[Bug 696485] New: Review Request: django-countries - Provides a country field for Django models
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: django-countries - Provides a country field for Django models https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=696485 Summary: Review Request: django-countries - Provides a country field for Django models Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: methe...@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://sundaram.fedorapeople.org/packages/django-countries.spec SRPM URL: http://sundaram.fedorapeople.org/packages/django-countries-1.0.5-1.fc15.src.rpm Description: Django application which provides country choices for use with forms, and a country field for models. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 551765] Review Request: prosody - Flexible communications server for Jabber/XMPP
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=551765 Jan Kaluža jkal...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jkal...@redhat.com --- Comment #20 from Jan Kaluža jkal...@redhat.com 2011-04-14 03:34:54 EDT --- Note that the problem with this review is more about lua-sec (that is about SSL support, which is more or less must have for Jabber server). IPV6 is another problem, but it doesn't make Prosody useless in practical usage. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 696516] New: Review Request: django-robots - Robots exclusion application for Django, complementing Sitemaps
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: django-robots - Robots exclusion application for Django, complementing Sitemaps https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=696516 Summary: Review Request: django-robots - Robots exclusion application for Django, complementing Sitemaps Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: methe...@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://sundaram.fedorapeople.org/packages/django-robots.spec SRPM URL: http://sundaram.fedorapeople.org/packages/django-robots-0.8.0-1.fc15.src.rpm Description: Django application to manage robots.txt files following the robots exclusion protocol, complementing the Django Sitemap contrib app. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 696518] New: Review Request: python-rhev - Python binding to Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization's REST API
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: python-rhev - Python binding to Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization's REST API https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=696518 Summary: Review Request: python-rhev - Python binding to Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization's REST API Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: mma...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Spec URL: http://mmahut.fedorapeople.org/reviews/python-rhev/python-rhev.spec SRPM URL: http://mmahut.fedorapeople.org/reviews/python-rhev/python-rhev-0.9-1.el6.20110316git.src.rpm Build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2999006 Description: Python-RHEV is a Python binding to Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization's REST API. Object oriented. Up to Date. Validating. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 640455] Review Request: python-pyro - Pyro is short for PYthon Remote Objects.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=640455 Haïkel Guémar karlthe...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #14 from Haïkel Guémar karlthe...@gmail.com 2011-04-14 04:27:45 EDT --- I re-checked the newly imported packages, all above points are still ok. koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2998993 rpmlint output is ok, make sure to use rpmlint 1.1 (RHBZ #637956: rpmlint 1.0 output false-positive errors on python3 packages). Hereby, i grant my blessing to import python-pyro in fedora packages collection. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 691115] Review Request: python-kombu - AMQP Messaging Framework for Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691115 Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||696527 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 696527] Review Request: django-kombu - Kombu transport using the Django database as a message store
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=696527 Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||691115(python-kombu) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 696527] New: Review Request: django-kombu - Kombu transport using the Django database as a message store
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: django-kombu - Kombu transport using the Django database as a message store https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=696527 Summary: Review Request: django-kombu - Kombu transport using the Django database as a message store Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: methe...@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://sundaram.fedorapeople.org/packages/django-kombu.spec SRPM URL: http://sundaram.fedorapeople.org/packages/django-kombu-0.9.0-1.fc15.src.rpm Description: Django application that enables you to use the Django database as the message store for Kombu. Kombu is an AMQP messaging framework for Python. AMQP is the Advanced Message Queuing Protocol, an open standard protocol for message orientation, queuing, routing, reliability and security. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 692541] Review Request: rep-gtk - GTK+ binding for librep Lisp environment
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=692541 Kim B. Heino b...@bbbs.net changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #9 from Kim B. Heino b...@bbbs.net 2011-04-14 04:43:00 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: rep-gtk Short Description: GTK+ binding for librep Lisp environment Owners: kimheino 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 696518] Review Request: python-rhev - Python binding to Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization's REST API
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=696518 Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk changed: What|Removed |Added CC||lkund...@v3.sk AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|lkund...@v3.sk Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk 2011-04-14 04:43:12 EDT --- Taking it for a ride^Wreview! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 693664] Review Request: supybot-gribble - Cross-platform support bot based on supybot
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=693664 --- Comment #7 from David Riches davi...@ultracar.co.uk 2011-04-14 05:13:48 EDT --- I can ask, but I honestly don't see the point. Gribble does indeed conflict with supybot, because gribble _is_ supybot $(latest) + fixes + extras. I actually think (because of the fixed sqlite issues) its actually better suited to fedora that standard supybot. I'll ask upstream but I doubt it, and I think its a shame to loose this package as a result. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 690728] Review Request: Nitrate - A test case management system written in Django
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=690728
--- Comment #11 from Yuguang Wang yuw...@redhat.com 2011-04-14 05:22:13 EDT
---
(In reply to comment #9)
%{_datadir}/%{name}/*
And after many years, this is still a packaging mistake.
Removed the asterisks from spec file.
(In reply to comment #10)
- source line is invalid. It includes %{release} which would include the
disttag that spectool is called from (e.g. 4.fc15 instead of 4). Any reason
spec releases should have matching tarballs? normally a single tarball is
released per version, and you bump the version number if you need to release a
fix. The spec release simply tracks spec changes
Indeed.
- the comment for the section dealing with static content is just wrong. They
are not being moved from arch-specific Python directories (in fact the
package
is actually noarch anyway) but are copied from the source directory
Wow, thanks!
