[Bug 457709] Review Request: hiran-perizia-sfd-fonts - English asymmetric font
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=457709
--- Comment #21 from Paul Flo Williams p...@frixxon.co.uk 2011-05-07 06:29:10
EDT ---
Right, let's see if we can get this done before this review's third birthday!
1. Package name should be hiran-perizia-fonts, not hiran-perizia-sfd-fonts
2. Version number of the font (from font metadata) is 0.1.0, so that should be
the version number of the package, rather than the date of the SFD file.
(rpmlint will warn about incoherent numbers in the changelog, but ignore that)
3. The %define lines at the top of the spec should now be %global (take a look
at current font spec template)
4. The license should be GPLv3+ with exceptions (again, from font metadata)
5. %prep section pollutes top level BUILD directory, so you need to create a
directory with the line %setup -c -T directly after %prep
6. Correcting %prep will allow you to remove the directory ownership line: %dir
%{_fontdir}/
7. fontconfig file needs correcting and simplifying. I would suggest starting
from the simple template again. The font family should probably be sans-serif
instead of serif, although, given its quirky shapes and Hiran's suggestion that
it's a title font, you might want to follow Nicolas's suggestion and go for
fantasy.
8. (non-blocking) There is an issue with the font metadata, which you'll see if
you pull it into fontmatrix. The font subfamily is explicitly empty when it
should say Regular, so fontmatrix displays the full font name as Perizia ?.
However, the font still works in OpenOffice.org as-is. I'll prep a patch for
the SFD if you wish.
9. (non-blocking) fontlint warns about self-intersecting glyphs and missing
extrema, which is quite common. These should be fed back upstream.
That's everything I can see, and it honestly isn't as much as it appears!
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on 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 Martin Cermak mcer...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #11 from Martin Cermak mcer...@redhat.com 2011-05-07 06:38:19 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: pal Short Description: Command line calendar that displays holidays and events Owners: mcermak Branches: f14 f15 InitialCC: jwrdegoede -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 700571] Review Request: spindown - Daemon that can spindown idle disks
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=700571 Martin Cermak mcer...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #8 from Martin Cermak mcer...@redhat.com 2011-05-07 06:43:36 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: spindown Short Description: Daemon that can spin idle disks down Owners: mcermak Branches: f14 f15 InitialCC: jwrdegoede -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 Martin Cermak mcer...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Martin Cermak mcer...@redhat.com 2011-05-07 06:44:57 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: colorgcc Short Description: Script to colorize the compiler output Owners: mcermak Branches: f14 f15 InitialCC: jwrdegoede -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 701369] Review Request: ghc-json - Haskell JSON 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=701369 --- Comment #2 from Lakshmi Narasimhan lakshminaras2...@gmail.com 2011-05-07 09:06:08 EDT --- Two issues: If %check is not going to be used, can it be removed? Also this warning at line 57 There is a unescaped macro after a shell style comment in the specfile. Macros needs fixing. 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 701369] Review Request: ghc-json - Haskell JSON 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=701369
Lakshmi Narasimhan lakshminaras2...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Lakshmi Narasimhan lakshminaras2...@gmail.com 2011-05-07
09:05:39 EDT ---
[+]MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
the review.
rpmlint -i ghc-json.spec built/*.rpm
ghc-json.spec:57: W: macro-in-comment %pkg_name
There is a unescaped macro after a shell style comment in the specfile. Macros
are expanded everywhere, so check if it can cause a problem in this case and
escape the macro with another leading % if appropriate.
ghc-json.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Haskell - Gaskell, Gaitskell,
Skellum
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ghc-json.src:57: W: macro-in-comment %pkg_name
There is a unescaped macro after a shell style comment in the specfile. Macros
are expanded everywhere, so check if it can cause a problem in this case and
escape the macro with another leading % if appropriate.
ghc-json.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Haskell - Gaskell,
Gaitskell, Skellum
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ghc-json-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Haskell - Gaskell,
Gaitskell, Skellum
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ghc-json-prof.x86_64: E: devel-dependency ghc-json-devel
Your package has a dependency on a devel package but it's not a devel package
itself.
ghc-json-prof.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Haskell - Gaskell,
Gaitskell, Skellum
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ghc-json-prof.x86_64: W: no-documentation
The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include
documentation files.
ghc-json-prof.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/ghc-6.12.3/json-0.4.4/libHSjson-0.4.4_p.a
A development file (usually source code) is located in a non-devel package. If
you want to include source code in your package, be sure to create a
development package.
