[Bug 700832] Review Request: liblogging - An easy to use, portable, open source library for system logging
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=700832
--- Comment #3 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi 2011-04-30 04:24:43
EDT ---
Instead of using
%{__sed} -i 's/\r//' COPYING
%{__sed} -i 's/\r//' AUTHORS
%{__sed} -i 's/\r//' ChangeLog
%{__sed} -i 's/\r//' README
to convert EOLs, please use e.g.
for file in COPYING AUTHORS ChangeLog README; do
sed -i 's/\r//' $file $file.new \
touch -r $file $file.new \
mv $file.new $file
done
which preserves time stamps.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 700833] Review Request: colorgcc - Script to colorize the terminal output of gcc, g++, cc, 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=700833 Hans de Goede hdego...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||hdego...@redhat.com Blocks|177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|hdego...@redhat.com --- Comment #2 from Hans de Goede hdego...@redhat.com 2011-04-30 04:34:57 EDT --- Reviewing this one ... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 700833] Review Request: colorgcc - Script to colorize the terminal output of gcc, g++, cc, 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=700833
Hans de Goede hdego...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag||fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #3 from Hans de Goede hdego...@redhat.com 2011-04-30 04:43:26 EDT
---
Full review done:
Good:
=
- rpmlint checks return:
colorgcc.src: W: no-%build-section
colorgcc.noarch: W: no-documentation
colorgcc.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary color-g++
colorgcc.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary color-cc
colorgcc.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary color-gcc
colorgcc.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary color-c++
These can all be ignored
- package meets naming guidelines
- package meets packaging guidelines
- spec file legible, in am. english
- source matches upstream
- package compiles on devel (x86)
- no missing BR
- no unnecessary BR
- no locales
- not relocatable
- owns all directories that it creates
- no duplicate files
- permissions ok
- macro use consistent
- code, not content
- no need for -docs
- nothing in %doc affects runtime
- no need for .desktop file
Needs work:
---
- Please use the full URL for Source0
- The license tag should be GPL+, per:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing
See the GPL (no version) table
- If you're not adding a %clean, nor cleaning the buildroot in %install, you
should not specify a buildroot at all, so drop:
BuildRoot: %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XX)
- A bitter way to handle %prep would be:
%prep
%setup -q -c -T
cp -p %{SOURCE0} .
%patch0 -p1
You can then also drop the cd %{name}-%{version} from %install
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 690580] Review Request: perl-Perl-Critic-More - Supplemental policies for Perl::Critic
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=690580 Paul Howarth p...@city-fan.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||p...@city-fan.org --- Comment #7 from Paul Howarth p...@city-fan.org 2011-04-30 04:48:02 EDT --- Petr, could we have an F-15 branch for this? It's used for the author/developer tests of Perl::Critic itself (as you probably 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 700345] Review Request: com.inamik.utils.tableformatter - A set of Java classes to print text in tabulated form
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=700345 --- Comment #3 from Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com 2011-04-30 05:21:41 EDT --- inamik-tableformatter sounds good. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 700345] Review Request: com.inamik.utils.tableformatter - A set of Java classes to print text in tabulated form
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=700345 Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|akurt...@redhat.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #4 from Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com 2011-04-30 05:38:16 EDT --- Please provide the updated srpm/spec and I'll do 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 700427] Review Request: jopt-simple - A Java command line parser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=700427 Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||akurt...@redhat.com --- Comment #2 from Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com 2011-04-30 05:42:58 EDT --- New packages would be better to use maven (v 3) package instead of the old maven2 package. There is also a new script mvn-rpmbuild especially for rpm builds. See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Java#maven_3 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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
--- Comment #7 from Mat Booth fed...@matbooth.co.uk 2011-04-30 05:53:19 EDT
---
(In reply to comment #6)
You can also skip the clean section and remove the 'rm -rf %{buildroot}' from
%install.
