[Bug 695819] Review Request: php-pecl-rrd - PHP Bindings for rrdtool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=695819 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-05-14 02:24:49 EDT --- php-pecl-rrd-1.0.3-1.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/php-pecl-rrd-1.0.3-1.fc15 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 695819] Review Request: php-pecl-rrd - PHP Bindings for rrdtool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=695819 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-05-14 02:25:39 EDT --- php-pecl-rrd-1.0.3-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/php-pecl-rrd-1.0.3-1.el6 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 695819] Review Request: php-pecl-rrd - PHP Bindings for rrdtool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=695819 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-05-14 02:25:14 EDT --- php-pecl-rrd-1.0.3-1.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/php-pecl-rrd-1.0.3-1.fc14 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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
Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fed...@famillecollet.com
--- Comment #1 from Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com 2011-05-14 04:25:31
EDT ---
Some notes (not a review)
- version is not correct for a pre-release version (1.0-0.1.b1)
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Pre-Release_packages
- use a simple sed instead of dos2unix (avoid dependency)
- don't install doc, list them in %file is enough
%doc README COPYING Changelog
- what is the goal of the 01_fix_binary_license.patch ?
only to change space (diff -b is empty) ?
I don't think it is really usefull...
- name is not correct
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Addon_Packages_.28General.29
and http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/PHP#Naming_scheme
- removing .php suffix from installed binary seems a good idea
- shebang must be fixed (/usr/bin/env php = %{_bindir}/php)
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 704705] New: Review Request: perl-Parallel-Iterator - Simple parallel execution
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: perl-Parallel-Iterator - Simple parallel execution https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=704705 Summary: Review Request: perl-Parallel-Iterator - Simple parallel execution Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: Unspecified URL: http://search.cpan.org/dist/Parallel-Iterator/ OS/Version: Unspecified Status: NEW Severity: unspecified Priority: unspecified Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: iarn...@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://fedorapeople.org/~iarnell/review/perl-Parallel-Iterator.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~iarnell/review/perl-Parallel-Iterator-1.00-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: The map function applies a user supplied transformation function to each element in a list, returning a new list containing the transformed elements. This module provides a 'parallel map'. Multiple worker processes are forked so that many instances of the transformation function may be executed simultaneously. For time consuming operations, particularly operations that spend most of their time waiting for I/O, this is a big performance win. It also provides a simple idiom to make effective use of multi CPU systems. Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3071853 *rt-0.10_01 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 697836] Review Request: mmseq - Haplotype and isoform specific expression estimation for RNA-seq
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=697836
--- Comment #4 from Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at 2011-05-14 05:55:08 EDT
---
The naming guidelines are not met for this pre-release version. Please see the
review below for details and correct it.
Concerning the current FSF address, please see
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=690919#c5
It is not considered as a blocker, so it is up to you.
Please correct the VERSION file prior building, as it contains the wrong
version number. I'd also exclude it from the file section, as it serves no use
as far as I can see.
I'd prefer having a new line for every BuildRequires, as it is clearer. You can
also be more specific on the script file names in the files section.
If you don't plan to introduce the package into EPEL, you can drop the clean
section, the rm -rf %{buildroot} and the BuildRoot definition. It seems like,
there are no samtools in EPEL yet.
Remove the extra white-space in front of the word Example.
I'm not sure if zlib is used at all. It's in the flags, but I can't see how
they'd use it. This might not be important.
Review:
[+] Good
[-] Needs work
[0] Does not apply
MUST:
=
[+] rpmlint:
[makerpm@fedora14 mmseq_0.9.10b]$ rpmlint
/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/mmseq-*
mmseq.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Haplotype - Haplology, Holotype,
Haplography
mmseq.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) isoform - iodoform, isomorph,
proforma
mmseq.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US haplotype - haplology,
holotype, haplography
mmseq.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US isoform - iodoform,
isomorph, proforma
mmseq.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi - mulch, mufti
mmseq.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Haplotype - Haplology,
Holotype, Haplography
mmseq.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) isoform - iodoform, isomorph,
proforma
mmseq.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US haplotype - haplology,
holotype, haplography
mmseq.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US isoform - iodoform,
isomorph, proforma
mmseq.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi - mulch, mufti
mmseq.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/bin/testregexp.rb
mmseq.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/bin/sam2hits.rb
mmseq.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/bin/filterGTF.rb
mmseq.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/bin/fastagrep.sh
mmseq.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/bin/haploref.rb
mmseq.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary haploref.rb
mmseq.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ensembl_gtf_to_gff.pl
mmseq.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mmseq
mmseq.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary get_isize.rb
mmseq.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary bam2hits
mmseq.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fastagrep.sh
mmseq.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary filterGTF.rb
mmseq.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sam2hits.rb
mmseq.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary testregexp.rb
mmseq.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pileup.sh
mmseq-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/mmseq_0.9.10b/mmseq.cpp
mmseq-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/mmseq_0.9.10b/sokal.cc
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 7 errors, 20 warnings.