4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 8 warnings.
The macro in comment warning can be fixed.
[+]MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+]MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec
[+]MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
Naming-Yes
Version-release - Matches
License - OK, BSD 3 clause variant
No prebuilt external bits - OK
Spec legibity - OK
Package template - OK
Arch support - OK
Libexecdir - OK
rpmlint - yes
changelogs - OK
Source url tag - OK, validated.
Buildroot is ignored - present anyway. OK
%clean is ignored - present anyway. OK
Build Requires list - OK
Summary and description - OK
API documentation - OK, in devel package
[+]MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines .
Packaged with BSD 3 clause license.
[+]MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[+]MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package must be included in %doc.
License file included.
[+]MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+]MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+]MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream
source,as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task.
md5sum json-0.4.4.tar.gz
a29a1b52c66971aca87ed54ad1e7de64 json-0.4.4.tar.gz
~/Downloads/json-0.4.4.tar.gz
a29a1b52c66971aca87ed54ad1e7de64 ~/Downloads/json-0.4.4.tar.gz
[+]MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture.
Built on x86_64.
[+]MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch.
[+]MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.
[NA]MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly using the %find_lang macro
[NA]MUST: Packages stores shared library files must call ldconfig in %post and
%postun.
[+]MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
Verified with rpmquery --list.
[NA]MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review.
[+]MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates.
Verified with rpmquery --whatprovides
[+]MUST: A Fedora package must not
[Bug 698067] Review Request: hiredis - A C client library for redis
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=698067
Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||volke...@gmx.at
--- Comment #2 from Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at 2011-05-07 10:08:31 EDT
---
Some comments:
There is a version 0.10.0 release upstream. Please update!
You can drop your second patch and instead write:
make install PREFIX=%{buildroot}/%{_prefix} INSTALL_LIB=%{buildroot}/%{_libdir}
That's also replacing /usr with %{_prefix}. Please also place comments on your
patches do in the spec file. You can use the name macro on some occasions, e.
g. when installing.
I think you can make up a better description, given the description on the
homepage. The description of the devel package even seems wrong to me, because
the devel package certainly does not contain libraries to use a database.
redis should be a BuildRequires -- not a Requires.
I don't know how you managed the EPEL 6 build. Currently there is only a redis
in testing, as far as I can see.
The compiler flags are not as requires by Fedora. See
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Compiler_flags
Please install the TODO file as documentation.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 698333] Review Request: cowdancer - Tool for limited copy-on-write directory tree access
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=698333 Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at changed: What|Removed |Added CC||volke...@gmx.at Flag||needinfo? --- Comment #1 from Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at 2011-05-07 10:31:43 EDT --- Are you aware there were no updates in 5 years? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 664205] Review Request: ghc-dlist - Haskell package that provides difference lists
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=664205 Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.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 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 #13 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com 2011-05-07 12:03:58 EDT --- ok. I don't see any further blockers, except re-reading the Conflicts page, it's stronger in asking us to avoid them than I recall in the past. ;) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Conflicts I think this is a case thats much like a compat package. except it's a 'newer functionality/ng' package. Since this case isn't covered on the page, I'd like to ask the FPC about this. (Or you can if you prefer). Once thats solved I think this package should be ready to go. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 642208] Review Request: mingw32-win-iconv - iconv implementation using Win32 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=642208 Kalev Lember ka...@smartlink.ee changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ka...@smartlink.ee --- Comment #4 from Kalev Lember ka...@smartlink.ee 2011-05-07 12:20:08 EDT --- Very nice and thorough review, Amorilia! F15 is almost out of the door and it might be a good time to give it a try in rawhide. I sent a mail about win_iconv to the Fedora MinGW mailing list, asking for comments: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/mingw/2011-May/003606.html -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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
--- Comment #10 from Mario Blättermann mari...@freenet.de 2011-05-07 13:03:22
EDT ---
(In reply to comment #3)
%{_datadir}/%{name} seems also not to be owned.