The newly updated spec file:
https://fedorahosted.org/nitrate/browser/trunk/nitrate/nitrate.spec
And the new srpm:
https://fedorahosted.org/releases/n/i/nitrate/nitrate-3.3.4-1.src.rpm
Hope it works this time, any problems please let me know :)
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 690728] Review Request: Nitrate - A test case management system written in Django
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=690728 --- Comment #12 from Yuguang Wang yuw...@redhat.com 2011-04-14 05:24:59 EDT --- As I had limited internet access in the past few days, it's a bit of delay. Really sorry for my late reply. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 696518] Review Request: python-rhev - Python binding to Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization's REST API
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=696518 --- Comment #3 from Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk 2011-04-14 05:42:14 EDT --- You may also want to package the rhevmsh; it's python as well, should be easy to package up. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 611277] Review Request: python-celery - Task queue/job queue based on distributed message passing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=611277 Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||methe...@gmail.com --- Comment #2 from Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com 2011-04-14 05:41:33 EDT --- This has a dependency on python-importlib only if build against a Python older than 2.7 so it should be a conditional dependency. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 696518] Review Request: python-rhev - Python binding to Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization's REST API
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=696518
Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #2 from Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk 2011-04-14 05:39:58 EDT ---
* Version number correct
* Builds fine in mock
* Filelist sane
* Requires/provides sane
* SPEC file, clean and legible
0.) Not named correctly
The source package should be named rhevm-api; you should use %package -n
python-rhev to make a python-rhev subpackage.
The rationale behind that is that the (source) package name should correspond
to upstream project name. Also, it looks like there are java (and other
languages) sources in the tree, this would make it easier and more consistent
to package them up if someone wishes to.
1.) Revision number not correct
IS: 1%{?dist}.20110316git
SHOULD BE: 1.20110316git%{?dist}
2.) License tag not correct
This is mess and should be fixed upstream: LICENSE file is LGPLv2, while python
files referring to it are MIT:
# This file is part of python-rhev. python-rhev is free software that is
# made available under the MIT license. Consult the file LICENSE that
# is distributed together with this file for the exact licensing terms.
Apparently, there are LGPLv2-ed files there as well though.
3.) python-rhev-0.9-fix-dependencies.patch
Should be submitted upstream.
4.) The description sounds weird:
Python-RHEV is a Python binding to Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization's
REST API. Object oriented. Up to Date. Validating.
Maybe using full sentences would make more sense?
Python-RHEV is a validating object-oriented Python binding to Red Hat
Enterprise Virtualization's REST API.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 696518] Review Request: python-rhev - Python binding to Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization's REST API
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=696518 --- Comment #5 from Marek Mahut mma...@redhat.com 2011-04-14 05:48:45 EDT --- (In reply to comment #3) You may also want to package the rhevmsh; it's python as well, should be easy to package up. I'm working on it :) will be submitted soon http://mmahut.fedorapeople.org/reviews/rhevsh/ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 696518] Review Request: python-rhev - Python binding to Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization's REST API
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=696518 --- Comment #4 from Marek Mahut mma...@redhat.com 2011-04-14 05:47:25 EDT --- 0) I'm in contact with the upsteam and they are planning to split the tarball. The git tree and the tarball contains other pieces of softwere I'm planing submitting for separate review (rhevsh for example) - these are separate packages and should be in separate spec files. 1) Fixed. 2) Confirmed w/ upstream - it's MIT. 3) It is - I'm in active communication w/ upstream. 4) I agree. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 202876] Review Request: perl-Data-Alias - Comprehensive set of aliasing operations
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=202876 Marcela Mašláňová mmasl...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED Resolution|NEXTRELEASE | AssignedTo|ti...@math.uh.edu |nob...@fedoraproject.org Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |perl-Data-Alias |perl-Data-Alias - ||Comprehensive set of ||aliasing operations Flag|fedora-cvs+ | Keywords||Reopened --- Comment #5 from Marcela Mašláňová mmasl...@redhat.com 2011-04-14 06:17:43 EDT --- I'd like to re-review this package, because it was already orphaned. Now upstream live again and they provided new version compatible with 5.12.x Perl and higher. I believe work on it in same ticket make sense, but I can not change reporter, which should be me. SPEC: http://mmaslano.fedorapeople.org/review/perl-Data-Alias.spec SRPM: http://mmaslano.fedorapeople.org/review/perl-Data-Alias-1.12-1.fc14.src.rpm Description: Aliasing is the phenomenon where two different expressions actually refer to the same thing. Modifying one will modify the other, and if you take a reference to both, the two values are the same. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 693425] Review Request: openerp - OpenERP business application
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=693425 --- Comment #28 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com 2011-04-14 07:19:22 EDT --- A fast scan for licenses reveals some more libs: ftpserver, possibly replaced by existing pyftpdlib. rml2pdf, possibly replaced by existing python-trml2pdf. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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] 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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691818 Avesh Agarwal avaga...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo?(m...@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 663405] Review Request: python-sqlamp - Library for working with hierarchical data structures using SQLAlchemy