[-] Naming according to the Package Naming Guidelines: Please see
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageNamingGuidelines#NonNumericRelease
[+] Spec file matches base package name
[+] Packaging guidelines met
[+] License approved for Fedora
[+] License field in spec matches code
[+] License file included, if source package includes it
[+] Spec in American English
[+] Spec is legible
[+] Sources match upstream md5sum: 1f1c5b338eec23994fd84edb7e00b17a
[+] Compiles and builds into binary RPMs on at least one primary architecture:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3071848
[0] ExcludeArch is specified and commented
[0] Locales are handled correctly
[+] All build dependencies listed
[0] Calls ldconfig for its shared libraries
[+] No bundled system libraries
[0] Stated as relocatable package
[+] Owns all its directories or requires package that does
[+] No file listing duplicates
[+] File permissions correct
[+] Consistent use of macros
[+] Code or permissible content
[0] Large documentation in -doc subpackage
[+] No runtime dependency of files listed as %doc
[0] Header files in -devel subpackage
[0] Static files in -static subpackage
[0] Library files without suffix in -devel subpackage
[0] Devel-package requires base package
[0] No .la libtool archives
[0] GUI application includes properly installed %{name}.desktop file
[+] No files or directories owned, that other packages own
[+] Filenames in packages are UTF-8
SHOULD:
===
[0] Query upstream if no license text is included
[+] Package builds in mock: Tried fedora-rawhide-x86_64,
[Bug 664826] Review Request: lucene3 - High-performance, full-featured text search engine
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=664826 Hicham HAOUARI hicham.haou...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||DEFERRED Last Closed||2011-05-14 06:53:00 --- Comment #7 from Hicham HAOUARI hicham.haou...@gmail.com 2011-05-14 06:53:00 EDT --- Sorry, I am giving up since I don't have much time/bandwidth. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 682544] Review request: gargoyle - multi-format interactive fiction interpreter
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=682544 --- Comment #6 from Carlo Teubner ct.spamma...@gmail.com 2011-05-14 08:20:48 EDT --- Thanks, Ken. I've added a generate-tarball.sh script as suggested. New/updated files: http://carlolab.appspot.com/files/gargoyle.spec http://carlolab.appspot.com/files/gargoyle-2010.1-3.fc14.src.rpm http://carlolab.appspot.com/files/gargoyle-2010.1-3.fc14.x86_64.rpm http://carlolab.appspot.com/files/gargoyle-2010.1-3.fc14.i686.rpm http://carlolab.appspot.com/files/generate-tarball.sh Note that since README.fedora already contains an explanation of why we cannot include the various pieces, I have omitted such explanation from generate-tarball.sh. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 697836] Review Request: mmseq - Haplotype and isoform specific expression estimation for RNA-seq
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=697836 --- Comment #5 from Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at 2011-05-14 09:44:06 EDT --- Replacing -lz with -Wl,--as-needed -lz proves right: zlib is unnecessary. You can drop from the BRs and remove it from the Makefile. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[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 #9 from Ivan Afonichev ivan.afonic...@gmail.com 2011-05-14 09:52:19 EDT --- Spec URL: https://github.com/vanaf/tomcat7-fedora/blob/master/tomcat.spec SRPM URL: http://baldr.sgu.ru/rpm/tomcat-7.0.14-1.fc14.src.rpm - Updated to 7.0.14 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 --- Comment #2 from Olivier BONHOMME obonho...@nerim.net 2011-05-14 09:58:07 EDT --- Hello, Thanks for your comments. I considered all your remarks and made new spec file. You can find : - The SPEC file : http://ares.ptitoliv.net/~ptitoliv/fedora/smarty-gettext/smarty-gettext.spec - The SRPM file : http://ares.ptitoliv.net/~ptitoliv/fedora/smarty-gettext/php-Smarty-gettext-1.0-0.1.b1.fc14.src.rpm Regards, -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 703322] Review Request: tpp - text presentation program
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=703322 Golo Fuchert packa...@golotop.de changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|packa...@golotop.de Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #13 from Golo Fuchert packa...@golotop.de 2011-05-14 11:34:23 EDT --- Obviously I was wrong about the mandir being created automatically, I apologize for that. The package looks much better now! I will 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 703322] Review Request: tpp - text presentation program
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=703322
--- Comment #14 from Martin Gieseking martin.giesek...@uos.de 2011-05-14
14:51:30 EDT ---
For proper directory ownership, I recommend to add
%if 0%{?fedora} = 15
Requires: emacs-filesystem = %{_emacs_version}
%endif
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 697836] Review Request: mmseq - Haplotype and isoform specific expression estimation for RNA-seq
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=697836 --- Comment #6 from Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at 2011-05-14 15:01:13 EDT --- Please also delete the 4 pre-built binaries in the prep section! http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#No_inclusion_of_pre-built_binaries_or_libraries -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[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
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #6 from Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at 2011-05-14 15:38:20 EDT
---
It's common to leave out the full stop in the changelog, as it is more like a
list of things.
