and update the spec and SRPM accordingly.
>
> Thanks,
> Ankur
Please update the spec and SRPM for any change you make, and give a new link
for the SRPM. (the spec should also be updated, but with the same 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 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 changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo?(mc...@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 688035] Review Request: perl-CHI - Unified cache handling interface
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=688035 Ralf Corsepius changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||691673 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 691673] Review Request: perl-Module-Mask - Pretend certain modules are not installed
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691673 Ralf Corsepius changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||688035 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 691673] New: Review Request: perl-Module-Mask - Pretend certain modules are not installed
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-Module-Mask - Pretend certain modules are not installed https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691673 Summary: Review Request: perl-Module-Mask - Pretend certain modules are not installed Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rc040...@freenet.de QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Spec URL: http://corsepiu.fedorapeople.org/packages/perl-Module-Mask.spec SRPM URL: http://corsepiu.fedorapeople.org/packages/perl-Module-Mask-0.03-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: Sometimes you need to test what happens when a given module is not installed. This module provides a way of temporarily hiding installed modules from perl's require mechanism. The Module::Mask object adds itself to @INC and blocks require calls to restricted modules. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Petr Sabata 2011-03-29 04:55:51 EDT ---
Package: perl-LWP-Protocol-https
Version: 6.02
Release: 1.fc16
Sources: LWP-Protocol-https-6.02.tar.gz
Patches:
--
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
[ 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:
--
Package is fine, 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 688035] Review Request: perl-CHI - Unified cache handling interface
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=688035 --- Comment #6 from Ralf Corsepius 2011-03-29 05:16:17 EDT --- Next update: Spec URL: http://corsepiu.fedorapeople.org/packages/perl-CHI.spec SRPM URL: http://corsepiu.fedorapeople.org/packages/perl-CHI-0.44-2.fc16.src.rpm Now with --with author-tests enabled by default i.e. with mandatory BR: perl(Module-Mask) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 691635] Review Request: ppm - An applet for the GNOME Desktop for GSM mobile prepaid SIM cards
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691635 --- Comment #6 from Ankur Sinha 2011-03-29 05:55:31 EDT --- (In reply to comment #5) > (In reply to comment #4) > > Thank you for the review. > > > > > > > 3. Missing build dependency: pygtk2 > > > > Weird, it built in mock correctly. > Upstream list it as a dependency. > > > > > 4. Missing run-time dependencies: mobile-broadband-provider-info, > > > ModemManager > > > > Do I need to specify explicit requires? > I think so. > > These are *not* build deps, they are runtime deps which rpm will figure out on its own. They do not need to be specified IMO. Ankur -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 691635] Review Request: ppm - An applet for the GNOME Desktop for GSM mobile prepaid SIM cards
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691635 --- Comment #7 from elad 2011-03-29 06:00:35 EDT --- (In reply to comment #6) > (In reply to comment #5) > > (In reply to comment #4) > > > Thank you for the review. > > > > > > > > > > 3. Missing build dependency: pygtk2 > > > > > > Weird, it built in mock correctly. > > Upstream list it as a dependency. > > > > > > > 4. Missing run-time dependencies: mobile-broadband-provider-info, > > > > ModemManager > > > > > > Do I need to specify explicit requires? > > I think so. > > > > > These are *not* build deps, they are runtime deps which rpm will figure out on > its own. They do not need to be specified IMO. > > Ankur [elad@E-Desktop noarch]$ rpm -qp --requires ppm-20110323-1.fc15.noarch.rpm/bin/sh /usr/bin/python rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 rpmlib(PartialHardlinkSets) <= 4.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1 Doesn't seems that rpm figures it out automatically. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Petr Pisar 2011-03-29 06:41:30 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: perl-LWP-Protocol-https Short Description: Provide HTTPS support for LWP::UserAgent 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 642592] Review Request: rubygem-macaddr - Cross platform mac address determination for Ruby
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=642592 --- Comment #12 from Michal Fojtik 2011-03-29 07:07:02 EDT --- rev-2: http://mifo.sk/RPMS/rubygem-macaddr.spec http://mifo.sk/RPMS/rubygem-macaddr-1.0.0-2.fc13.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 672543] Review Request: perl-Test-DistManifest - Author test that validates a package MANIFEST
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=672543 --- Comment #5 from Jason Tibbitts 2011-03-29 08:10:05 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 #11 from Jason Tibbitts 2011-03-29 08:10:30 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 691403] Review Request: perl-IO-Stty - Change and print terminal line settings
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691403 --- Comment #3 from Jason Tibbitts 2011-03-29 08:13:07 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 691226] Review Request: perl-HTML-Form - Class that represents an HTML form element
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691226 --- Comment #4 from Jason Tibbitts 2011-03-29 08:12:28 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 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 --- Comment #3 from Jason Tibbitts 2011-03-29 08:12:46 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 #13 from Jason Tibbitts 2011-03-29 08:12:14 EDT --- This SCM request is not valid. You cannot change the summary of a package in pkgdb using an SCM request (as we have no interface by which to change that information). These are processed by script, so please use _only_ the formats given on 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 691403] Review Request: perl-IO-Stty - Change and print terminal line settings