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=663405 Martin Bacovsky mbaco...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||ERRATA Last Closed||2011-04-14 08:29:00 --- Comment #6 from Martin Bacovsky mbaco...@redhat.com 2011-04-14 08:29:00 EDT --- Built in f14, f15 and rawhide -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 202876] Review Request: perl-Data-Alias - Comprehensive set of aliasing operations
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=202876 --- Comment #6 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2011-04-14 09:15:31 EDT --- Generally it makes far more sense to simply open your own review ticket. You can close this one as a duplicate. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 696345] Review Request: eclipse-mylyn-commons - Common plug-ins/libraries for eclipse-mylyn
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=696345 Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||akurt...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|akurt...@redhat.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com 2011-04-14 09:59:44 EDT --- I'll do this now. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 696345] Review Request: eclipse-mylyn-commons - Common plug-ins/libraries for eclipse-mylyn
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=696345
--- Comment #2 from Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com 2011-04-14
10:47:02 EDT ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[!] Rpmlint output:
eclipse-mylyn-commons.noarch: W: no-documentation
You have to add
org.eclipse.mylyn.commons/org.eclipse.mylyn.commons-feature/epl-v10.html as
%doc
eclipse-mylyn-commons.noarch: W: dangling-symlink
/usr/share/eclipse/dropins/mylyn-commons/eclipse/plugins/jaxmeapi.jar
/usr/share/java/jaxme/jaxmeapi.jar
eclipse-mylyn-commons.noarch: W: dangling-symlink
/usr/share/eclipse/dropins/mylyn-commons/eclipse/plugins/json.jar
/usr/share/java/json.jar
eclipse-mylyn-commons.noarch: W: dangling-symlink
/usr/share/eclipse/dropins/mylyn-commons/eclipse/plugins/apache-commons-io.jar
/usr/share/java/apache-commons-io.jar
eclipse-mylyn-commons.noarch: W: dangling-symlink
/usr/share/eclipse/dropins/mylyn-commons/eclipse/plugins/apache-commons-logging-api.jar
/usr/share/java/apache-commons-logging-api.jar
eclipse-mylyn-commons.noarch: W: dangling-symlink
/usr/share/eclipse/dropins/mylyn-commons/eclipse/plugins/xmlrpc3-common.jar
/usr/share/java/xmlrpc3-common.jar
eclipse-mylyn-commons.noarch: W: dangling-symlink
/usr/share/eclipse/dropins/mylyn-commons/eclipse/plugins/jdom.jar
/usr/share/java/jdom.jar
eclipse-mylyn-commons.noarch: W: dangling-symlink
/usr/share/eclipse/dropins/mylyn-commons/eclipse/plugins/ws-commons-util.jar
/usr/share/java/ws-commons-util.jar
eclipse-mylyn-commons.noarch: W: dangling-symlink
/usr/share/eclipse/dropins/mylyn-commons/eclipse/plugins/xmlrpc3-client.jar
/usr/share/java/xmlrpc3-client.jar
eclipse-mylyn-commons.noarch: W: dangling-symlink
/usr/share/eclipse/dropins/mylyn-commons/eclipse/plugins/apache-commons-lang.jar
/usr/share/java/apache-commons-lang.jar
Not a problem.
[x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines[1].
[x] Spec file name must match the base package name, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines[2].
[x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms.
[x] Buildroot definition is not present
[x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines[3,4].
[x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type: EPL
[!] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package is included in %doc.
[x] All independent sub-packages have license of their own
[x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines[5].
[x] Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x] Permissions on files are set properly.
[!] Package does NOT have a %clean section which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}
(or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). (not needed anymore)
[!] Package consistently uses macros (no %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
mixing)
[x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[x] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
[x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[-] Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
subpackage
[-] Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlinks)
[x] Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
[-] Javadoc subpackages have Require: jpackage-utils
[-] Package uses %global not %define
[x] If package uses tarball from VCS include comment how to re-create that
tarball (svn export URL, git clone URL, ...)
[x] If source tarball includes bundled jar/class files these need to be
removed prior to building
[x] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
[-] Jar files are installed to %{_javadir}/%{name}.jar (see [6] for details)
[-] If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even when
building with ant
[-] pom files has correct add_to_maven_depmap call which resolves to the pom
file (use JPP. and JPP- correctly)
=== Issues ===
1. Install epl file as %doc.
2. Remove %clean section and cleaning of buildroot from beginning of %install
3. Use %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT consistently.
4. Are you sure that you need to BR eclipse-cdt? It is not put on the pdebuild
path so it should not be needed.
5. Why do you replace qualifier
[Bug 692541] Review Request: rep-gtk - GTK+ binding for librep Lisp environment
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=692541 --- Comment #10 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2011-04-14 11:02:55 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 696345] Review Request: eclipse-mylyn-commons - Common plug-ins/libraries for eclipse-mylyn
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=696345 --- Comment #4 from Severin Gehwolf sgehw...@redhat.com 2011-04-14 11:29:34 EDT --- Spec-file and SRPM updated as linked above. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 696345] Review Request: eclipse-mylyn-commons - Common plug-ins/libraries for eclipse-mylyn
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=696345
--- Comment #3 from Severin Gehwolf sgehw...@redhat.com 2011-04-14 11:29:01
EDT ---
Thanks for the review.
(In reply to comment #2)
=== Issues ===
1. Install epl file as %doc.
2. Remove %clean section and cleaning of buildroot from beginning of %install
3. Use %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT consistently.
All fixed.
4. Are you sure that you need to BR eclipse-cdt? It is not put on the pdebuild
path so it should not be needed.
Isn't needed. Fixed.
5. Why do you replace qualifier manually in %prep? Isn't it done by pdebuild
automatically?
Good point. Doesn't seem to be needed.