Just put a / after this entry to let your package own this directory.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:UnownedDirectories#Wildcarding_Files_inside_a_Created_Directory
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 702846] New: Review Request: mingw32-gdb - MinGW Windows port of the GDB debugger
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: mingw32-gdb - MinGW Windows port of the GDB debugger https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=702846 Summary: Review Request: mingw32-gdb - MinGW Windows port of the GDB debugger Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: ka...@smartlink.ee QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Spec URL: http://kalev.fedorapeople.org/mingw32-gdb.spec SRPM URL: http://kalev.fedorapeople.org/mingw32-gdb-7.2-1.fc15.src.rpm Description: This is the MinGW Windows port of the GDB, the GNU debugger. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 702692] Review Request: perl-Test-CheckChanges - Check that the Changes file matches the distribution
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=702692
Mario Blättermann mari...@freenet.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Mario Blättermann mari...@freenet.de 2011-05-07 13:12:47
EDT ---
-
key:
[+] OK
[.] OK, not applicable
[X] needs work
-
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}.
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license.
GPL+ or Artistic
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[+] MUST: The file containing the text of the license(s) for the package must
be included in %doc.
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source.
$ md5sum *
90f83e10cd1045009db3e7c05947bf0c Test-CheckChanges-0.14.tar.gz
90f83e10cd1045009db3e7c05947bf0c Test-CheckChanges-0.14.tar.gz.packaged
[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
- Succesful Koji build available.
[.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, ...
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.
[.] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly.
[.] MUST: If a package installs files below %{_datadir}/icons, the icon cache
must be updated.
[.] MUST: Packages storing shared library files (not just symlinks) must call
ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[.] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[.] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, ...
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates.
[+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in %files.
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
[+] MUST: Packages must not provide RPM dependency information when that
information is not global in nature, or are otherwise handled.
[.] MUST: When filtering automatically generated RPM dependency information,
the filtering system implemented by Fedora must be used.
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[.] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
[+] MUST: Files in %doc must not affect the runtime of the application.
[.] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[.] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[.] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g.
libfoo.so.1.1), ...
[.] MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned
dependency.
[.] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
[.] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file
[.] MUST: .desktop files must be properly installed with desktop-file-install
in the %install section.
[+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
[+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
[.] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream...
[+] SHOULD: Timestamps of files should be preserved.
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
See Koji build above (which uses mock anyway)
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described.
I assume the packager has tested it.
[.] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane.
[.] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency.
[.] SHOULD: pkgconfig(.pc) files should be placed in a -devel pkg.
[.] SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin,
/usr/bin, or /usr/sbin ...
[.] SHOULD: Your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts.
PACKAGE APPROVED
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 699208] Review Request: perl-ORLite-Statistics - Statistics enhancement package for ORLite
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=699208 --- Comment #8 from Mario Blättermann mari...@freenet.de 2011-05-07 13:31:05 EDT --- (In reply to comment #5) Thanks for the recent reviews, Mario. I'll try to return the favour and take a look at some of your outstanding reviews over the weekend. to prevent you from a long search, here are my open review requests: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?query_format=advancedproduct=Fedoraversion=rawhidecomponent=Package+Reviewquery_format=advancedbug_status=NEWbug_status=ASSIGNEDbug_status=NEEDINFObug_status=MODIFIEDkeywords_type=allwordskeywords=emailreporter1=1emailtype1=exactemail1=mariobl%40freenet.de Some of them are already commented by someone else, shouldn't be too hard to review them. Thanks in advance. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 658450] Review Request: ATpy - Astronomical Tables 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=658450 Golo Fuchert packa...@golotop.de changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #7 from Golo Fuchert packa...@golotop.de 2011-05-07 13:35:32 EDT --- This is the official review: - [+] = ok [o] = does not apply [-] = needs work - [+] rpmlint is quiet enough (false positive): rpmlint SPECS/ATpy.spec SRPMS/ATpy-0.9.5-1.fc14.src.rpm RPMS/noarch/ATpy-0.9.5-1.fc14.noarch.rpm ATpy.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US recarrays - rec arrays, rec-arrays, recalibrate ATpy.