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691403 Marcela Mašláňová changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE Last Closed||2011-03-29 08:42:44 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 Christoph Wickert changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo?(ti...@math.uh.edu ||) --- Comment #14 from Christoph Wickert 2011-03-29 08:48:26 EDT --- I'm sorry, to me this format looked correct because the wiki reads: Package Change Requests for existing packages To request: * [...] * other special git requests, changes to the description, etc [...] The Package Name field is mandatory, and it is recommended to list the Owners. Please only include other fields which need to be changed or updated. That's *exactly* what I did, so I wonder what the proper format would be. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 Jason Tibbitts changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|needinfo?(ti...@math.uh.edu | |) | --- Comment #15 from Jason Tibbitts 2011-03-29 09:05:07 EDT --- This text: If you need other special changes done which cannot be handled by the template field, such as a package that was created with the wrong name that has never been imported or built, or otherwise out of the scope of the template please state your desire and justification below the template in your Bugzilla comment. Is intended to cover that case. There's also the nice warning at the top: Machine processing SCM requests are processed by scripts. Please do not deviate from the prescribed formats or attempt to make up new fields. If you need special processing not indicated here, simply describe what you need in as much detail as possible and raise the flag as normal; an admin will read your request and process it manually. The scripts only look at the final request in a ticket, so please submit only one request at a time. If you need to change something before processing, simply paste in a new request and the previous one will be ignored. And "New Short Description" is certainly a field you made up, so Anyway, since it's simply not possible for an SCM admin to change the description field, I've simply removed mention of it from the document. pkgdb is intended to keep that information updated from what's in the rawhide packages, though that may not currently be enabled. If you absolutely require that the description be changed immediately, please open an infrastructure ticket as someone with direct access to the database will have to make that change. https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 691774] New: Review Request: elastix - Toolbox for rigid and nonrigid registration of images
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: elastix - Toolbox for rigid and nonrigid registration of images https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691774 Summary: Review Request: elastix - Toolbox for rigid and nonrigid registration of images Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: mrcer...@gmail.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://mrceresa.fedorapeople.org/elastix.spec SRPM URL: http://mrceresa.fedorapeople.org/elastix-4.4-1.fc14.src.rpm Description: elastix is a program that registers (matches/aligns) images. The authors use it in their research on the registration of medical image data, but it may be used for any type of images. It supports many registration methods, composed of various transform models (rigid, affine, nonrigid), similarity measures (for example mutual information), optimisation methods (for example gradient descent), interpolation methods (nearest neighbour, linear, cubic), and multi-resolution schemes. Components can easily be plugged in, to allow the user to configure his/her own registration methods. elastix is a command line driven program. Most configuration settings are defined in a parameter file. This makes it possible to use scripts that run registrations with varying parameters, on large databases of images, fully automatically. In this way the effect of each parameter can be thoroughly investigated and different methods can be compared systematically. The program is aimed at research environments. For most applications a nice graphical user interface will be desired, and optimised parameter settings for the specific application CURRENT ISSUES: - it bundles libANN. Needs to be removed - build breaks with make -j 8 on my pc. Manually set to a lower values (-j 4) - Documentation and examples not really packaged -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 539387] Review Request: InsightToolkit - Medical imaging processing 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=539387 Mario Ceresa changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||691774 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 691774] Review Request: elastix - Toolbox for rigid and nonrigid registration of images
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691774 Mario Ceresa changed: What|Removed |Added Alias||elastix -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 691774] Review Request: elastix - Toolbox for rigid and nonrigid registration of images
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691774 Mario Ceresa changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||673841(fedora-medical) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 691774] Review Request: elastix - Toolbox for rigid and nonrigid registration of images
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691774 Mario Ceresa changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||539387(InsightToolkit) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 672561] Review Request: perl-Perl-Critic-Pulp - Some add-on perlcritic policies
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=672561 Bug 672561 depends on bug 672543, which changed state. Bug 672543 Summary: Review Request: perl-Test-DistManifest - Author test that validates a package MANIFEST https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=672543 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 672543] Review Request: perl-Test-DistManifest - Author test that validates a package MANIFEST
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=672543 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Fixed In Version||perl-Test-DistManifest-1.00 ||9-1.fc16 Resolution||RAWHIDE Last Closed||2011-03-29 09:36:02 --- Comment #6 from Petr Pisar 2011-03-29 09:36:02 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 679820] Review Request: drupal7 - An open-source content-management platform
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=679820 Jon Ciesla changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|needinfo?(l...@jcomserv.net | |) | --- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla 2011-03-29 09:44:35 EDT --- Fixed the above, one question, the BSD license is in the COPYRIGHT.txt, is that sufficient? SPEC: http://zanoni.jcomserv.net/fedora/drupal7/drupal7.spec SRPM: http://zanoni.jcomserv.net/fedora/drupal7/drupal7-7.0-3.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 691673] Review Request: perl-Module-Mask - Pretend certain modules are not installed