Sebastian, do we have a need for this package on EPEL, or are we interested in
Fedora only?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 701001] New: Review Request: aunit - unit test framework for ada
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: aunit - unit test framework for ada https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=701001 Summary: Review Request: aunit - unit test framework for ada Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: pa...@zhukoff.net QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Spec URL: http://landgraf.fedorapeople.org/packages/requested/aunit/aunit.spec SRPM URL: http://landgraf.fedorapeople.org/packages/requested/aunit/aunit-2010-2.fc14.src.rpm Description: AUnit is a set of Ada packages based on the xUnit family of unit test frameworks. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 701001] Review Request: aunit - unit test framework for ada
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=701001 --- Comment #1 from Pavel Zhukov pa...@zhukoff.net 2011-04-30 06:34:07 EDT --- Koji OK : http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3040061 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 701001] Review Request: aunit - unit test framework for ada
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=701001
Dan Horák d...@danny.cz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||d...@danny.cz
--- Comment #2 from Dan Horák d...@danny.cz 2011-04-30 06:48:21 EDT ---
Pavel, could you be adding the 2 lines below to your Ada packages? It would
save me and the other secondary arch maintainers the need of touching the spec
files after they are added to Fedora. Thanks, Dan
# gcc-gnat only available on these:
ExclusiveArch: %{ix86} x86_64 ia64 ppc ppc64 alpha
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 701001] Review Request: aunit - unit test framework for ada
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=701001 --- Comment #3 from Pavel Zhukov pa...@zhukoff.net 2011-04-30 07:22:22 EDT --- Ok. done. http://landgraf.fedorapeople.org/packages/requested/aunit/aunit-2010-3.fc14.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 663925] Review Request: autoconf-archive - The Autoconf Macro Archive
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=663925 Adam Huffman bl...@verdurin.com changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|bl...@verdurin.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 663925] Review Request: autoconf-archive - The Autoconf Macro Archive
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=663925 --- Comment #4 from Adam Huffman bl...@verdurin.com 2011-04-30 08:32:52 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 663925] Review Request: autoconf-archive - The Autoconf Macro Archive
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=663925 Adam Huffman bl...@verdurin.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 663925] Review Request: autoconf-archive - The Autoconf Macro Archive
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=663925 Adam Huffman bl...@verdurin.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 679060] Review Request: mingw32-antlr - MinGW Windows ANTLR C++ run-time 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=679060 Kalev Lember ka...@smartlink.ee changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||ka...@smartlink.ee AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ka...@smartlink.ee --- Comment #1 from Kalev Lember ka...@smartlink.ee 2011-04-30 08:41:13 EDT --- Taking for review. The spec and srpm above are missing all BuildRequires, did you upload the right files? The comment we ship only a static library just above the %files section is misleading now that you're also building a dll. There are some substantial build system improvements in mingw32-antlr.patch, have you submitted it upstream already? Not sure how close you want to keep to the native antlr spec file, but if that's not important, then you can remove BuildRoot definition, the whole %clean section, and the rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT in the beginning of %install, as they are no longer needed with current Fedora releases. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 522199] Review Request: mingw32-wxWidgets - C++ cross-platform GUI 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=522199 Kalev Lember ka...@smartlink.ee changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ka...@smartlink.ee --- Comment #6 from Kalev Lember ka...@smartlink.ee 2011-04-30 08:43:37 EDT --- If the original submitter is no longer interested, you should close this ticket and submit a new review request, marking this ticket as a duplicate. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 701028] Review Request: smarty-gettext - Gettext support for Smarty
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=701028 Olivier BONHOMME obonho...@nerim.net changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 701028] New: Review Request: smarty-gettext - Gettext support for Smarty
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: smarty-gettext - Gettext support for Smarty https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=701028 Summary: Review Request: smarty-gettext - Gettext support for Smarty Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: unspecified Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: obonho...@nerim.net QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Spec URL: http://ares.ptitoliv.net/~ptitoliv/fedora/smarty-gettext/smarty-gettext.spec SRPM URL: http://ares.ptitoliv.net/~ptitoliv/fedora/smarty-gettext/smarty-gettext-1.0b1-1.fc14.src.rpm Description: Smarty gettext plug-in provides an internationalization support for the PHP template engine Smarty. Hello, I submit this Review Request to the Fedora Package team in order to integrate this library in the next Fedora Release. It is my first package, so I request a sponsor for my first review process. Thanks a lot. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 701031] New: Review Request: zeitgeist-datahub - The zeitgeist engine data logger
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: zeitgeist-datahub - The zeitgeist engine data logger https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=701031 Summary: Review Request: zeitgeist-datahub - The zeitgeist engine data logger Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: dakin...@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://deji.fedorapeople.org/zeitgeist-datahub.spec SRPM URL: http://deji.fedorapeople.org/zeitgeist-datahub-0.7.0-1.fc15.src.rpm Description: The datahub provides passive plugins which insert events into Zeitgeist -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 663925] Review Request: autoconf-archive - The Autoconf Macro Archive
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=663925
--- Comment #5 from Adam Huffman bl...@verdurin.com 2011-04-30 09:48:15 EDT
---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
[x] : MUST - Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported architecture.