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US recarrays - rec arrays, rec-arrays, recalibrate 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. [+] The package is named according to the guidelines [+] Spec file name matches base package name [+] The package follows the Packaging Guidelines [+] The license is an approved licence (MIT) [+] The License field matches the actual licence [+] License file from source file is included in %doc [+] The spec file is written in American English [+] The spec file is legible [+] Packaged sources match with upstream sources (md5) md5sum ATpy-0.9.5.tar.gz.packaged ATpy-0.9.5.tar.gz.upstream 9e030de0f6ed9f59aed3f03010af4012 ATpy-0.9.5.tar.gz.packaged 9e030de0f6ed9f59aed3f03010af4012 ATpy-0.9.5.tar.gz.upstream [+] Package build at least on one primary architecture [+] ExecludeArch is not known to be needed. [+] All build dependencies are listed in the BuildRequires section [o] No locales for the package [o] Package does not store shared libraries [+] Package does not bundle copies of system libraries [o] Package is not relocatable [+] Package owns all directories it installs. [+] No files are listed more than once in the %files section [+] File permissions are set properly (%defattr(...) is used) [+] Consistent use of macros [+] Package contains code and documentation only, no content [+] No large documentation files [+] %doc files do not affect runtime [o] No header files included [o] No static libraries included [o] library files ending with .so included in devel subpackage [o] no -devel subpackage [+] No libtool .la archives included [o] No GUI application, no need for a .desktop file [+] Package does not own files or directories that are owned by other packages [+] All filenames are valid UTF-8 python specific items: [+] Python eggs are be built from source. [+] Python eggs do not download any dependencies during the build process. [o] Not building a compat package. [o] Not building multiple versions (except python3 version). SHOULD items: [o] Source package does already include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream [o] No other Non-English languages supported [+] The package builds in mock [o] No koji scratch build because of conditional build macros [o] No runable program packaged to test [+] No exotic scriptlets used [o] Pyhton3 subpackage does not need to require the base package [o] no pkgconfig(.pc) files included [o] No file dependencies [o] No binaries/scripts - no man pages needed - No further comments, everything seems to be fine. - PACKAGE APPROVED - -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 698264] Review Request: perl-TryCatch - First class try catch semantics for Perl, without source filters
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=698264
Mario Blättermann mari...@freenet.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mari...@freenet.de
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Mario Blättermann mari...@freenet.de 2011-05-07 13:39:22
EDT ---
Succesful Koji build for f16:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3056870
$ rpmlint -v *
perl-TryCatch.src: I: checking
perl-TryCatch.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US eval - veal, vela,
val
perl-TryCatch.src: I: checking-url http://search.cpan.org/dist/TryCatch/
(timeout 10 seconds)
perl-TryCatch.src: I: checking-url
http://www.cpan.org/authors/id/A/AS/ASH/TryCatch-1.003000.tar.gz (timeout 10
seconds)
perl-TryCatch.i686: I: checking
perl-TryCatch.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US eval - veal, vela,
val
perl-TryCatch.i686: I: checking-url http://search.cpan.org/dist/TryCatch/
(timeout 10 seconds)
perl-TryCatch-debuginfo.i686: I: checking
perl-TryCatch-debuginfo.i686: I: checking-url
http://search.cpan.org/dist/TryCatch/ (timeout 10 seconds)
perl-TryCatch.spec: I: checking-url
http://www.cpan.org/authors/id/A/AS/ASH/TryCatch-1.003000.tar.gz (timeout 10
seconds)
3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
→ OK.
-
key:
[+] OK
[.] OK, not applicable
[X] needs work
-
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}.
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license.
GPL+ or Artistic
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[+] MUST: The file containing the text of the license(s) for the package must
be included in %doc.
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source.
$ md5sum *
590620cf5815781cc0d344bf5483956a TryCatch-1.003000.tar.gz
590620cf5815781cc0d344bf5483956a TryCatch-1.003000.tar.gz.packaged
[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
- Succesful Koji build available.
[.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, ...
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.
[.] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly.
[.] MUST: If a package installs files below %{_datadir}/icons, the icon cache
must be updated.
[.] MUST: Packages storing shared library files (not just symlinks) must call
ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[.] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[.] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, ...
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates.
[+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in %files.
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
[+] MUST: Packages must not provide RPM dependency information when that
information is not global in nature, or are otherwise handled.
[.] MUST: When filtering automatically generated RPM dependency information,
the filtering system implemented by Fedora must be used.
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[.] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
[+] MUST: Files in %doc must not affect the runtime of the application.
[.] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[.] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[.] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g.
libfoo.so.1.1), ...
[.] MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned
dependency.
[.] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
[.] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file
[.] MUST: .desktop files must be properly installed with desktop-file-install
in the %install section.
[+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
[+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
[.] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream...
[+] SHOULD: Timestamps of files should be preserved.