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691673 --- Comment #1 from Iain Arnell 2011-03-29 10:04:14 EDT --- Koji (success) http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2957067 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 691673] Review Request: perl-Module-Mask - Pretend certain modules are not installed
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691673 Iain Arnell changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 691673] Review Request: perl-Module-Mask - Pretend certain modules are not installed
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691673 Iain Arnell changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|iarn...@gmail.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 690566] Review Request: perl-Perl-Critic-StricterSubs - Perl::Critic plugin for stricter subroutine checks
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=690566
Petr Sabata changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Petr Sabata 2011-03-29 10:07:56 EDT ---
Package: perl-Perl-Critic-StricterSubs
Version: 0.03
Release: 1.fc16
Sources: Perl-Critic-StricterSubs-0.03.tar.gz
Patches:
--
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 and sources match upstream 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
[ -- ] 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:
--
Package seems fine, 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-
[Bug 691673] Review Request: perl-Module-Mask - Pretend certain modules are not installed
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691673 --- Comment #2 from Iain Arnell 2011-03-29 10:22:33 EDT --- APPROVED. The license is a little iffy; the only mention of license is in META.yml. You should really have upstream explicitly state somewhere that it's really under the same terms as Perl itself. koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2957067 Spec looks sane, clean and consistent; license is correct (GPL+ or Artistic); make test passes cleanly. Source tarballs match upstream (sha1sum): 274036bd6329230f37009f16f218ca997f7dbb4e Module-Mask-0.03.tar.gz 274036bd6329230f37009f16f218ca997f7dbb4e Module-Mask-0.03.tar.gz.srpm Final provides / requires are sane: ==> perl-Module-Mask-0.03-1.fc16.noarch.rpm <== > rpmlint 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. > provides perl(Module::Mask) = 0.03 perl-Module-Mask = 0.03-1.fc16 > requires perl(Carp) perl(Carp::Heavy) perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.12.3) perl(Module::Util) >= 1.00 perl(Scalar::Util) perl(strict) perl(warnings) > obsoletes > conflicts ==> perl-Module-Mask-0.03-1.fc16.src.rpm <== > rpmlint 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. > provides > requires perl >= 1:5.8.0 perl(Module::Build) perl(Module::Util) >= 1.00 perl(Test::More) perl(Test::Pod) >= 1.14 perl(Test::Pod::Coverage) >= 1.04 > obsoletes > conflicts > mock install INFO: mock.py version 1.1.9 starting... State Changed: init plugins INFO: selinux enabled State Changed: start Mock Version: 1.1.9 INFO: Mock Version: 1.1.9 State Changed: lock buildroot INFO: installing package(s): perl-Module-Mask-0.03-1.fc16.noarch.rpm INFO: Package Arch Version Repository Size Installing: perl-Module-Masknoarch 0.03-1.fc16 /perl-Module-Mask-0.03-1.fc16.noarch 9.9 k Installing for dependencies: perl-CPAN noarch 1.9402-156.fc16 fedora 246 k perl-Digest-SHA x86_64 1:5.47-156.fc16 fedora 63 k perl-ExtUtils-MakeMaker noarch 6.56-156.fc16 fedora 289 k perl-ExtUtils-ParseXS noarch 1:2.2206-156.fc16 fedora 44 k perl-Module-Utilnoarch 1.07-6.fc15 fedora 22 k perl-Test-Harness noarch 3.17-156.fc16 fedora 239 k perl-devel x86_64 4:5.12.3-156.fc16 fedora 448 k python x86_64 2.7.1-6.fc15 fedora 73 k systemtap-sdt-devel x86_64 1.4-5.fc16fedora 41 k Transaction Summary Install 10 Package(s) Total size: 1.4 M Total download size: 22 k Installed size: 3.9 M Installed: perl-Module-Mask.noarch 0:0.03-1.fc16 Dependency Installed: perl-CPAN.noarch 0:1.9402-156.fc16 perl-Digest-SHA.x86_64 1:5.47-156.fc16 perl-ExtUtils-MakeMaker.noarch 0:6.56-156.fc16 perl-ExtUtils-ParseXS.noarch 1:2.2206-156.fc16 perl-Module-Util.noarch 0:1.07-6.fc15 perl-Test-Harness.noarch 0:3.17-156.fc16 perl-devel.x86_64 4:5.12.3-156.fc16 python.x86_64 0:2.7.1-6.fc15 systemtap-sdt-devel.x86_64 0:1.4-5.fc16 State Changed: unlock buildroot -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 691673] Review Request: perl-Module-Mask - Pretend certain modules are not installed
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691673 Iain Arnell changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Fixed In Version||perl-LWP-Protocol-https-6.0 ||2-2.fc16 Resolution||RAWHIDE Last Closed||2011-03-29 10:36:23 --- Comment #4 from Petr Pisar 2011-03-29 10:36:23 EDT --- Thank you for the review and the repository. I've switched tests off then because they connects to www.apache.org:https. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 690566] Review Request: perl-Perl-Critic-StricterSubs - Perl::Critic plugin for stricter subroutine checks
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=690566 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Petr Pisar 2011-03-29 10:38:26 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: perl-Perl-Critic-StricterSubs Short Description: Perl::Critic plugin for stricter subroutine checks 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 691818] New: Review Request: openpts - TCG Platform Trust Service (PTS) for embedded devices
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: openpts - TCG Platform Trust Service (PTS) for embedded devices https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691818 Summary: Review Request: openpts - TCG Platform Trust Service (PTS) for embedded devices Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: avaga...@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://people.redhat.com/avagarwa/files/openpts/openpts.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/avagarwa/files/openpts/openpts-0.2.3-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: Open Platform Trust Services is a proof-of-concept (PoC) and reference implementation of Platform Trust Services (PTS) which is defined by the Trusted Computing Group (TCG). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 691541] Review Request: icedtea-web - Additional Java components for OpenJDK
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691541
--- Comment #3 from Omair Majid 2011-03-29 10:41:13 EDT ---
Thanks for the fixes. Some more minor issues.
- archbuild, archinstall: are these macros used anywhere? Or is this some
rpm-internal magic?
- Why is the main package exclusive arch? Is it because openjdk is exclusive
arch?
- Javadoc subpackage needs to be built as noarch [1]. Since it does not depend
on the main package, it needs its own copy of COPYING [2].