Let me know if there are other issues.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 696518] Review Request: python-rhev - Python binding to Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization's REST API
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=696518 --- Comment #6 from Marek Mahut mma...@redhat.com 2011-04-14 11:31:25 EDT --- The new python-rhev package is located at http://mmahut.fedorapeople.org/reviews/python-rhev/python-rhev-0.9-1.20110316git.fc12.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 696345] Review Request: eclipse-mylyn-commons - Common plug-ins/libraries for eclipse-mylyn
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=696345 Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com 2011-04-14 11:33:21 EDT --- All good. Only issue is when you do changes you should add a changelog entry and bump the release. APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 696345] Review Request: eclipse-mylyn-commons - Common plug-ins/libraries for eclipse-mylyn
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=696345 --- Comment #6 from Severin Gehwolf sgehw...@redhat.com 2011-04-14 11:46:02 EDT --- (In reply to comment #5) All good. Only issue is when you do changes you should add a changelog entry and bump the release. Noted. Thanks! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 696345] Review Request: eclipse-mylyn-commons - Common plug-ins/libraries for eclipse-mylyn
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=696345 Severin Gehwolf sgehw...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 696345] Review Request: eclipse-mylyn-commons - Common plug-ins/libraries for eclipse-mylyn
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=696345 --- Comment #7 from Severin Gehwolf sgehw...@redhat.com 2011-04-14 12:01:37 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: eclipse-mylyn-commons Short Description: Eclipse Mylyn common libraries/plug-ins. Owners: jerboaa akurtakov Branches: f15 InitialCC: overholt -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 551765] Review Request: prosody - Flexible communications server for Jabber/XMPP
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=551765 --- Comment #21 from Matej Cepl mc...@redhat.com 2011-04-14 12:08:08 EDT --- (In reply to comment #19) Wouldn't it be worthy to keep prosody and lua-spec packages at least in http://repos.fedorapeople.org/ until the issue will be reconciled somehow? Just to note that the repository on http://repos.fedorapeople.org/repos/mcepl/prosody/ has been updated to prosody 0.8 (I am missing lua-dbi package, so still using old plain text only storage). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 696518] Review Request: python-rhev - Python binding to Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization's REST API
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=696518 Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #7 from Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk 2011-04-14 12:09:11 EDT --- * License tag correct * license text included * Revision number corrected And finally the comments are a good excuse for the package's name. APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 696357] Review Request: fedora-logo-gnome-shell-extension - adds a Fedora logo to Gnome shell's Activities button
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=696357 Mohamed El Morabity pikachu.2...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 696357] Review Request: fedora-logo-gnome-shell-extension - adds a Fedora logo to Gnome shell's Activities button
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=696357 Mohamed El Morabity pikachu.2...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pikachu.2...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|pikachu.2...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Mohamed El Morabity pikachu.2...@gmail.com 2011-04-14 12:19:15 EDT --- I will review this package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 696518] Review Request: python-rhev - Python binding to Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization's REST API
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=696518 Marek Mahut mma...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #8 from Marek Mahut mma...@redhat.com 2011-04-14 12:17:41 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-rhev Short Description: Python binding to Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization's REST API Owners: mmahut Branches: f14 f15 el6 el5 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 691818] 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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691818 Miloslav Trmač m...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|needinfo?(m...@redhat.com) |needinfo?(avagarwa@redhat.c ||om) --- Comment #3 from Miloslav Trmač m...@redhat.com 2011-04-14 12:45:05 EDT --- Thanks for the update. blocker: (In reply to comment #2) (In reply to comment #1) * Source0: points to a HTML page. If it is possible to use something similar to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Sourceforge.net to get a direct URL to the tarball, this should be done. This problem is not a blocker if no such option exists, obviously. Can you please check again, because for me, it points to the file and lets me download the package? This is what I get: $ wget 'http://sourceforge.jp/projects/openpts/downloads/51233/openpts-0.2.3.tgz' ... --2011-04-14 18:35:32-- http://sourceforge.jp/projects/openpts/downloads/51233/openpts-0.2.3.tgz/ Length: unspecified [text/html] Saving to: „index.html“ ... and the file indeed contains HTML. Are you seeing something different? Is it possible that the behavior depends on the location of the client? non-blocker: * Including the documenation from doc/ would probably be useful to users. Please also consider including ChangeLog in %doc. Fixed. I was thinking more of the manuals; the .eps files are included in the .tex files and probably not intended to be shipped stand-alone. It seems that the manuals are not built by default. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 692466] Review Request: rubygem-kwalify - A parser and schema validator for YAML and JSON
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=692466 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-04-14 13:14:24 EDT --- rubygem-kwalify-0.7.2-3.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rubygem-kwalify-0.7.2-3.fc15 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 692466] Review Request: rubygem-kwalify - A parser and schema validator for YAML and JSON
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=692466 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-04-14 13:14:08 EDT --- rubygem-kwalify-0.7.2-3.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rubygem-kwalify-0.7.2-3.fc14 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 692466] Review Request: rubygem-kwalify - A parser and schema validator for YAML and JSON
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=692466 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 692466] Review Request: rubygem-kwalify - A parser and schema validator for YAML and JSON
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=692466 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-04-14 13:14:16 EDT --- rubygem-kwalify-0.7.2-3.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rubygem-kwalify-0.7.2-3.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 680657] Review Request: mpdas - An MPD audioscrobbling client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=680657
--- Comment #8 from Ankur Sinha sanjay.an...@gmail.com 2011-04-14 13:22:54
EDT ---
Hey,
Fresh builds:
http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/mpdas/mpdas.spec
http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/mpdas/mpdas-0.3.0-2.fc16.i686.rpm
The tap spacing has been corrected.
rpmlint doesn't complain about the debuginfo anymore. I'll confirm the usage of
CFLAGS etc though
[ankur@ankur SPECS]$ rpmlint mpdas.spec ../SRPMS/mpdas-0.3.0-2.fc14.src.rpm
/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/result/*.rpm
mpdas.spec:15: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(md5-deutsch)
mpdas.spec:29: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %build export CONFIG=%{_sysconfdir}
PREFIX=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_prefix} MANPREFIX=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_mandir}
CXXFLAGS+=$RPM_OPT_FLAGS
mpdas.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) audioscrobbling - audiological,
audiocassette, audiovisuals
mpdas.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libmpd - libido, limpid,
Librium
mpdas.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libcurl - lib curl,
lib-curl, liberal
mpdas.src:15: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(md5-deutsch)
mpdas.src:29: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %build export CONFIG=%{_sysconfdir}
PREFIX=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_prefix} MANPREFIX=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_mandir}
CXXFLAGS+=$RPM_OPT_FLAGS
mpdas.i686: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) audioscrobbling - audiological,
audiocassette, audiovisuals
mpdas.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libmpd - libido, limpid,
Librium
mpdas.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libcurl - lib curl,
lib-curl, liberal
mpdas.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) audioscrobbling - audiological,
audiocassette, audiovisuals
mpdas.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libmpd - libido, limpid,
Librium
mpdas.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libcurl - lib curl,
lib-curl, liberal
mpdas.src:15: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(md5-deutsch)
mpdas.src:29: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %build export CONFIG=%{_sysconfdir}
PREFIX=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_prefix} MANPREFIX=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_mandir}
CXXFLAGS+=$RPM_OPT_FLAGS
4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 15 warnings.