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
See Koji build above (which uses mock anyway)
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test
[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
--- Comment #1 from Lakshmi Narasimhan lakshminaras2...@gmail.com 2011-05-07
14:20:52 EDT ---
[+]MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
the review.
rpmlint -i django-kombu-0.9.0-1.fc15.src.rpm django-kombu.spec
~/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/django-kombu-0.9.0-1.fc14.noarch.rpm
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[+]MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
The name of the package can be seen in PKG-INFO.
[+]MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec
[+]MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
Naming-Yes
Version-release - Matches
License - OK, BSD 2 clause variant.
No prebuilt external bits - OK
Spec legibity - OK
Package template - OK
Arch support - OK
Libexecdir - OK
rpmlint - yes
changelogs - OK
Source url tag - OK, validated.
Build Requires list - OK
Summary and description - OK
[+]MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines .
BSD 2 clause license
[+]MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[+]MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package must be included in %doc.
License file included.
[+]MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+]MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+]MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream
source,as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task.
django-kombu-0.9.0-1.fc15.src/djkombu-0.9.0.tar.gz
1340bc6f824c24f2faedff6329c404af
django-kombu-0.9.0-1.fc15.src/djkombu-0.9.0.tar.gz
md5sum ~/Downloads/djkombu-0.9.0.tar.gz
1340bc6f824c24f2faedff6329c404af ~/Downloads/djkombu-0.9.0.tar.gz
[+]MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture.
Built on x86_64.
[+]MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch.
[+]MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.
[NA]MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly using the %find_lang macro
[NA]MUST: Packages stores shared library files must call ldconfig in %post and
%postun.
[+]MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
Checked with rpmquery --list.
[NA]MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review.
[+]MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates.
Checked with rpmquery --whatprovides.
[+]MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file's %files listings.
[+]MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
Checked with ls -lR.
[+]MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[+]MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[+]MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
[+]MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application.
[+]MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[NA]MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[NA]MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix
(e.g.libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must
go in a -devel package.
[NA]MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned
dependency: Requires: {name} = %{version}-%{release}
[NA]MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be
removed in the spec if they are built.
[NA]MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the
%install section
[+]MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
[+]MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
Should items
[+]SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
LICENSE file contains the license text.
[+]SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described.
Installed the package (after getting the dependenices mentioned). Installs
fine. Loaded the module in a test file. The load gives a documented error about
missing environment variable
(DJANGO_SETTINGS_MODULE)
[+]SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane.
APPROVED.
@Rahul, in managers.py, there is a comment at the top that says that the code
is based on code in another project. Should it have been formally
[Bug 702692] Review Request: perl-Test-CheckChanges - Check that the Changes file matches the distribution
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=702692 Paul Howarth p...@city-fan.org changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Paul Howarth p...@city-fan.org 2011-05-07 14:50:06 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: perl-Test-CheckChanges Short Description: Check that the Changes file matches the distribution Owners: pghmcfc Branches: EL-4 EL-5 EL-6 F-13 F-14 F-15 InitialCC: perl-sig Thanks for the review Mario. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 702861] New: Review Request: libidn2 - Library to support IDNA2008 internationalized domain names
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: libidn2 - Library to support IDNA2008 internationalized domain names https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=702861 Summary: Review Request: libidn2 - Library to support IDNA2008 internationalized domain names Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: Unspecified OS/Version: Unspecified Status: NEW Severity: unspecified Priority: unspecified Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: redhat-bugzi...@linuxnetz.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://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/libidn2.spec SRPM URL: http://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/libidn2-0.3-1.src.rpm Description: Libidn2 is an implementation of the IDNA2008 specifications in RFC 5890, 5891, 5892 and 5893 for internationalized domain names (IDN). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 701376] Review Request: ghc-citeproc-hs - Haskell library for the Citation Style Language
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=701376 Lakshmi Narasimhan lakshminaras2...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||lakshminaras2...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|lakshminaras2...@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 701376] Review Request: ghc-citeproc-hs - Haskell library for the Citation Style Language
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=701376 Lakshmi Narasimhan lakshminaras2...@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 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 Lakshmi Narasimhan lakshminaras2...@gmail.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 645857] Review Request: xorg-x11-drv-omapfb - Xorg X11 omap frame buffer driver
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=645857 Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE Last Closed||2011-05-07 15:11:31 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 670127] Review Request: the-board - A space for placing daily records in your GNOME desktop
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=670127 Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE Last Closed||2011-05-07 15:15:23 --- Comment #20 from Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com 2011-05-07 15:15:23 EDT --- In rawhide and F-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 701426] Review Request: python-taboot - Client utility for scripted multi-system administration over Func
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=701426 Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ke...@scrye.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #5 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com 2011-05-07 15:24:46 EDT --- ok, I am going to try and get this reviewed this weekend. ;) Look for a review in a while... Do you have any other packages you are going to submit at this time? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 701426] Review Request: python-taboot - Client utility for scripted multi-system administration over Func
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=701426
--- Comment #6 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com 2011-05-07 15:45:00 EDT ---
OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines
OK - Spec file matches base package name.