- %files javadoc uses %{datadir}/javadoc but configure uses %{_javadocdir}
[1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Java#Javadoc_installation
[2]
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#Subpackage_Licensing
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 690566] Review Request: perl-Perl-Critic-StricterSubs - Perl::Critic plugin for stricter subroutine checks
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=690566 --- Comment #3 from Jason Tibbitts 2011-03-29 10:52:13 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 687982] Review Request: dvi2bitmap - convert DVI files to bitmaps
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=687982 --- Comment #4 from Jerry James 2011-03-29 10:57:12 EDT --- I am willing to maintain this package, even with a dead upstream. I need it to produce documentation for another package, which is the one I *really* want in Fedora. :-) The only point to swapping the initializations is to make g++ stop issuing warnings about the initializer order not matching the order of the fields in the class declaration. I like warning-free builds, because then I notice if a new warning pops up. That's all. If you object, I'll drop that patch. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 Lucas Rocha changed: What|Removed |Added CC||lucasr.at.mu...@gmail.com --- Comment #16 from Lucas Rocha 2011-03-29 11:31:45 EDT --- Hi guys, GPLv3 is my intent. The reason TbBox is licensed LGPLv2+ is because I copied it from litl's LGPLv2+-licensed code which was based on Red Hat's Hippo Canvas. To be honest, I'm not sure what is the legally correct thing to do here. In theory, I can just relicense the code "under any version of the GPL since GPLv2"[1]. Not sure it matters much. Thanks! [1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AllCompatibility -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 691673] Review Request: perl-Module-Mask - Pretend certain modules are not installed
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691673 Ralf Corsepius changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Ralf Corsepius 2011-03-29 11:50:31 EDT --- Thanks, once more, Iain. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: perl-Module-Mask Short Description: Pretend certain modules are not installed Owners: corsepiu 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 691673] Review Request: perl-Module-Mask - Pretend certain modules are not installed
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691673 --- Comment #4 from Jason Tibbitts 2011-03-29 12:02:31 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 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
Christoph Wickert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|cwick...@fedoraproject.org
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Comment #4 from Christoph Wickert 2011-03-29
12:24:06 EDT ---
There is a problem with the icon I think: Postler includes internet-mail from
elemantary-icon-theme and installs it to
%{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/scalable/apps/internet-mail.svg. Themed icons/icons
with a generic name should not be in hicolor because we could have another app
providing internet-mail as well and we might run into a file conflict. I
suggest to install it as postler.svg. It's no longer themable then, but this
doesn't really matter because elementary and oxygen are the only packages to
include an icon of the name "internet-mail" anyway.
Stay tuned for a full review.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 691673] Review Request: perl-Module-Mask - Pretend certain modules are not installed
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691673 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 691673] Review Request: perl-Module-Mask - Pretend certain modules are not installed
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691673 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System 2011-03-29 13:10:33 EDT --- perl-Module-Mask-0.03-1.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Module-Mask-0.03-1.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 691673] Review Request: perl-Module-Mask - Pretend certain modules are not installed
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691673 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System 2011-03-29 13:10:25 EDT --- perl-Module-Mask-0.03-1.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Module-Mask-0.03-1.fc13 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 691673] Review Request: perl-Module-Mask - Pretend certain modules are not installed
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691673 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System 2011-03-29 13:10:41 EDT --- perl-Module-Mask-0.03-1.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Module-Mask-0.03-1.fc14 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 691597] Review Request: libopkele - A C++ implementation of the OpenID decentralized identity system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691597 --- Comment #3 from Bryan O'Sullivan 2011-03-29 13:15:13 EDT --- Hi, Hushan - Sorry about that, I got the file name wrong for the SRPM. Here are the corrected links to the spec file with no tabs, and the SRPM built from it: Spec URL: http://www.serpentine.com/bos/files/libopkele.spec SRPM URL: http://www.serpentine.com/bos/files/libopkele-2.0.4-1.fc14.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 690566, which changed state. Bug 690566 Summary: Review Request: perl-Perl-Critic-StricterSubs - Perl::Critic plugin for stricter subroutine checks https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=690566 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 690566] Review Request: perl-Perl-Critic-StricterSubs - Perl::Critic plugin for stricter subroutine checks
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=690566 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Fixed In Version||perl-Perl-Critic-StricterSu ||bs-0.03-1.fc16 Resolution||RAWHIDE Last Closed||2011-03-29 13:21:32 --- Comment #4 from Petr Pisar 2011-03-29 13:21:32 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 404011] Review Request: mythes-pl - Polish thesaurus
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=404011
--- Comment #5 from IBM Bug Proxy 2011-03-29 13:59:05 EDT
---
--- Comment From sach...@in.ibm.com 2010-07-20 04:36 EDT---
This problem can be recreated with snap7. /boot cannot be created on a lvm
partition.
--- Comment From gmue...@de.ibm.com 2010-07-27 10:02 EDT---
(In reply to comment #16)
> These changes made by dcantr...@redhat.com.
> Bugzilla comment added:
> Using zipl_helper.device-mapper from the s390utils package, we can possibly
> support /boot on LVM on s390 via anaconda. This is a feature request as we
> have never done this in the past, so moving this to 6.1 for consideration.
>
> Bugzilla summary changed from 'Cannot mount /boot partition on LVM logical
> group.' to 'RFE: Cannot mount /boot partition on LVM logical group.'
>
> Flag(s) 'devel_ack?, qa_ack?' added
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=618376
Hi David,
till today I thought that s390 was the only arch. that had this restricted, but
it seems that in other archs. was also restricted due to grub, correct?