[x] : MUST - Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x] : MUST - Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=...
doesn't work.
[x] : MUST - Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x] : MUST - Rpmlint output is silent.
rpmlint autoconf-archive-2011.03.17-0.fc16.src.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
rpmlint autoconf-archive-2011.03.17-0.fc16.noarch.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[x] : MUST - Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
MD5SUM this package : 95db13b789f02f449d11cb822b07c376
MD5SUM upstream package : 95db13b789f02f449d11cb822b07c376
[x] : MUST - Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[-] : MUST - %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[-] : MUST - Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop using
desktop-file-install file if it is a GUI application.
[-] : MUST - Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[-] : MUST - Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] : MUST - ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[-] : MUST - License file installed when any subpackage combination is
installed.
[-] : MUST - The spec file handles locales properly.
[-] : MUST - No %config files under /usr.
[-] : MUST - Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] : MUST - Static libraries in -static subpackage, if present.
[!] : MUST - Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
Found : Packager: Adam Huffman bl...@verdurin.com
[x] : MUST - Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and
meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x] : MUST - %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x] : MUST - All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x] : MUST - Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x] : MUST - Changelog in prescribed format.
[x] : MUST - Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x] : MUST - Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[-] : MUST - Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x] : MUST - Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x] : MUST - Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x] : MUST - Permissions on files are set properly.
[x] : MUST - Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[-] : MUST - Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x] : MUST - If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %doc.
[!] : MUST - License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x] : MUST - Package consistently uses macros. instead of hard-coded directory
names.
[x] : MUST - Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
[x] : MUST - Package does not generates any conflict.
[x] : MUST - Package does not contains kernel modules.
[x] : MUST - Package contains no static executables.
[x] : MUST - Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-] : MUST - Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x] : MUST - Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[!] : MUST - Package installs properly.
[x] : MUST - Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[?] : MUST - Package is not relocatable.
[x] : MUST - Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x] : MUST - Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-] : MUST - Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one.
[x] : MUST - File names are valid UTF-8.
[-] : MUST - Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x] : SHOULD - Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x] : SHOULD - Dist tag is present.
[x] : SHOULD - SourceX is a working URL.
[x] : SHOULD - Spec use %global instead of %define.
[-] : SHOULD - Uses parallel make.
[-] : SHOULD - The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are
[Bug 700962] Review Request: pydf - Fully colorized df clone written in 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=700962
Adam Huffman bl...@verdurin.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bl...@verdurin.com
--- Comment #1 from Adam Huffman bl...@verdurin.com 2011-04-30 10:13:51 EDT
---
Here's the output of a run through Tim Lauridsen's review tool:
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
[x] : MUST - Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported architecture.
[x] : MUST - %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[x] : MUST - Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x] : MUST - Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=...
doesn't work.
[x] : MUST - Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x] : MUST - Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
MD5SUM this package : 71778fd7b6668ac157ea06a8867f2d20
MD5SUM upstream package : 71778fd7b6668ac157ea06a8867f2d20
[x] : MUST - Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[-] : MUST - Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop using
desktop-file-install file if it is a GUI application.
[-] : MUST - Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[-] : MUST - Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] : MUST - ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[-] : MUST - License file installed when any subpackage combination is
installed.
[-] : MUST - The spec file handles locales properly.
[-] : MUST - Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] : MUST - Static libraries in -static subpackage, if present.
[!] : MUST - Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
Found : Packager: Adam Huffman bl...@verdurin.com
[!] : MUST - Rpmlint output is silent.
rpmlint pydf-9-1.src.rpm
pydf.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) df - sf, ff, dd
pydf.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US df - sf, ff, dd
pydf.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US customizable -
customization, customize, customable
pydf.src:11: W: hardcoded-path-in-buildroot-tag
/tmp/%{name}-%{version}-root
pydf.src:6: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 6, tab: line
1)
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
rpmlint pydf-9-1.noarch.rpm
pydf.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) df - sf, ff, dd
pydf.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US df - sf, ff, dd
pydf.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US customizable -
customization, customize, customable
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
[ ] : MUST - Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and
meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[ ] : MUST - %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[ ] : MUST - All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[ ] : MUST - Package contains no bundled libraries.
[ ] : MUST - Changelog in prescribed format.
[ ] : MUST - Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[ ] : MUST - Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[ ] : MUST - Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[ ] : MUST - Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[ ] : MUST - Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[ ] : MUST - Permissions on files are set properly.
[ ] : MUST - Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[ ] : MUST - Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[ ] : MUST - If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %doc.