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 691818] 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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691818 Avesh Agarwal avaga...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|needinfo?(avagarwa@redhat.c |needinfo?(m...@redhat.com) |om) | --- Comment #4 from Avesh Agarwal avaga...@redhat.com 2011-04-14 14:07:49 EDT --- (In reply to comment #3) Thanks for the update. blocker: (In reply to comment #2) (In reply to comment #1) * Source0: points to a HTML page. If it is possible to use something similar to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Sourceforge.net to get a direct URL to the tarball, this should be done. This problem is not a blocker if no such option exists, obviously. Can you please check again, because for me, it points to the file and lets me download the package? This is what I get: $ wget 'http://sourceforge.jp/projects/openpts/downloads/51233/openpts-0.2.3.tgz' ... --2011-04-14 18:35:32-- http://sourceforge.jp/projects/openpts/downloads/51233/openpts-0.2.3.tgz/ Length: unspecified [text/html] Saving to: „index.html“ ... and the file indeed contains HTML. Are you seeing something different? Is it possible that the behavior depends on the location of the client? I am seeing same behaviour with wget. However, if you try to download by clicking on the link that takes a bit of time before it asks you to save the file. Not sure if this is the reason that wget can not download and outputs this error Length: unspecified [text/html]. Anyway that is the only upstream link I have right now. Please let me know if this is OK to go ahead. non-blocker: * Including the documenation from doc/ would probably be useful to users. Please also consider including ChangeLog in %doc. Fixed. I was thinking more of the manuals; the .eps files are included in the .tex files and probably not intended to be shipped stand-alone. It seems that the manuals are not built by default. You are right and since *.tex are not compiled to get pdf or eps, I did not want to include them. If you want, I can remove *.eps. Although I though that something is better than nothing ;-) . Again, please let me know as the above things are not blocker, then is it OK to get ahead with the review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 692466] Review Request: rubygem-kwalify - A parser and schema validator for YAML and JSON
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=692466 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-04-14 14:12:18 EDT --- rubygem-kwalify-0.7.2-3.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rubygem-kwalify-0.7.2-3.el6 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 692466] Review Request: rubygem-kwalify - A parser and schema validator for YAML and JSON
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=692466 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-04-14 14:12:11 EDT --- rubygem-kwalify-0.7.2-3.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rubygem-kwalify-0.7.2-3.el5 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 691818] 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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691818 Miloslav Trmač m...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review?, |fedora-review+ |needinfo?(m...@redhat.com) | --- Comment #5 from Miloslav Trmač m...@redhat.com 2011-04-14 14:21:17 EDT --- (In reply to comment #4) (In reply to comment #3) (In reply to comment #2) (In reply to comment #1) * Source0: points to a HTML page. If it is possible to use something similar to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Sourceforge.net to get a direct URL to the tarball, this should be done. This problem is not a blocker if no such option exists, obviously. I am seeing same behaviour with wget. However, if you try to download by clicking on the link that takes a bit of time before it asks you to save the file. Not sure if this is the reason that wget can not download and outputs this error Length: unspecified [text/html]. Right, this is done inside the html file. So using this URL won't work with automated Source: checkers and the like. Anyway that is the only upstream link I have right now. Please let me know if this is OK to go ahead. We don't have anything better, so this will have to do. non-blocker: * Including the documenation from doc/ would probably be useful to users. Please also consider including ChangeLog in %doc. Fixed. I was thinking more of the manuals; the .eps files are included in the .tex files and probably not intended to be shipped stand-alone. It seems that the manuals are not built by default. You are right and since *.tex are not compiled to get pdf or eps, I did not want to include them. If you want, I can remove *.eps. Although I though that something is better than nothing ;-) . Again, please let me know as the above things are not blocker, then is it OK to get ahead with the review? Sure. ACCEPting openpts-0.2.3-2.fc16.src.rpm . -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 691818] 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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691818 Avesh Agarwal avaga...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Avesh Agarwal avaga...@redhat.com 2011-04-14 14:37:07 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: openpts Short Description: TCG Platform Trust Service (PTS) for embedded devices Owners: avesh Branches: f14 f15 f16 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 691818] 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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691818 --- Comment #7 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2011-04-14 14:54:41 EDT --- It is far too early to request f16 branches; f15 hasn't even been released yet. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 652623] Review Request: erlang-bitcask - Eric Brewer-inspired key/value store
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652623 --- Comment #7 from Ville-Pekka Vainio vpiva...@cs.helsinki.fi 2011-04-14 15:02:11 EDT --- Ping? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 652623] Review Request: erlang-bitcask - Eric Brewer-inspired key/value store
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652623 --- Comment #8 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com 2011-04-14 15:41:24 EDT --- (In reply to comment #7) Ping? Hello. Unfortunately upstream still not added licensing information to files in question. I'll try tofind whether could I just rewrite these problematic files (this doesn't looks like a big deal). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 695745] Review Request: wso2-wsf-cpp - Web Services Framework for C++
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=695745 --- Comment #6 from Robert Rati rr...@redhat.com 2011-04-14 16:10:45 EDT --- New package: http://rrati.fedorapeople.org/wso2-wsf-cpp-2.1.0-1.fc14.src.rpm Changes include: - Redo of the apache2 modules, only 1 needed/created - Removed the minizip and sqlite source code from the upstream tarball -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 695022] Review Request: pygtkhelpers - assists the building of PyGTK applications
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=695022 --- Comment #4 from Lukáš Zapletal l...@redhat.com 2011-04-14 16:11:10 EDT --- All done. Please do formal review, thank you. [lzap@lzapx i686]$ rpmlint pygtkhelpers-*.rpm pygtkhelpers.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US frameworky - framework, frameworks, framework y pygtkhelpers.i686: E: no-binary pygtkhelpers-debuginfo.i686: E: empty-debuginfo-package 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings. [lzap@lzapx SRPMS]$ rpmlint pygtkhelpers-0.4.2-2.f15.src.rpm pygtkhelpers.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US frameworky - framework, frameworks, framework y 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. http://lzap.fedorapeople.org/fedora-packaging/pygtkhelpers/0.4.2-2/ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 695022] Review Request: pygtkhelpers - assists the building of PyGTK applications
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=695022
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Spura toms...@fedoraproject.org 2011-04-14
16:41:46 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #4)
[lzap@lzapx i686]$ rpmlint pygtkhelpers-*.rpm
pygtkhelpers.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US frameworky -
framework, frameworks, framework y
pygtkhelpers.i686: E: no-binary
pygtkhelpers-debuginfo.i686: E: empty-debuginfo-package
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings.