In any case, I do not think that it is necessary to do more checks that you do
now (were there any checks till now to know at partitioner time if the zipl was
going to be succesfull at the end, with something like zipl --dry-run ?), that
is now that zipl support device mapper, it will support to have /boot on LVM,
assuming that the installer allows it. That helper script is used by zipl, but
the user and/or anaconda does not need to use it.
As for the fix to allow /boot on LVM, you know much better anaconda code than I
do, but maybe I would suggest looking under:
platform.py
def checkBootRequest(self, req):
# can't have bootable partition on LV
if req.type == "lvmlv":
errors.append(_("Bootable partitions cannot be on a logical volume."))
and maybe add "and !s390" with proper sintax.
Regarding RHEL 6.0 or 6.1 is your call to decide if you consider that too risky
now or not, and if it does not go in to RHEL 6.0 we will request it for 6.1.
Hope it helps,
Gonzalo.
--- Comment From m...@de.ibm.com 2010-09-08 08:02 EDT---
Hello Red Hat,
While a fix for this is in work for RHEL6.1,
this issue should have a short entry in RHEL6 release notes
Proposal for R6 release notes - until fix avail. with R6.1
==
Cause
The /boot partition cannot be created and mounted on an LVM logical volume.
Result
The Linux system cannot be booted or IPLed from an LVM logical volume.
Workaround
Create the /boot partition on a DASD or SCSI volume.
Consequence
n/a (same as result)
==
--- Comment From hteng...@in.ibm.com 2010-09-24 00:33 EDT---
(In reply to comment #28)
> These changes made by rle...@redhat.com.
> Diffed Contents:
> @@ -1,2 +1,2 @@
> -When setting up mount points during the RHEL 6 installation on System z, you
> must use a non-LVM volume for /boot. The RHEL 6 installer currently does not
> support having the /boot volume on a logical volume. If you need to have the
> /boot volume on a logical volume, you can do so manually after the
> installation
> on RHEL on System z. Please check zipl
> +The installer currently does not support having the /boot volume on a logical
> volume on the on System z architecture. Consequently, when setting up mount
> points during installation, the /boot volume cannot be a LVM volume. Manual
> configuration after installation is required if the /boot volume is to be on a
> logical volume. Refer to the zipl
> -documentation.+documentation for further information.
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=618376
+The installer currently does not support having the /boot volume on a logical
volume on System z architecture. Consequently, when setting up mount
points during installation, the /boot volume cannot be a LVM volume. Manual
configuration after installation is required if the /boot volume is to be on a
logical volume. Refer to the zipl
-documentation.+documentation for further information.
on the on System z architecture
Please remove extra "on the"
--- Comment From hteng...@in.ibm.com 2011-02-22 02:26 EDT---
Checked on RHEL6.1 early build. The problem is still not fixed.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 404011] Review Request: mythes-pl - Polish thesaurus
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=404011 --- Comment #8 from IBM Bug Proxy 2011-03-29 13:59:39 EDT --- Created attachment 488519 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=488519 anaconda-tb-SYNGeBEtXfQc.xml -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 404011] Review Request: mythes-pl - Polish thesaurus
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=404011 --- Comment #6 from IBM Bug Proxy 2011-03-29 13:59:17 EDT --- Created attachment 488517 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=488517 /boot Not listed in Mount point Dropdown -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 404011] Review Request: mythes-pl - Polish thesaurus
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=404011 --- Comment #7 from IBM Bug Proxy 2011-03-29 13:59:27 EDT --- Created attachment 488518 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=488518 Anaconda Log Rhel6.0 beta2 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 671862] Review Request: synapse - gnome-do alternative (no mono)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=671862
Mamoru Tasaka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Comment #15 from Mamoru Tasaka 2011-03-29
14:41:05 EDT ---
For 0.2.4.1-2
* License tag
- The license tag for this package should be "GPLv3+"
* %{?_isa} specific dependency
- Packages between main pkg and subpkgs should be %?_isa specific.
i.e. synapse-devel should have
"Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}"
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Requires
* BuildRoot line
- is no longer needed
* Timestamps
- Please add "-p" option to "install" (or "cp") commands when
installing files to keep timestamps on installed files.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Timestamps
* %check
- It seems that currently "make check" does nothing, so this can
be removed.
* empty documents
- Unless you have some reason, emtry document files are useless
and should be removed.
> Ok. But, what if someone installs either of them? License and README should be
> in both, don't you think? Maybe the Changelog too?
- Installing -devel subpackage also installs main package because of
packages deps. So including such document files in main package is
sufficient.
> >* "INSTALL" file is generally for people who want to compile / install
> > packages by themselves and not needed for people trying to install
> > them via rpm
>
> I agree... but, since it's part of the package, maybe it shouldn't be
> omitted... maybe somebody want's to verify/upgrade/rebuild the package?