OK - Spec has consistant macro usage.
OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines.
OK - License GPLv3+
OK - License field in spec matches
OK - License file included in package
OK - Spec in American English
OK - Spec is legible.
OK - Sources match upstream md5sum:
676c7ef0093bbd43298cedf934420143 python-taboot-0.2.12.tar.gz
676c7ef0093bbd43298cedf934420143 python-taboot-0.2.12.tar.gz.orig
OK - BuildRequires correct
OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good.
See below - Package has a correct %clean section.
OK - Package has correct buildroot
OK - Package is code or permissible content.
OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime.
OK - Package has rm -rf RPM_BUILD_ROOT at top of %install
OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch.
OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files.
OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own.
OK - Package owns all the directories it creates.
OK - Package obey's FHS standard (except for 2 exceptions)
See below - No rpmlint output.
OK - final provides and requires are sane.
SHOULD Items:
OK - Should build in mock.
OK - Should build on all supported archs
OK - Should function as described.
OK - Should have dist tag
OK - Should package latest version
OK - Should not use file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or
/usr/sbin
Issues:
1. Not a blocker, but: There's no need to use macros for things that are longer
than
the command they replace, ie, %{__make} vs just 'make'. I think the non macro
versions
make the spec more readable, but it's up to you.
2. Both the main package and subpackage require func, so what is the advantage
of
having the subpackage? I guess to install on clients only?
3. You don't need a clean section if you aren't targeting EPEL (which I hope
you are)
but why the %{__make} clean at the top of it?
4. rpmlint says:
taboot-func.noarch: W: no-documentation
which can be ignored.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on 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 --- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-05-07 15:56:12 EDT --- detex-2.8-2.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 690954] Review Request: postler - An ultra simple desktop mail 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=690954 --- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-05-07 15:55:58 EDT --- postler-0.1.1-4.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 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 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version||detex-2.8-2.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 690954] Review Request: postler - An ultra simple desktop mail 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=690954 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||postler-0.1.1-4.fc14 Resolution||ERRATA Last Closed||2011-05-07 15:56:04 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 697425] Review Request: sound-theme-beethoven-fifth - Sound theme based on Beethoven's fifth symphony
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=697425 Mario Blättermann mari...@freenet.de changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mari...@freenet.de --- Comment #4 from Mario Blättermann mari...@freenet.de 2011-05-07 17:01:50 EDT --- After a detailed discussion about the need of this package... /bin/touch is shipped with the coreutils package, and I cannot imagine any system which don't have it installed. In my mind, you can drop it completely. In general, your package looks good. Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3057116 $ rpmlint -v * sound-theme-beethoven-fifth.noarch: I: checking sound-theme-beethoven-fifth.noarch: I: checking-url https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Sound (timeout 10 seconds) sound-theme-beethoven-fifth.src: I: checking sound-theme-beethoven-fifth.src: I: checking-url https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Sound (timeout 10 seconds) sound-theme-beethoven-fifth.src: I: checking-url http://elad.fedorapeople.org/sounds/sound-theme-beethoven-fifth-1.0.tar.bz2 (timeout 10 seconds) sound-theme-beethoven-fifth.spec: I: checking-url http://elad.fedorapeople.org/sounds/sound-theme-beethoven-fifth-1.0.tar.bz2 (timeout 10 seconds) 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. No issues so far. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 658450] Review Request: ATpy - Astronomical Tables 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=658450 Sergio Pascual sergio.pa...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #8 from Sergio Pascual sergio.pa...@gmail.com 2011-05-07 19:11:46 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: ATpy Short Description: Astronomical Tables in Python Owners: sergiopr Branches: f13 f14 f15 el6 el5 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 701343] Review Request: ghc-pandoc-types - Pandoc data structure 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=701343
Lakshmi Narasimhan lakshminaras2...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Lakshmi Narasimhan lakshminaras2...@gmail.com 2011-05-07
22:18:59 EDT ---
[+]MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
the review.