[ ] : MUST - License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[ ] : MUST - Package consistently uses macros. instead of hard-coded directory
names.
[ ] : MUST - Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
[ ] : MUST - No %config files under /usr.
[ ] : MUST - Package does not generates any conflict.
[ ] : MUST - Package does not contains kernel modules.
[ ] : MUST - Package contains no static executables.
[ ] : MUST -
[Bug 663925] Review Request: autoconf-archive - The Autoconf Macro Archive
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=663925 --- Comment #6 from Adam Huffman bl...@verdurin.com 2011-04-30 10:24:47 EDT --- Forgot to say that there's a newer upstream release - 2011.04.12. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 700551] Review Request: xwax - Open source vinyl emulation software for Linux
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=700551
--- Comment #2 from Adam Huffman bl...@verdurin.com 2011-04-30 11:08:28 EDT
---
You should also consider using macros consistently i.e. %{buildroot} instead of
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 700551] Review Request: xwax - Open source vinyl emulation software for Linux
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=700551
--- Comment #1 from Adam Huffman bl...@verdurin.com 2011-04-30 11:07:24 EDT
---
NB: I can't sponsor you, this is just an informal review.
Have just run this through Tim Lauridsen's review tool, and it's found some
problems:
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
[x] : MUST - Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported architecture.
[x] : MUST - Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x] : MUST - Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=...
doesn't work.
[x] : MUST - Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x] : MUST - Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
MD5SUM this package : 37152a16cbeb6878818ca406959af9b2
MD5SUM upstream package : 37152a16cbeb6878818ca406959af9b2
[x] : MUST - Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[-] : MUST - %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[-] : MUST - Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop using
desktop-file-install file if it is a GUI application.
[-] : MUST - Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[-] : MUST - Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] : MUST - ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[-] : MUST - License file installed when any subpackage combination is
installed.
[-] : MUST - The spec file handles locales properly.
[-] : MUST - No %config files under /usr.
[-] : MUST - Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] : MUST - Static libraries in -static subpackage, if present.
[!] : MUST - Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
Found : Packager: Adam Huffman bl...@verdurin.com
[!] : MUST - Rpmlint output is silent.
rpmlint xwax-0.9-2.fc16.i686.rpm
xwax.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US turntablists -
turntables, turntable, establishments
xwax.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US timecoded - time
coded, time-coded, timecard
xwax.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US spinbacks - spin
backs, spin-backs, finbacks
xwax.i686: W: invalid-license GPL
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
rpmlint xwax-debuginfo-0.9-2.fc16.i686.rpm
xwax-debuginfo.i686: W: invalid-license GPL
xwax-debuginfo.i686: E: debuginfo-without-sources
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings.
rpmlint xwax-0.9-2.fc16.src.rpm
xwax.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US turntablists -
turntables, turntable, establishments
xwax.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US timecoded - time
coded, time-coded, timecard
xwax.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US spinbacks - spin
backs, spin-backs, finbacks
xwax.src: W: invalid-license GPL
xwax.src:12: W: macro-in-comment %40redhat
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
[ ] : MUST - Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and
meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[ ] : MUST - %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[ ] : MUST - All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[ ] : MUST - Package contains no bundled libraries.
[ ] : MUST - Changelog in prescribed format.
[ ] : MUST - Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[ ] : MUST - Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[ ] : MUST - Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[ ] : MUST - Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[ ] : MUST - Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[ ] : MUST - Permissions on files are set properly.
[ ] : MUST - Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[ ] : MUST - Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[ ] : MUST - If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %doc.
[ ] : MUST - License field in the package
[Bug 700199] Review Request: tomcat - Apache Servlet/JSP Engine, RI for Servlet 3.0/JSP 2.2 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=700199
--- Comment #4 from Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com 2011-04-30
11:06:40 EDT ---
You're supposed to run rpmlint on the produced rpms. The current output is
huge.