This package only installs into %{python_sitelib} and not in
%{python_sitearch}, so this package can be noarch and no debuginfo package will
be generated.
I think the license is unclear...
The website links to LGPLv3 and there is a LGPLv3 LICENSE file in it, but the
header say LGPLv2+, it would be best to clarify 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 598511] Review Request: libgtextutils - Assaf Gordon text utilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=598511 --- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-04-14 16:52:52 EDT --- libgtextutils-0.6-5.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 693037] Review Request: perl-Test-HasVersion - Check Perl modules have version numbers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=693037 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-04-14 16:52:33 EDT --- perl-Test-HasVersion-0.012-1.fc13 has been pushed to the Fedora 13 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 693042] Review Request: perl-MooseX-ChainedAccessors - Accessor class for chained accessors with Moose
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=693042 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-04-14 16:55:01 EDT --- perl-MooseX-ChainedAccessors-0.02-1.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 693037] Review Request: perl-Test-HasVersion - Check Perl modules have version numbers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=693037 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-04-14 16:53:12 EDT --- perl-Test-HasVersion-0.012-1.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 693037] Review Request: perl-Test-HasVersion - Check Perl modules have version numbers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=693037 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||perl-Test-HasVersion-0.012- ||1.fc13 Resolution||ERRATA Last Closed||2011-04-14 16:52:38 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 693042] Review Request: perl-MooseX-ChainedAccessors - Accessor class for chained accessors with Moose
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=693042 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||perl-MooseX-ChainedAccessor ||s-0.02-1.fc14 Resolution||ERRATA Last Closed||2011-04-14 16:55:06 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 598511] Review Request: libgtextutils - Assaf Gordon text utilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=598511 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version||libgtextutils-0.6-5.fc14 Resolution|NEXTRELEASE |ERRATA -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 689432] Review Request: collada-dom - COLLADA Document Object Model 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=689432 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||collada-dom-2.3-2.fc14 Resolution||ERRATA Last Closed||2011-04-14 16:55:19 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 693037] Review Request: perl-Test-HasVersion - Check Perl modules have version numbers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=693037 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|perl-Test-HasVersion-0.012- |perl-Test-HasVersion-0.012- |1.fc13 |1.fc14 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 690038] Review Request: ompl - The Open Motion Planning 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=690038
--- Comment #1 from David Robinson zxvdr...@gmail.com 2011-04-14 16:54:32 EDT
---
Hi Rich,
Just doing an informal review to help my case of being sponsored :-)
**: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build
produces. The output should be posted in the review.[1]
[zxvdr@laptop SRPMS]$ rpmlint ompl-0.9.2-1.fc15.src.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[zxvdr@laptop x86_64]$ rpmlint ompl-0.9.2-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm
ompl.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libompl.so libompl.so
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings.
The missing soversion is a blocker - it needs to be fixed.
OK: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
OK: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [2] .
OK: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
OK: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines .
OK: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
[3]
OK: 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.[4]
OK: The spec file must be written in American English. [5]
OK: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [6]
OK: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[zxvdr@laptop SOURCES]$ md5sum ompl-0.9.2-Source.tar.gz
70ce9020edca3e6cec8ea070d390ba9e ompl-0.9.2-Source.tar.gz
[zxvdr@laptop SOURCES]$ wget
http://downloads.sourceforge.net/project/ompl/ompl-0.9.2-Source.tar.gz -q -O -
| md5sum
70ce9020edca3e6cec8ea070d390ba9e -
OK: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture. [7]
OK: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch.
**: 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.
README.txt specifies that Boost 1.42 or higher and CMake 2.8.2 or higher are
dependencies - BuildRequires should reflect this, eg:
BuildRequires: cmake = 2.8.2
BuildRequires: boost = 1.42
NA: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.[9]
OK: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files
(not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call
ldconfig in %post and %postun. [10]
OK: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.[11]
NA: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this
fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation
of that specific package.
OK: 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. [13]
OK: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific situations)[14]
OK: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with
executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
%defattr(...) line. [15]
OK: Each package must consistently use macros. [16]
OK: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [17]
OK: 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.
OK: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of
the application.
OK: Header files must be in a -devel package. [19]
NA: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [20]
**: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1),
then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel
package. [19]
Missing soversion...
OK: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package
using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} =
%{version}-%{release} [21]
OK: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed
in the spec if they are built.[20]
NA: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file,
and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the
%install section.
OK: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages.