rpmlint -i built/*.rpm ghc-pandoc-types.spec
ghc-pandoc-types.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US citeproc - cite
proc, cite-proc, Citigroup
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ghc-pandoc-types.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hs - HS, sh, gs
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ghc-pandoc-types.src:55: W: macro-in-comment %pkg_name
There is a unescaped macro after a shell style comment in the specfile. Macros
are expanded everywhere, so check if it can cause a problem in this case and
escape the macro with another leading % if appropriate.
ghc-pandoc-types.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US citeproc -
cite proc, cite-proc, Citigroup
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ghc-pandoc-types.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hs - HS, sh,
gs
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ghc-pandoc-types-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US citeproc
- cite proc, cite-proc, Citigroup
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ghc-pandoc-types-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hs -
HS, sh, gs
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ghc-pandoc-types-prof.x86_64: E: devel-dependency ghc-pandoc-types-devel
Your package has a dependency on a devel package but it's not a devel package
itself.
ghc-pandoc-types-prof.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US citeproc
- cite proc, cite-proc, Citigroup
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ghc-pandoc-types-prof.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hs - HS,
sh, gs
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ghc-pandoc-types-prof.x86_64: W: no-documentation
The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include
documentation files.
ghc-pandoc-types-prof.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/ghc-6.12.3/pandoc-types-1.8/libHSpandoc-types-1.8_p.a
A development file (usually source code) is located in a non-devel package. If
you want to include source code in your package, be sure to create a
development package.
ghc-pandoc-types.spec:55: W: macro-in-comment %pkg_name
There is a unescaped macro after a shell style comment in the specfile. Macros
are expanded everywhere, so check if it can cause a problem in this case and
escape the macro with another leading % if appropriate.
4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 12 warnings.
[+]MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+]MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec
[+]MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
Naming-Yes
Version-release - Matches
License - OK
No prebuilt external bits - OK
Spec legibity - OK
Package template - OK
Arch support - OK
Libexecdir - OK
rpmlint - yes
changelogs - OK
Source url tag - OK, validated.
Build Requires list - OK
Summary and description - OK
API documentation - OK, in devel package.
[+]MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines .
[+]MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[+]MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package must be included in %doc.
COPYING file included in ghc-pandoc-types package.
[+]MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+]MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+]MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream
source,as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task.
md5sum ghc-pandoc-types-1.8-1.fc14.src/pandoc-types-1.8.tar.gz
776a016eb01cfe62ad2849fe1b9f82bc
ghc-pandoc-types-1.8-1.fc14.src/pandoc-types-1.8.tar.gz
md5sum ~/Downloads/pandoc-types-1.8.tar.gz
776a016eb01cfe62ad2849fe1b9f82bc ~/Downloads/pandoc-types-1.8.tar.gz
[+]MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one
[Bug 688421] Review Request: pyicu - Python extension wrapping IBM's ICU C++ 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=688421
David Nalley da...@gnsa.us changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||da...@gnsa.us
--- Comment #3 from David Nalley da...@gnsa.us 2011-05-07 22:33:40 EDT ---
Since this is a prereq for aardict, I figured we'd get started here given some
of the issues that are being debated about now.
Also, your above SPEC/SRPM links don't work.
Missing a requires for gcc-c++
Project url is not pypi.python.org - a quick google shows it to be
http://pyicu.osafoundation.org/
Why are you removing tests? Why aren't you running those tests?
CHANGES and CREDITS should be %doc as well.
This package has no requires - are you sure? It may not -
[OK] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package
[ke4qqq@nalleyx200 SPECS]$ rpmlint ./PyICU.spec
../SRPMS/PyICU-1.1-1.fc14.src.rpm ../RPMS/x86_64/PyICU-*
3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[OK] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming
Guidelines
[OK] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name} [...]
[ ] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines
[OK] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license
and meet the Licensing Guidelines
[OK] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the
actual license
[OK] MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of
the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc
[OK] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[OK] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[OK] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream
source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for
this task. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package,
please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this.
[ke4qqq@nalleyx200 SOURCES]$ md5sum PyICU-1.1.tar.gz*
70cbb5b43c3e6939b74c3f1b27e47aae PyICU-1.1.tar.gz
70cbb5b43c3e6939b74c3f1b27e47aae PyICU-1.1.tar.gz.1
[FIX] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary
rpms on at least one primary architecture
See the missing buildrequire
[NA] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on
an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the
spec in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST
have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package
does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST
be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line
[FIX] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except
for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging
Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply
common sense.