By the way: INSTALL_LIB seems to be useless. Must be some leftover.
The summary says, the package was a client. I think this should be client
library.
I encourage you to create a sub-package for the test and example file, to keep
the library package small, or delete it at all, if it is not useful.
FYI:
http://groups.google.com/group/linux.debian.devel.mentors/browse_thread/thread/b2f55966e1c58e69/c1f15d9e4289fe45?lnk=raotfwc=1
Review:
[+] Good
[-] Needs work
[0] Does not apply
MUST:
=
[+] rpmlint:
[makerpm@fedora14 adapters]$ rpmlint
~/rpmbuild/SRPMS/hiredis-0.10.0-2.fc14.src.rpm
~/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/hiredis-*0.10.0-2.fc14.x86_64.rpm
hiredis.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) minimalistic - minimalist,
Minimalist, minimalism
hiredis.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US minimalistic -
minimalist, Minimalist, minimalism
hiredis.src: W: invalid-url Source0: antirez-hiredis-v0.10.0-3-gdf203bc.tar.gz
hiredis.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) minimalistic - minimalist,
Minimalist, minimalism
hiredis.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US minimalistic -
minimalist, Minimalist, minimalism
hiredis.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary hiredis-example
hiredis.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary hiredis-test
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings.
[+] Naming according to the Package Naming Guidelines
[+] Spec file matches base package name
[+] Packaging guidelines met
[+] License approved for Fedora
[+] License field in spec matches code
[+] License file included, if source package includes it
[+] Spec in American English
[+] Spec is legible
[+] Sources match upstream md5sum: b32b930e5e1ee007594c1056c3ff1c0e
[+] Compiles and builds into binary RPMs on at least one primary architecture
[0] ExcludeArch is specified and commented
[0] Locales are handled correctly
[+] All build dependencies listed
[+] Calls ldconfig for its shared libraries
[+] No bundled system libraries
[0] Stated as relocatable package
[+] Owns all its directories or requires package that does
[+] No file listing duplicates
[+] File permissions correct
[+] Consistent use of macros
[+] Code or permissible content
[0] Large documentation in -doc subpackage
[+] No runtime dependency of files listed as %doc
[+] Header files in -devel subpackage
[0] Static files in -static subpackage
[+] Library files without suffix in -devel subpackage
[+] Devel-package requires base package
[0] No .la libtool archives
[0] GUI application includes properly installed %{name}.desktop file
[+] No files or directories owned, that other packages own
[+] Filenames in packages are UTF-8
SHOULD:
===
[0] Query upstream if no license text is included
[+] Package builds in mock: Tried epel-6-x86_64 and fedora-rawhide-i386
[?] Package works as described -- Haven't tried
[0] Scriptlets are sane, if used
[0] Subpackages other than -devel should require base package (versioned)
[0] pkgconfig files in -devel subpackage
[0] Dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider
requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself
[0] Contain man pages, where they make sense
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 701183] Review Request: perl-CGI-Application-Plugin-RateLimit - Limits runmode call rate per user
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=701183 --- Comment #3 from Emmanuel Seyman emmanuel.sey...@club-internet.fr 2011-05-14 17:17:31 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2) FIX: BuildRequire on perl(Class::Accessor::Fast) instead of perl(Class::Accessor) as Class::Accessor::Fast is used in code (RateLimit.pm:26) Done FIX: BuildRequire perl(DBI) because of tests (t/02simple.t:15) Done FIX: BuildRequire perl(File::Temp) because of tests (t/02simple.t:16) Done TODO: Remove obsolete BuildRoot cleaning in %install section. Done TODO: Remove already implicit %defattr in %files section. Done (first I've heard of this) TODO: Require perl(CGI::Application) explicitly as this module is extension for that class. Done Spec URL: http://people.parinux.org/~seyman/fedora/perl-CGI-Application-Plugin-RateLimit/perl-CGI-Application-Plugin-RateLimit.spec SRPM URL: http://people.parinux.org/~seyman/fedora/perl-CGI-Application-Plugin-RateLimit/perl-CGI-Application-Plugin-RateLimit-1.0-2.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 704705] Review Request: perl-Parallel-Iterator - Simple parallel execution
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=704705 Emmanuel Seyman emmanuel.sey...@club-internet.fr changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||emmanuel.seyman@club-intern ||et.fr AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|emmanuel.seyman@club-intern ||et.fr Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Emmanuel Seyman emmanuel.sey...@club-internet.fr 2011-05-14 17:21:55 EDT --- Taking. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 704705] Review Request: perl-Parallel-Iterator - Simple parallel execution
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=704705
Emmanuel Seyman emmanuel.sey...@club-internet.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Emmanuel Seyman emmanuel.sey...@club-internet.fr
2011-05-14 17:39:19 EDT ---
=== KEY ===
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines including the Perl specific items
[x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture.