OK: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [24]
The SHOULD's:
NA: If the source
[Bug 693034] Review Request: perl-MooseX-Aliases - Easy aliasing of methods and attributes in Moose
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=693034 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-04-14 16:57:46 EDT --- perl-MooseX-Aliases-0.09-1.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 689432] Review Request: collada-dom - COLLADA Document Object Model 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=689432 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-04-14 16:55:14 EDT --- collada-dom-2.3-2.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 691081] Review Request: erlang-erlzmq2 - Erlang binding for ZeroMQ
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691081 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-04-14 16:57:23 EDT --- erlang-erlzmq2-0-1.20110411gitec60b1d.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/erlang-erlzmq2-0-1.20110411gitec60b1d.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 691081] Review Request: erlang-erlzmq2 - Erlang binding for ZeroMQ
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691081 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 693034] Review Request: perl-MooseX-Aliases - Easy aliasing of methods and attributes in Moose
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=693034 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||perl-MooseX-Aliases-0.09-1. ||fc14 Resolution||ERRATA Last Closed||2011-04-14 16:57:51 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 696345] Review Request: eclipse-mylyn-commons - Common plug-ins/libraries for eclipse-mylyn
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=696345 --- Comment #8 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2011-04-14 17:03:43 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 696813] New: Review Request: eclipse-mylyn-context - Eclipse Mylyn task focused plug-ins
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: eclipse-mylyn-context - Eclipse Mylyn task focused plug-ins https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=696813 Summary: Review Request: eclipse-mylyn-context - Eclipse Mylyn task focused plug-ins Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: sgehw...@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://fedorapeople.org/~jerboaa/rpm/mylyn/eclipse-mylyn-context.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~jerboaa/rpm/mylyn/eclipse-mylyn-context-3.5.0-1.fc15.src.rpm Description: Provides the Eclipse Mylyn Task-Focused Interface. This source RPM depends on eclipse-mylyn and eclipse-mylyn-commons. To make it easier for the reviewer, I'm providing binary RPMs for them here: http://fedorapeople.org/~jerboaa/rpm/mylyn/bin-rpms/ If someone prefers SRPMs, they can be found here: http://fedorapeople.org/~jerboaa/rpm/mylyn/ Thanks for reviewing :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 675009] Review Request: c3p0 - JDBC DataSources/Resource Pools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=675009 Spike spikefed...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||spikefed...@gmail.com --- Comment #2 from Spike spikefed...@gmail.com 2011-04-14 20:25:17 EDT --- Maven depmap fragment, please :) Since upstream doesn't provide a pom.xml - http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 682666] Review Request: DeTex - A program to remove TeX constructs from a text file
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=682666 Mohamed El Morabity pikachu.2...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|pikachu.2...@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 682666] Review Request: DeTex - A program to remove TeX constructs from a text file
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=682666
Mohamed El Morabity pikachu.2...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||pikachu.2...@gmail.com
--- Comment #2 from Mohamed El Morabity pikachu.2...@gmail.com 2011-04-14
21:19:40 EDT ---
Since I *really* need this tool, I'd be glad to review it.
Some comments:
* your patch could be *really* simplified:
- the flex package provides also lex, which is a symbolic link to flex ;
- in the same way, libl.a is provided by the flex-static package and is a
symbolic link to libfl.a
As a result, modifying the LEX and LEXLIB variables in your patch is
useless.
You could even skip the « make install ... » instruction in %install in your
.spec, and manually install the binary and the man page, like below:
%install
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
install -Dpm 755 detex $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_bindir}/detex
install -Dpm 644 detex.1l $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_mandir}/man1/detex.1l
(notice the -p option of install to preserve timestamp during installation).
* detex is not compiled using the Fedora standard flags ($RPM_OPT_FLAGS). It
appears clearly in compilation logs. Moreover the generated *-debug package is
unusable. You must set the CFLAGS when calling make:
%build
make CFLAGS=$RPM_OPT_FLAGS
You can even add to CFLAGS the « -DNO_MALLOC_DECL » option you enabled on your
patch; by this way, the patch is useless and can be removed from your package:
%build
make CFLAGS=$RPM_OPT_FLAGS -DNO_MALLOC_DECL
* The 1l section for man pages is sometimes intended for programs installed in
/usr/local. This may be the reason for the man page to be suffixed « 1l ».
Whatever the explanation, it's not correct. I suggest you to rename the man
page to « detex.1 »: in %install, simply:
%install
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
install -Dpm 755 detex $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_bindir}/detex
install -Dpm 644 detex.1l $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_mandir}/man1/detex.1
(dont forget to fix it also in %files section of your .spec).
As a result, you should also patch the man page and replace each occurence of «
1L » to « 1 ».