tomcat-jsp-2.2-api.noarch: W: non-standard-group Internet/WWW/Dynamic Content
tomcat-jsp-2.2-api.noarch: W: no-documentation
tomcat-el-2.2-api.noarch: W: non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java
tomcat-el-2.2-api.noarch: W: no-documentation
tomcat-admin-webapps.noarch: W: non-standard-group System
Environment/Applications
tomcat-admin-webapps.noarch: W: no-documentation
tomcat-admin-webapps.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm
/var/lib/tomcat/webapps/host-manager/META-INF 0775L
tomcat-admin-webapps.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm
/var/lib/tomcat/webapps/host-manager 0775L
tomcat-admin-webapps.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm
/var/lib/tomcat/webapps/host-manager/WEB-INF 0775L
tomcat-admin-webapps.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm
/var/lib/tomcat/webapps/host-manager/WEB-INF/jsp 0775L
tomcat-admin-webapps.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm
/var/lib/tomcat/webapps/manager/WEB-INF 0775L
tomcat-admin-webapps.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm
/var/lib/tomcat/webapps/manager/images 0775L
tomcat-admin-webapps.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm
/var/lib/tomcat/webapps/manager/META-INF 0775L
tomcat-admin-webapps.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm
/var/lib/tomcat/webapps/manager 0775L
tomcat-admin-webapps.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm
/var/lib/tomcat/webapps/host-manager/images 0775L
tomcat-admin-webapps.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm
/var/lib/tomcat/webapps/manager/WEB-INF/jsp 0775L
tomcat-lib.noarch: W: non-standard-group Development/Compilers
tomcat-lib.noarch: W: no-documentation
tomcat-lib.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink
/usr/share/java/tomcat/tomcat-jsp-2.2-api.jar ../tomcat-jsp-2.2-api.jar
tomcat-lib.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink
/usr/share/java/tomcat/tomcat-servlet-3.0-api.jar ../tomcat-servlet-3.0-api.jar
tomcat-lib.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/share/java/tomcat/tomcat-juli.jar
/usr/share/tomcat/bin/tomcat-juli.jar
tomcat-lib.noarch: W: dangling-symlink
/usr/share/java/tomcat/commons-collections.jar
/usr/share/java/apache-commons-collections.jar
tomcat-lib.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/share/java/tomcat/jasper-jdt.jar
/usr/share/java/ecj.jar
tomcat-lib.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/share/java/tomcat/log4j.jar
/usr/share/java/log4j.jar
tomcat-lib.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/share/java/tomcat/commons-dbcp.jar
/usr/share/java/apache-commons-dbcp.jar
tomcat-lib.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink
/usr/share/java/tomcat/tomcat-el-2.2-api.jar ../tomcat-el-2.2-api.jar
tomcat.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US servlet - settler
tomcat.noarch: W: non-standard-group Networking/Daemons
tomcat.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0:7.0.12-1
['0:7.0.12-2.fc15', '0:7.0.12-2']
tomcat.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/maven/fragments/tomcat
tomcat.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /usr/share/doc/tomcat-7.0.12 0775L
tomcat.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/tomcat 0775L
tomcat.noarch: E: zero-length /var/log/tomcat/catalina.out
tomcat.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /etc/tomcat 0775L
tomcat.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/log/tomcat 0775L
tomcat.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /usr/share/tomcat 0775L
tomcat.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/tomcat/webapps 0775L
tomcat.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /etc/tomcat/Catalina/localhost 0775L
tomcat.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/share/tomcat/lib /usr/share/java/tomcat
tomcat.noarch: E: world-writable /etc/tomcat/web.xml 0666L
tomcat.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/cache/tomcat 0775L
tomcat.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /etc/tomcat/Catalina 0775L
tomcat.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/cache/tomcat/work 0775L
tomcat.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/cache/tomcat/temp 0775L
tomcat.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tomcat-digest
tomcat.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dtomcat
tomcat.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tomcat-tool-wrapper
tomcat.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tomcat
tomcat.noarch: W: dangerous-command-in-%preun rm
tomcat.noarch: W: dangerous-command-in-%posttrans cp
tomcat.noarch: E: use-tmp-in-%posttrans
tomcat.noarch: W: incoherent-subsys /etc/init.d/tomcat ${NAME}
tomcat.noarch: W: incoherent-subsys /etc/init.d/tomcat ${NAME}
tomcat.noarch: W: incoherent-subsys /etc/init.d/tomcat ${NAME}
tomcat.noarch: W: incoherent-subsys /etc/init.d/tomcat ${NAME}
tomcat.noarch: W: incoherent-subsys /etc/init.d/tomcat ${NAME}
tomcat.noarch: W: incoherent-subsys /etc/init.d/tomcat ${NAME}
tomcat-servlet-3.0-api.noarch: W: non-standard-group Internet/WWW/Dynamic
Content
tomcat-servlet-3.0-api.noarch: W: no-documentation
tomcat-servlet-3.0-api.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc
/etc/maven/fragments/tomcat-servlet-api
tomcat-webapps.noarch: W:
[Bug 701031] Review Request: zeitgeist-datahub - The zeitgeist engine data logger
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=701031
Mario Blättermann mari...@freenet.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mari...@freenet.de
--- Comment #1 from Mario Blättermann mari...@freenet.de 2011-04-30 11:18:35
EDT ---
Please use macros consistently and as many as possible, as follows:
URL: https://launchpad.net/%{name}
Source0:
http://launchpad.net/%{name}/0.7/%{version}/+download/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
%{_bindir}/%{name}
%{_mandir}/man1/%{name}.*
%{_sysconfdir}/xdg/autostart/%{name}.desktop
It's not needed to provide a https link to the homepage, http also works and
leads to the https page anyway.