- So as I said, we verify/upgrade/rebuild a package via rpm(build)
and "INSTALL" file need not be installed.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 #8 from Ville Skyttä 2011-03-29 15:03:54 EDT --- (In reply to comment #6) > You can make sub-packages in your package, eg. w3c-linkchecker-apache that > will > supply the configuration files for apache, and do so for every sever you like > (one is enough, if you don't want too many subpackages), and the main package > would only provide the command line application. Yes, that describes the b) option I mentioned, and my opinion about it is unchanged. > C is not an option, it is against the guidelines. No it's not, it's standard packaging practice in certain situations. See "multiple ownership" and "The directory is owned by a package which is not required for your package to function" at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#File_and_Directory_Ownership -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 674188] Review Request: libzeitgeist - Library to access zeitgeist; needed by synapse
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=674188 Mamoru Tasaka changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | Flag||fedora-review+ --- Comment #31 from Mamoru Tasaka 2011-03-29 15:07:37 EDT --- > Removed Rubys geo2 dependency since is not needed; it's provided by > glibc-devel geo2 -> gio2, glibc-devel -> glib2-devel This pacakge (libzeitgeist) is APPROVED by mtasaka Please follow the procedure written on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join from "Install the Client Tools (Koji)". Now I am sponsoring you. If you want to import this package into Fedora 13/14/15, you also have to look at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Bodhi_Guide (after once you rebuilt this package on koji Fedora rebuilding system). When using Fedora SCM system, please check below for reference: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Using_Fedora_GIT If you have questions, please ask me. Removing NEEDSPONSOR. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 671862] Review Request: synapse - gnome-do alternative (no mono)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=671862 Mamoru Tasaka changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 676129] Review Request: qconf - Allows you to have a nice configure script for your qmake-based project
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=676129 --- Comment #7 from Ivan Romanov 2011-03-29 15:29:15 EDT --- I mistake. Have a look at new variant of .spec file https://github.com/drizt/psi-plus/blob/a796fddb7e6da8e1bf7ed17909db9e6a28c9c748/qconf.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 687982] Review Request: dvi2bitmap - convert DVI files to bitmaps
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=687982 --- Comment #5 from Mohamed El Morabity 2011-03-29 15:25:57 EDT --- Ok for the patch :) (In reply to comment #4) > I am willing to maintain this package, even with a dead upstream. I need it > to > produce documentation for another package, which is the one I *really* want in > Fedora. :-) Have you considered patching this other soft to use maybe dvipng instead of dvi2bitmap? It's just a suggestion ^^ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 499993] Review Request: dvtm - Tiling window management for the console
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=43 Adam Miller changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #27 from Adam Miller 2011-03-29 15:34:01 EDT --- Package Change Request == Package Name: dvtm New Branches: el6 Owners: maxamillion Not sure what happened, but dvtm appears to have been missed during the mass branch for EPEL6. -AdamM -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 676159] Review Request: crlibm - Correctly Rounded mathematical 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=676159 --- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System 2011-03-29 15:50:40 EDT --- crlibm-1.0-0.4.beta4.fc14 has been pushed to the Fedora 14 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 688867] Review Request: bharati-m17n - An Input Method based on InScript layout
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=688867 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||bharati-m17n-1.2-1.fc14 Resolution||ERRATA Last Closed||2011-03-29 15:51:02 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 676159] Review Request: crlibm - Correctly Rounded mathematical 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=676159 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||crlibm-1.0-0.4.beta4.fc14 Resolution||ERRATA Last Closed||2011-03-29 15:50:46 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 688867] Review Request: bharati-m17n - An Input Method based on InScript layout
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=688867 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System 2011-03-29 15:50:55 EDT --- bharati-m17n-1.2-1.fc14 has been pushed to the Fedora 14 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 691153] Review Request: pam_shield - pam module to block brute force attacks
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691153 Jeffrey Ness 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 691894] Review Request: pyrit - A GPGPU-driven WPA/WPA2-PSK key cracker
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691894 Tom "spot" Callaway changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: pyrit - |Review Request: pyrit - A ||GPGPU-driven WPA/WPA2-PSK ||key cracker -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 691894] New: Review Request: pyrit -
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: pyrit - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691894 Summary: Review Request: pyrit - Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: tcall...@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://spot.fedorapeople.org/pyrit.spec SRPM URL: http://spot.fedorapeople.org/pyrit-0.4.0-1.fc14.src.rpm Description: Pyrit exploits the computational power of many-core- and GPGPU-platforms to create massive databases, pre-computing part of the WPA/WPA2-PSK authentication phase in a space-time trade-off. It is a powerful attack against one of the world's most used security-protocols. Koji Scratch Build (dist-f15): http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2957971 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 691153] Review Request: pam_shield - pam module to block brute force attacks
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691153
Jeffrey Ness changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jeffrey.n...@rackspace.com
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jeffrey.n...@rackspace.com
--- Comment #3 from Jeffrey Ness 2011-03-29
16:05:53 EDT ---
Hey Carl,
Everything looks good from here. As mentioned you may want to add trailing
slashes to your directories lines (this is purely preference, but allows you to
quickly notice its a directory and not a file).
Also the sed lines are justified over a patch due to flexibility and possible
future changes to the configuration.
--
PASSED MUST HAVE'S:
[ pass ] MUST rpmlint must be run on every package
[ pass ] MUST The package must be named according to the Package Naming
Guidelines
[ pass ] MUST The spec file name must match the base package %{name}
[ pass ] MUST The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license
and meet the Licensing Guidelines
[ pass ] MUST The License field in the package spec file must match the
actual license
[ pass ] MUST If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of
the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc
[ pass ] MUST The spec file must be written in American English.
[ pass ] MUST The sources used to build the package must match the upstream
source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for
this task. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package,
please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this.
[ pass ] MUST The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary
rpms on at least one primary architecture
[ pass ] MUST All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except
for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging
Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply
common sense.
[ pass ] MUST A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does
not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package
which does create that directory.
[ pass ] MUST A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files
listing.
[ pass ] MUST Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should
be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section
must include a %defattr(...) line.
[ pass ] MUST Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
[ pass ] MUST The package must contain code, or permissible content.
[ pass ] MUST Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The
definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but
is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or
quantity).