Tested on: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3072333
[x] Rpmlint output:
perl-Parallel-Iterator.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi -
mulch, mufti
perl-Parallel-Iterator.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi -
mulch, mufti
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
[x] Package is not relocatable.
[x] Buildroot is correct
None defined in spec file, default used.
[x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type: GPL+ or Artistic
[-] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package is included in %doc.
[x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
879051d329ea79f59eb4b03bb0bf7c87 Parallel-Iterator-1.00.tar.gz
[x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch
[x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[-] The spec file handles locales properly.
[-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x] Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x] Permissions on files are set properly.
[x] Package consistently uses macros.
[x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[-] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present.
[-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[-] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
[-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
[x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
[x] Latest version is packaged.
[x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
Tested on: rawhide.x86_64
[x] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
Tested on: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3072333
[?] Package functions as described.
[-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct.
[-] File based requires are sane.
[x] %check is present and the tests pass
All tests successful.
Files=9, Tests=29, 1 wallclock secs ( 0.04 usr 0.02 sys + 1.24 cusr 0.49
csys = 1.79 CPU)
Result: PASS
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 704544] Review Request: perl-Dancer - Lightweight yet powerful web application framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=704544 Emmanuel Seyman emmanuel.sey...@club-internet.fr changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||emmanuel.seyman@club-intern ||et.fr AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|emmanuel.seyman@club-intern ||et.fr Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Emmanuel Seyman emmanuel.sey...@club-internet.fr 2011-05-14 17:51:27 EDT --- Taking. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 675557] Review Request: matreshka - set of Ada libraries to help to develop information systems
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=675557 --- Comment #15 from Björn Persson bj...@xn--rombobjrn-67a.se 2011-05-14 18:01:24 EDT --- In my tests it looks like make check does more than just checking. It seems to also recompile the libraries, at least partly. I'm not sure if it does any harm other than wasting some CPU time, but it should probably be investigated. If recompilation can't be avoided, then I think GNAT_optflags should be used even in the make check command. (I am of course still testing 0.1.0-1.20110326svn (slightly modified as described in comment 11), as that's the latest package I've seen.) (In reply to comment #13) Don't worry about pragma Suppress in global configuration file, it will be enabled only when correctness of source code will be proved formally. That sounds somewhat reassuring, but I'm not convinced that it's a good idea to suppress *all* checks. There is always the possibility of errors in the proof. It's particularly unwise to suppress the range checks on arrays, which is a very important line of defense against remote code execution. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 675557] Review Request: matreshka - set of Ada libraries to help to develop information systems
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=675557 --- Comment #16 from Björn Persson bj...@xn--rombobjrn-67a.se 2011-05-14 18:03:25 EDT --- Created attachment 498962 -- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=498962 This build log shows an example of libraries being recompiled by make check. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 704544] Review Request: perl-Dancer - Lightweight yet powerful web application framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=704544
--- Comment #2 from Emmanuel Seyman emmanuel.sey...@club-internet.fr
2011-05-14 18:21:09 EDT ---
=== KEY ===
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines including the Perl specific items
[!] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture.
Tested on: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3072339
perl(CGI) and perl(YAML), at least, are needed as BuildRequires.
[x] Rpmlint output:
perl-Dancer.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/share/doc/perl-Dancer-1.3040/LICENSE
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings.
I won't block on this but please consider sending a bug upstream to ask for
a change of the license (the FSF changed their address a while ago).
[x] Package is not relocatable.
[x] Buildroot is correct
None defined in spec file, default used.
[x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type: GPL+ or Artistic
[x] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package is included in %doc.
[x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
aee9a71497f402414bf34964051cf5de Dancer-1.3040.tar.gz
[x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch
[x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[-] The spec file handles locales properly.
[-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x] Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x] Permissions on files are set properly.
[x] Package consistently uses macros.
[x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[-] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present.
[-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[-] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
[-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
[x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
[x] Latest version is packaged.
[x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
Tested on: rawhide.x86_64
[!] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
Tested on: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3072339
[x] Package functions as described.
[-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct.
[-] File based requires are sane.
[!] %check is present and the tests pass
Files=206, Tests=1514, 40 wallclock secs ( 0.57 usr 0.35 sys + 32.76 cusr
3.57 csys = 37.25 CPU)
Result: FAIL
Failed 12/206 test programs. 62/1514 subtests failed.
NOT 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