The ChangeLog is empty, should be dropped from %docs.
Please add a period after the description.
You have to drop glib2-devel and gettext from BuildRequires. They are recursive
dependencies of gtk2-devel and intltool, respectively.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 701031] Review Request: zeitgeist-datahub - The zeitgeist engine data logger
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=701031 --- Comment #2 from Mario Blättermann mari...@freenet.de 2011-04-30 11:28:25 EDT --- Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3040269 $ rpmlint -v * zeitgeist-datahub.i686: I: checking zeitgeist-datahub.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US plugins - plug ins, plug-ins, plugging zeitgeist-datahub.i686: I: checking-url https://launchpad.net/zeitgeist-datahub (timeout 10 seconds) zeitgeist-datahub.i686: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/zeitgeist-datahub-0.7.0/ChangeLog zeitgeist-datahub.i686: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/xdg/autostart/zeitgeist-datahub.desktop zeitgeist-datahub.src: I: checking zeitgeist-datahub.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US plugins - plug ins, plug-ins, plugging zeitgeist-datahub.src: I: checking-url https://launchpad.net/zeitgeist-datahub (timeout 10 seconds) zeitgeist-datahub.src: I: checking-url http://launchpad.net/zeitgeist-datahub/0.7/0.7.0/+download/zeitgeist-datahub-0.7.0.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds) zeitgeist-datahub-debuginfo.i686: I: checking zeitgeist-datahub-debuginfo.i686: I: checking-url https://launchpad.net/zeitgeist-datahub (timeout 10 seconds) zeitgeist-datahub.spec: I: checking-url http://launchpad.net/zeitgeist-datahub/0.7/0.7.0/+download/zeitgeist-datahub-0.7.0.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds) 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings. Seems to be OK so far, besides the empty ChangeLog. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 701031] Review Request: zeitgeist-datahub - The zeitgeist engine data logger
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=701031
--- Comment #3 from Deji Akingunola dakin...@gmail.com 2011-04-30 13:33:18
EDT ---
(In reply to comment #1)
Please use macros consistently and as many as possible, as follows:
URL: https://launchpad.net/%{name}
Source0:
http://launchpad.net/%{name}/0.7/%{version}/+download/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
%{_bindir}/%{name}
%{_mandir}/man1/%{name}.*
%{_sysconfdir}/xdg/autostart/%{name}.desktop
It's not needed to provide a https link to the homepage, http also works and
leads to the https page anyway.
The ChangeLog is empty, should be dropped from %docs.
Please add a period after the description.
You have to drop glib2-devel and gettext from BuildRequires. They are
recursive
dependencies of gtk2-devel and intltool, respectively.
I have dropped the empty ChangeLog file, replace the https link with the http
one and put the period at the end of the description. I believe the rest if OK.