Missing gcc-c++
[NA] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by
using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly
forbidden
[NA] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared
library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's
default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[NA] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must
state this fact in the request for review, along with the
rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without
this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker.
[OK] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does
not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package
which does create that directory.
[OK] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files
listing.
[OK] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should
be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section
must include a %defattr(...) line.
[OK] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
[OK] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[OK] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[NA] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The
definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but
is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or
quantity).
[OK] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
[Bug 701426] Review Request: python-taboot - Client utility for scripted multi-system administration over Func
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=701426
--- Comment #7 from Tim Bielawa tbiel...@redhat.com 2011-05-07 23:22:00 EDT
---
Kevin, thanks for taking the time to review this!
Issues:
1. Not a blocker, but: There's no need to use macros for things that are
longer...
You just cleared something up I've been wondering for a while. I figured the
macros were for compatibility across build targets. But yeah you're right, cp
and rm are probably not going to have any compatibility issues.
I'm going to leave them in though since: 1) they're already there, and 2) the
uniformity makes the %install section look nice and readable.
2. Both the main package and subpackage require func, so what is the
advantage...
- python-taboot is a client package that you can install on any minion you run
commands from, your 'command-center' you might say.
- taboot-func is a func module that gets installed on target machines. I'll
update the %description of that, its purpose could be much clearer.
Specifically: taboot-func provides a func interface to the mod_jk API on tomcat
JK balancers. The way we use Taboot now we have 'command center' type host in a
given environment that is granted access to the other minions. From there the
func command would go to a machine and utilize the modjk func module that was
installed by taboot-func.
3. You don't need a clean section if you aren't targeting EPEL (which I hope
you are) but why
the %{__make} clean at the top of it?
That is a very good question. I'll see it's unnecessary and remove it if so.
Yes, I do intend to target EPEL. From the EPEL Package Maintainers Page [0] I
see it says that after this is approved for Fedora I can then go on to request
EPEL branches. What does that require of me exactly?
Do you have any other packages you are going to submit at this time?
When you asked about taboot-func it reminded me that the modjkapi library needs
to be available too. It's already packaged with a specfile, I just need to
build it and clean out any rpmlint that might show up.
I'll reply to this ticket again as soon as I have another release addressing
the issues you brought up. Also included will be a reference to the modjkapi
library review request.
[0] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL_Package_Maintainers
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 684475] Review Request: wmblob - Dockapp which shows funny moving `blobs'
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=684475 Iain Arnell iarn...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||iarn...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|iarn...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 702892] New: Review Request: python-modjkapi - API for modjk management
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-modjkapi - API for modjk management https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=702892 Summary: Review Request: python-modjkapi - API for modjk management Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: tbiel...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/~tbielawa/modjkapi/python-modjkapi.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/~tbielawa/modjkapi/releases/modjkapi-latest/python-modjkapi-0.1.2.28-6.fc14.src.rpm Description: Simple API for managing mod_jk via it's xml web api. This is related to #701426 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 702892] Review Request: python-modjkapi - API for modjk management
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=702892 Tim Bielawa tbiel...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||701426, ||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 701426] Review Request: python-taboot - Client utility for scripted multi-system administration over Func
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=701426 Tim Bielawa tbiel...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||702892 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 701426] Review Request: python-taboot - Client utility for scripted multi-system administration over Func
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=701426
--- Comment #8 from Tim Bielawa tbiel...@redhat.com 2011-05-08 01:33:38 EDT
---
2. Both the main package and subpackage require func, so what is
the advantage...
Description of taboot-func has been updated in this release.
3. You don't need a clean section if you aren't targeting EPEL (which I hope
you are) but why the %{__make} clean at the top of it?
I removed make clean and the world didn't come to an end. It's gone in this
release too.
Do you have any other packages you are going to submit at this time?
Now blocking this ticket is a review request for python-modjkapi. taboot-func
has been updated to depend on it (it should have been doing that before now
anyway).
Specfile url is the same:
http://people.redhat.com/~tbielawa/taboot/python-taboot.spec
SRPM is now:
http://people.redhat.com/~tbielawa/taboot/releases/taboot-0.2.13/python-taboot-0.2.13-1.fc14.src.rpm
Thanks for your time Kevin
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