[ pass ] MUST If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the
program must run properly if it is not present.
[ pass ] MUST Packages must not own files or directories already owned by
other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to
be installed should own the files or directories that other packages
may rely upon. This means, for example, that no package in Fedora
should ever share ownership with any of the files or directories
owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that you have a
good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns,
then please present that at package review time.
[ pass ] MUST At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
[ pass ] MUST All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
SKIPPED MUST HAVE's:
[ skip ] MUST If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on
an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the
spec in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST
have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package
does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST
be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Architecture_Build_Failures
[ skip ] MUST The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by
using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly
forbidden
http://fedorapro
[Bug 687982] Review Request: dvi2bitmap - convert DVI files to bitmaps
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=687982 --- Comment #6 from Jerry James 2011-03-29 16:22:43 EDT --- H, I will have to see how hard that is. Give me a day or two to attempt that conversion before we proceed with this review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 679820] Review Request: drupal7 - An open-source content-management platform
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=679820 Paul W. Frields changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo?(stickster@gmail.c ||om) --- Comment #6 from Paul W. Frields 2011-03-29 16:23:34 EDT --- Yes, I had missed the BSD appearance in COPYRIGHT.txt, sorry. I'll update the review shortly! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 691153] Review Request: pam_shield - pam module to block brute force attacks
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691153 Carl Thompson changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 691153] Review Request: pam_shield - pam module to block brute force attacks
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691153 --- Comment #4 from Carl Thompson 2011-03-29 16:31:14 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: pam_shield Short Description: This is a pam module that supports brute force blocking against pam authentication mechanisms. Owners: redragon Branches: f13 f14 f15 eL5 eL6 InitialCC: redragon -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 613001] Review Request: Heimdal - Alternative Kerberos implementation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=613001 --- Comment #23 from Orion Poplawski 2011-03-29 18:31:31 EDT --- I've put a (heavily) modified version of the package here: http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/heimdal-1.4.1rc2-1.fc14.src.rpm http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/heimdal.spec This starts some of the work needed towards using alternatives in that it renames conflicting files. This is able to be installed in parallel to the MIT krb5-* packages. Many more things need to be done, including: - Set up alternatives. - Set up alternatives for the MIT krb5 package. - Decide what to do about the other utilities (e.g.: ftp, login, pagsh, rcp, rsh, su, telnet) that conflict with other packages. - Heimdal installs a couple items in different locations than MIT does (e.g. /usr/sbin/kadmin vs. /usr/bin/kadmin). Should these be aligned? - test, test, test. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 649495] Review Request: openstack-nova - OpenStack Compute (nova)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=649495 Silas Sewell changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|needinfo?(si...@sewell.ch) | --- Comment #10 from Silas Sewell 2011-03-29 20:28:46 EDT --- Yeah, if someone would like to take it over feel free, I just can't seem to find the time to get it updated, tested and working. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 646808] Review Request: rubygem-tint - Generic interface to multiple Ruby template engines
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=646808 Bug 646808 depends on bug 616048, which changed state. Bug 616048 Summary: Please update rubygem-compass to 0.10.2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=616048 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||NEXTRELEASE 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 691673] Review Request: perl-Module-Mask - Pretend certain modules are not installed
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691673 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System 2011-03-29 22:26:54 EDT --- perl-Module-Mask-0.03-1.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 testing 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 691972] New: Review Request: zanata-python-client - library and client for working with Zanata server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: zanata-python-client - library and client for working with Zanata server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691972 Summary: Review Request: zanata-python-client - library and client for working with Zanata server Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: j...@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://jamesni.fedorapeople.org/zanata-python-client/zanata-python-client.spec SRPM URL: http://jamesni.fedorapeople.org/zanata-python-client/zanata-python-client-1.2.0-1.fc13.src.rpm Description: Hi, I just finished the packaging for zanata-python-client. Zanata Python client is a client that working with Zanata server for creating project and iteration, retrieving info of all the projects on Zanata server, retrieving info of single project or single iteration. It provides functions for pushing or pulling the publican files from/to Zanata server. It also includes functions supporting software projects. Zanata Python client also include a library which provide basic operations for communicating with Zanata server. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 688035] Review Request: perl-CHI - Unified cache handling interface