Spec URL: http://deji.fedorapeople.org/zeitgeist-datahub.spec
SRPM URL: http://deji.fedorapeople.org/zeitgeist-datahub-0.7.0-2.fc15.src.rpm
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 699902] Review Request: python-manuel - Build tested documentation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=699902 --- Comment #8 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2011-04-30 14:13:52 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 699587] Review Request: pagul-fonts - Font for Saurashtra script
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=699587 --- Comment #9 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2011-04-30 14:13:03 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 699586] Review Request: tabish-eeyek-fonts - Font for Meetei Mayek script
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=699586 --- Comment #9 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2011-04-30 14:12:34 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 697673] Review Request: sjinn - Simple tool for sending receiving data from RS-232 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=697673 --- Comment #9 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2011-04-30 14:09:55 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 700141] Review Request: perl-Devel-PatchPerl - Patch perl source à la Devel::PPPort's buildperl.pl
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=700141 --- Comment #3 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2011-04-30 14:14:11 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 700335] Review Request: ant-antlr3 - Antlr3 task for Ant
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=700335 --- Comment #9 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2011-04-30 14:14:33 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 700833] Review Request: colorgcc - Script to colorize the terminal output of gcc, g++, cc, 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=700833 --- Comment #4 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2011-04-30 14:15:48 EDT --- I see no SCM request to process. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 698576] Review Request: pal - Command line calendar that displays holidays and events
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=698576 --- Comment #3 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2011-04-30 14:12:17 EDT --- I see no SCM request to process here. Perhaps the wrong flag was set by mistake? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 700757] Review Request: lsyncd - File change monitoring and synchronization daemon
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=700757 --- Comment #3 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2011-04-30 14:15:13 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 700537] Review Request: eclipse-mylyn-builds - Eclipse Mylyn Builds
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=700537 --- Comment #7 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2011-04-30 14:14:54 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 700667] Review Request python26-crypto
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=700667 Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tcall...@redhat.com --- Comment #1 from Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com 2011-04-30 14:23:43 EDT --- Is it practical to carry this as a separate package? Given that the version and code is identical, perhaps this could be added to the python-crypto package (in EPEL) as a subpackage, much in the same way that some python3 packages are generated. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 701031] Review Request: zeitgeist-datahub - The zeitgeist engine data logger
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=701031
--- Comment #4 from Mario Blättermann mari...@freenet.de 2011-04-30 14:58:00
EDT ---
(In reply to comment #3)
I have dropped the empty ChangeLog file, replace the https link with the http
one and put the period at the end of the description. I believe the rest if
OK.
No, unfortunately not:
(In reply to comment #1)
Please use macros consistently and as many as possible, as follows:
URL: https://launchpad.net/%{name}
...
%{_bindir}/%{name}
%{_mandir}/man1/%{name}.*
%{_sysconfdir}/xdg/autostart/%{name}.desktop
...
You have to drop glib2-devel and gettext from BuildRequires. They are
recursive
dependencies of gtk2-devel and intltool, respectively.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 700667] Review Request python26-crypto
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=700667 --- Comment #2 from Andy Grimm agr...@gmail.com 2011-04-30 15:03:41 EDT --- If that's an accepted practice in EPEL, then by all means, it can be added as a subpackage. I do not expect the source of this package to diverge from python-crypto at all. Should I just contact the maintainers of that 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 700833] Review Request: colorgcc - Script to colorize the terminal output of gcc, g++, cc, 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=700833 Hans de Goede hdego...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 698576] Review Request: pal - Command line calendar that displays holidays and events
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=698576 Hans de Goede hdego...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #4 from Hans de Goede hdego...@redhat.com 2011-04-30 15:09:02 EDT --- (In reply to comment #3) I see no SCM request to process here. Perhaps the wrong flag was set by mistake? My bad, I meant to set fedora-review to ?, same for bug 700833, don't know how this happened... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 699902] Review Request: python-manuel - Build tested documentation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=699902 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-04-30 16:30:50 EDT --- python-manuel-1.5.0-2.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-manuel-1.5.0-2.fc15 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 699902] Review Request: python-manuel - Build tested documentation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=699902 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-04-30 16:30:59 EDT --- python-manuel-1.5.0-2.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-manuel-1.5.0-2.fc14 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 699902] Review Request: python-manuel - Build tested documentation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=699902 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 608319] Review Request: memaker - An avatar creator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=608319
Mario Blättermann mari...@freenet.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mari...@freenet.de
--- Comment #7 from Mario Blättermann mari...@freenet.de 2011-04-30 16:35:35
EDT ---
$ rpmlint -v *
memaker.noarch: I: checking
memaker.noarch: I: checking-url https://launchpad.net/memaker (timeout 10
seconds)
memaker.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/share/memaker/themes/glyphFace/Nose/..svg
memaker.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary memaker
memaker.src: I: checking
memaker.src: I: checking-url https://launchpad.net/memaker (timeout 10 seconds)
memaker.src: W: invalid-url Source0: memaker-20100110-bzr.tar.gz
memaker.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: memaker-20100110-bzr.tar.gz
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
The mentioned hidden file isn't hidden really. It is the filename ~.svg, which
is erroneously recognized as hidden.
Please replace all occurences of the application name in the spec with %{name}.