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 682786] Review Request: gpick - Advanced color picker written in C++ using GTK+ toolkit
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=682786 --- Comment #6 from Mohamed El Morabity pikachu.2...@gmail.com 2011-04-14 21:22:02 EDT --- Are you still OK with this package? Do you need any kind of help? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 694287] Review Request: openCOLLADA - 3D import and export libraries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=694287 --- Comment #18 from Richard Shaw hobbes1...@gmail.com 2011-04-14 22:29:39 EDT --- (In reply to comment #13) # c++filt _ZN6Common4ftoaEfPc _ZN6Common4dtoaEdPcb Common::ftoa(float, char*) Common::dtoa(double, char*, bool) Check for a library or header providing these two symbols. Thanks for the hint! I actually created a patch (albeit an UGLY patch) for rpmlint to do this for me. Upstream cleaned it up so it will be included in a future release. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=696749 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 694287] Review Request: openCOLLADA - 3D import and export libraries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=694287 --- Comment #19 from Richard Shaw hobbes1...@gmail.com 2011-04-14 22:40:40 EDT --- (In reply to comment #17) 2 issues: * The tarball contains a lot of bundled libraries (cf, Externals/). cf? This is problematic twice: - In general, the Fedora package should not not use them. - These packages' licenses need to be checked for whether they are properly licensed and whether these package's licenses are compatible to openCOLLADA's license. From a coarse glance into tarball, I'd suspect Externals/MathMLSolver not to be properly licensed (I can't find any licence). Googling however directed me to http://mathmlsolver.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/mathmlsolver/trunk, but I haven't checked details, yet. Drilled down to the actual SF page at it says it is MIT licensed. How do we handle that? I ran into this problem on RPMFusion and the decision was to put comments above the License: tag explaining which parts had what license. * The package naming seems inconsistent to me: libOpenCOLLADA vs. OpenCOLLADA-devel The FPG would recommend using the tarball name, which would mean to name the packages openCOLLADA and openCOLLADA-devel The current naming was how the Suse maintainer set it up and I'm sure their rules differ in many areas. For the purpose of the Fedora package I'll change the name. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 696357] Review Request: fedora-logo-gnome-shell-extension - adds a Fedora logo to Gnome shell's Activities button
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=696357 --- Comment #2 from Mohamed El Morabity pikachu.2...@gmail.com 2011-04-14 22:54:17 EDT --- A quite good package, simple but works well :). A few comments anyway: * maybe your package should be renamed « gnome-shell-extension-fedora-logo » or « gnome-shell-fedora-logo », at least to respect the naming guidelines for addons packages (see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageNamingGuidelines#Addon_Packages_.28General.29). * the fedora-logos package provides a « system-logos » capacity, as well as the generic-logos package (and probably the redhat-logos in RHEL also). Why not setting system-logos as Requires instead of fedora-logos, so that your package would be usable without any change in Fedora as well as in any Fedora-derivated distribution? * about the URL tag: why not simply use http://sources.venemo.net/? The URL tag is intended to point to the project website, no matter how small it is. If it's not the solution you prefer, you could create a basic page in your fedorapeople.org space (or wherever you can) containing the description of the package and links to the sources. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 694287] Review Request: openCOLLADA - 3D import and export libraries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=694287 --- Comment #20 from Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de 2011-04-14 23:08:43 EDT --- (In reply to comment #19) (In reply to comment #17) 2 issues: * The tarball contains a lot of bundled libraries (cf, Externals/). cf? Compare for the contents of the directory called Externals/ inside of the tarball. It contains zlib, Cg,, libxml, lib3ds and other libraries. A more detailed look into the package tells that openCOLLADA currently only uses MathMLSolver/ and UTF/. = Make sure the other directories are not being used when building for Fedora. Brute-force way to do so would be to remove them in %prep (This is what a recent change to the FPG recommends). This is problematic twice: - In general, the Fedora package should not not use them. - These packages' licenses need to be checked for whether they are properly licensed and whether these package's licenses are compatible to openCOLLADA's license. From a coarse glance into tarball, I'd suspect Externals/MathMLSolver not to be properly licensed (I can't find any licence). Googling however directed me to http://mathmlsolver.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/mathmlsolver/trunk, but I haven't checked details, yet. Drilled down to the actual SF page at it says it is MIT licensed. Yes. I meanwhile also found some copyright notices in Externals/MathMLSolver's headers and found openCOLLADA/Externals/MathMLSolver to be a hacked up version of the code on sourceforge. I don't know why openCOLLADA is doing so - Could be they are just hacking and don't care about proper integration/packaging, could be the sourceforge project is dead. AFAICT, googling indicates openCOLLADA is the only user of MathMLSolver while the sourceforge project might be dead. How do we handle that? The formal way would be to ask upstream to add the license file. I ran into this problem on RPMFusion and the decision was to put comments above the License: tag explaining which parts had what license. Yes, this is one option to handle such cases. * The package naming seems inconsistent to me: libOpenCOLLADA vs. OpenCOLLADA-devel The FPG would recommend using the tarball name, which would mean to name the packages openCOLLADA and openCOLLADA-devel The current naming was how the Suse maintainer set it up and I'm sure their rules differ in many areas. For the purpose of the Fedora package I'll change the name. If you want to add SUSE compatibility you can add corresponding Provides: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 692466] Review Request: rubygem-kwalify - A parser and schema validator for YAML and JSON
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=692466 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-04-15 00:32:53 EDT --- rubygem-kwalify-0.7.2-3.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 696357] Review Request: fedora-logo-gnome-shell-extension - adds a Fedora logo to Gnome shell's Activities button
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=696357 --- Comment #3 from Timur Kristóf ti...@sch.bme.hu 2011-04-15 01:59:17 EDT --- Hello Mohamed, thank you for reviewing! :) (In reply to comment #2) * maybe your package should be renamed « gnome-shell-extension-fedora-logo » or « gnome-shell-fedora-logo Because if I named it like that, people would think that the package is provided by upstream (like gnome-shell-extensions), which is not the case. And if you look at any of such Fedora packages, all of them begin with either the name fedora or a release name. (examples: fedora-icon-theme, lovelock-backgrounds, laughlin-kde-theme, etc.) If you still think that the name needs to change, I will rename it. * the fedora-logos package provides a « system-logos » capacity, as well as the generic-logos package (and probably the redhat-logos in RHEL also). Why not setting system-logos as Requires instead of fedora-logos, so that your package would be usable without any change in Fedora as well as in any Fedora-derivated distribution? Very good point, I wasn't aware of such a possibility. Currently the extension finds the logo by the icon name 'fedora-logo-icon'. If you tell me what icon name to use in order to utilize this system-logos capacity, I will gladly change it. :) * about the URL tag: why not simply use http://sources.venemo.net/? The URL tag is intended to point to the project website, no matter how small it is. If it's not the solution you prefer, you could create a basic page in your fedorapeople.org space (or wherever you can) containing the description of the package and links to the sources. I think making a fedorapeople.org page is a good idea, I'll make one. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