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=688035 --- Comment #7 from Iain Arnell 2011-03-29 23:02:14 EDT --- Koji (success) http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2959095 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 688035] Review Request: perl-CHI - Unified cache handling interface
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=688035 Iain Arnell changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 688035] Review Request: perl-CHI - Unified cache handling interface
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=688035 --- Comment #8 from Iain Arnell 2011-03-29 23:16:21 EDT --- perl-CHI-Test sub-package is missing two dependencies that will need to be explicitly declared: perl(Test::Deep) and perl(Test::Exception) But other than that, no problems. APPROVED. koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2959095 Spec looks sane, clean and consistent; license is correct (GPL+ or Artistic); make test passes cleanly. Source tarballs match upstream (sha1sum): 7bab997dce1e795724b2ed329b49b91ba148 CHI-0.44.tar.gz 7bab997dce1e795724b2ed329b49b91ba148 CHI-0.44.tar.gz.srpm Final provides / requires are sane: ==> perl-CHI-0.44-2.fc16.noarch.rpm <== > rpmlint 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. > provides perl(CHI) = 0.44 perl-CHI = 0.44-2.fc16 perl(CHI::CacheObject) = 0.44 perl(CHI::Constants) = 0.44 perl(CHI::Driver) = 0.44 perl(CHI::Driver::Base::CacheContainer) = 0.44 perl(CHI::Driver::CacheCache) = 0.44 perl(CHI::Driver::FastMmap) = 0.44 perl(CHI::Driver::File) = 0.44 perl(CHI::Driver::Memory) = 0.44 perl(CHI::Driver::Metacache) = 0.44 perl(CHI::Driver::Null) = 0.44 perl(CHI::Driver::RawMemory) = 0.44 perl(CHI::Driver::Role::HasSubcaches) = 0.44 perl(CHI::Driver::Role::IsSizeAware) = 0.44 perl(CHI::Driver::Role::IsSubcache) = 0.44 perl(CHI::Driver::Role::Universal) = 0.44 perl(CHI::Serializer::JSON) = 0.44 perl(CHI::Serializer::Storable) = 0.44 perl(CHI::Stats) = 0.44 perl(CHI::Types) = 0.44 perl(CHI::Util) = 0.44 > requires perl >= 0:5.006 perl(base) perl(Cache::Cache) perl(Cache::FastMmap) perl(Carp) perl(Carp::Assert) >= 0.20 perl(CHI::CacheObject) perl(CHI::Constants) perl(CHI::Driver::Metacache) perl(CHI::Driver::Role::HasSubcaches) perl(CHI::Driver::Role::IsSizeAware) perl(CHI::Driver::Role::IsSubcache) perl(CHI::Driver::Role::Universal) perl(CHI::Serializer::JSON) perl(CHI::Serializer::Storable) perl(CHI::Stats) perl(CHI::Types) perl(CHI::Util) perl(Class::MOP) perl(constant) perl(Cwd) perl(Data::Dumper) perl(Data::UUID) perl(Digest::JHash) perl(Digest::MD5) perl(Encode) perl(Exporter) perl(Fcntl) perl(File::Basename) perl(File::Find) perl(File::Path) perl(File::Spec::Functions) perl(Hash::MoreUtils) perl(JSON) perl(List::MoreUtils) >= 0.13 perl(Log::Any) >= 0.06 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.12.3) perl(Moose) >= 0.66 perl(Moose::Role) perl(Moose::Util::TypeConstraints) perl(Scalar::Util) perl(Storable) perl(strict) perl(Time::Duration) >= 1.06 perl(Time::Duration::Parse) >= 0.03 perl(Try::Tiny) perl(warnings) > obsoletes > conflicts ==> perl-CHI-0.44-2.fc16.src.rpm <== > rpmlint perl-CHI.src:48: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 48) 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. > provides > requires perl(Cache::FastMmap) perl(Cache::FileCache) perl(Carp::Assert) >= 0.20 perl(Compress::Zlib) perl(Data::UUID) perl(Date::Parse) perl(Digest::JHash) perl(ExtUtils::MakeMaker) perl(File::Spec) >= 0.80 perl(Hash::MoreUtils) perl(JSON) perl(List::MoreUtils) >= 0.13 perl(Log::Any) >= 0.08 perl(Log::Any::Adapter::Dispatch) >= 0.05 perl(Module::Load::Conditional) perl(Module::Mask) perl(Moose) >= 0.66 perl(Storable) perl(Task::Weaken) perl(Test::Builder) perl(Test::Class) perl(Test::Deep) perl(Test::Exception) perl(Test::Log::Dispatch) perl(Test::More) perl(Test::Pod) perl(Test::Warn) perl(Time::Duration) >= 1.06 perl(Time::Duration::Parse) >= 0.03 perl(Try::Tiny) >= 0.05 > obsoletes > conflicts ==> perl-CHI-Test-0.44-2.fc16.noarch.rpm <== > rpmlint perl-CHI-Test.noarch: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. > provides perl(CHI::t::Bugs) = 0.44 perl(CHI::t::Constants) = 0.44 perl(CHI::t::Driver) = 0.44 perl(CHI::t::Driver::CacheCache) = 0.44 perl(CHI::t::Driver::FastMmap) = 0.44 perl(CHI::t::Driver::File) = 0.44 perl(CHI::t::Driver::File::BadTempDriver) = 0.44 perl(CHI::t::Driver::File::DepthZero) = 0.44 perl(CHI::t::Driver::File::NoTempDriver) = 0.44 perl(CHI::t::Driver::Memory) = 0.44 perl(CHI::t::Driver::NonMoose) = 0.44 perl(CHI::t::Driver::RawMemory) = 0.44 perl(CHI::t::Driver::Subcache) = 0.44 perl(CHI::t::Driver::Subcache::l1_cache) = 0.44 perl(CHI::t::Driver::Subcache::mirror_cache) = 0.44 perl(CHI::Test) = 0.44 perl-CHI-Test = 0.44-2.fc16 perl(CHI::Test::Class) = 0.44 perl(CHI::Test::Driver::NonMoose) = 0.44 perl(CHI::Test::Driver::Readonly) = 0.44 perl(CHI::Test::Driver::Role::CheckKeyValidity) = 0.44 perl(CHI::Test::Driver::Writeonly) = 0.44 perl(CHI::Test::Util) = 0.44 perl(CHI::t::GetError) = 0.44 perl(CHI::t::Initialize) = 0.44 perl(CHI::t::Null) = 0.44 perl(CHI::t::RequiredModules) = 0.44 perl(CHI::t::Sanity) = 0.44 perl(CHI::t::SetError) = 0.
[Bug 691153] Review Request: pam_shield - pam module to block brute force attacks
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691153 --- Comment #5 from Jason Tibbitts 2011-03-29 23:33:54 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