Wouldn't it be better to use the install command instead of cp, especially to
keep timestamps?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 700667] Review Request python26-crypto
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=700667 --- Comment #3 from Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com 2011-04-30 17:25:58 EDT --- Yeah, I would only pursue this route if the python-crypto maintainer objects. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 619355] Review Request: python26-numpy - A fast multidimensional array facility 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=619355 --- Comment #18 from Steve Traylen steve.tray...@cern.ch 2011-04-30 17:32:43 EDT --- Hi Jerry, Thanks for the comments so far. New packages: http://cern.ch/straylen/rpms/python26-numpy/python26-numpy-1.5.1-3.el5.src.rpm http://cern.ch/straylen/rpms/python26-numpy/python26-numpy.spec The easy ones: * The isa tags indeed do nothing on EPEL5 * s/in in/be in/ done. * Added -fno-strict-aliasing. The other ones: Concerning the liblapack in atlas and lapack: I've been reading around the history of this, good news is we can drop the requirement on lapack since indeed everything and more is also in atlas. This also allows the specification of library locations to be dropped in the %build and %install sections as well. They were there from a time after EPEL atlas when lapack in atlas was not including all of lapack, it's just not needed for EPEL5 versions of these packages. The current situation with liblapack is definitely ugly and is detailed in the bug #478856. Hopefully unrelated to this review I added a comment that there may now be a way out of this situation but the fix will come from atlas and lapack and will take time if it comes at all. I'll look at the /usr/lib64/python2.6/site-packages/numpy/lib/_compiled_base.so /lib64/libpthread.so.0 shortly. I noticed you added a look more for the licensing, was it something in particular, I will look more anyway. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 649495] Review Request: openstack-nova - OpenStack Compute (nova)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=649495 Pant pantelis.fed...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pantelis.fed...@gmail.com --- Comment #13 from Pant pantelis.fed...@gmail.com 2011-04-30 18:33:22 EDT --- Well... I have fedora 14 and i have installed the repository for openstack. My problem is that openstack need python 2.6 , but i have python 2.7 ...I think that you should test it with the 2.7 and make it works with that... Good job! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 701079] New: Review Request: wmSun - Rise/Set time of Sun in a dockapp
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: wmSun - Rise/Set time of Sun in a dockapp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=701079 Summary: Review Request: wmSun - Rise/Set time of Sun in a dockapp Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: mari...@freenet.de QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Spec URL: http://mariobl.fedorapeople.org/Review/SPECS/wmSun.spec SRPM URL: http://mariobl.fedorapeople.org/Review/SRPMS/wmSun-1.03-1.fc14.src.rpm Description: Rise/Set time of Sun in a WindowMaker dockapp. Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3041745 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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] 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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=696516 Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE Last Closed||2011-04-30 19:06:21 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 676216] Review Request: sugar-calendario - agenda/calendar for sugar
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=676216 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-04-30 19:22:22 EDT --- sugar-calendario-3-4.fc14 has been pushed to the Fedora 14 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 699902] Review Request: python-manuel - Build tested documentation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=699902 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-04-30 21:42:24 EDT --- python-manuel-1.5.0-2.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 692543] Review Request: sawfish - An extensible window manager for the X Window System
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=692543 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-04-30 23:19:38 EDT --- sawfish-1.8.0-2.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 stable repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 692543] Review Request: sawfish - An extensible window manager for the X Window System
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=692543 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||sawfish-1.8.0-2.fc15 Resolution||ERRATA Last Closed||2011-04-30 23:19:44 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 691096] Review Request: iperf3 - Measurement tool for TCP/UDP bandwidth performance
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691096 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-04-30 23:21:37 EDT --- iperf3-3.0-0.0.b4.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 stable repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 691096] Review Request: iperf3 - Measurement tool for TCP/UDP bandwidth performance
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691096 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||iperf3-3.0-0.0.b4.fc15 Resolution||ERRATA Last Closed||2011-04-30 23:21:42 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 699209] Review Request: perl-ORLite-Mirror - Extend ORLite to support remote SQLite databases
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=699209 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-04-30 23:26:10 EDT --- perl-ORLite-Mirror-1.20-3.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 stable repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 593559] Review Request: protobuf-c - C bindings for Google's Protocol Buffers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=593559 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||protobuf-c-0.15-2.fc15 Resolution||ERRATA Last Closed||2011-04-30 23:30:57 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 699209] Review Request: perl-ORLite-Mirror - Extend ORLite to support remote SQLite databases
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=699209 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||perl-ORLite-Mirror-1.20-3.f ||c15 Resolution||ERRATA Last Closed||2011-04-30 23:26:15 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 593559] Review Request: protobuf-c - C bindings for Google's Protocol Buffers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=593559 --- Comment #33 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-04-30 23:30:47 EDT --- protobuf-c-0.15-2.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 stable repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
