[Bug 709233] Review Request: base64coder-java - Fast and compact Base64 encoder/decoder 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=709233 Jaromír Cápík jca...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||652183(FE-JAVASIG) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 709232] New: Review Request: main package name here - short summary here
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: main package name here - short summary here https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=709232 Summary: Review Request: main package name here - short summary here Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: jca...@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://jcapik.fedorapeople.org/files/base64coder-java/base64coder-java.spec SRPM URL: http://jcapik.fedorapeople.org/files/base64coder-java/base64coder-java-20101219-1.fc14.src.rpm Description: Base64Coder is a fast and compact Base64 encoder/decoder class. There is no Base64 encoder/decoder in the standard Java SDK class library. The undocumented classes sun.misc.BASE64Encoder and sun.misc.BASE64Decoder should not be used. Explanation: http://java.sun.com/products/jdk/faq/faq-sun-packages.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 709233] New: Review Request: base64coder-java - Fast and compact Base64 encoder/decoder library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: base64coder-java - Fast and compact Base64 encoder/decoder library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=709233 Summary: Review Request: base64coder-java - Fast and compact Base64 encoder/decoder library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: jca...@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://jcapik.fedorapeople.org/files/base64coder-java/base64coder-java.spec SRPM URL: http://jcapik.fedorapeople.org/files/base64coder-java/base64coder-java-20101219-1.fc14.src.rpm Description: Base64Coder is a fast and compact Base64 encoder/decoder class. There is no Base64 encoder/decoder in the standard Java SDK class library. The undocumented classes sun.misc.BASE64Encoder and sun.misc.BASE64Decoder should not be used. Explanation: http://java.sun.com/products/jdk/faq/faq-sun-packages.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 196601] Review Request: python-vobject - A python library for manipulating vCard and vCalendar files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=196601 --- Comment #11 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com 2011-05-31 02:56:32 EDT --- Can you please set fedora-cvs flag again when you are ready? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 691403] Review Request: perl-IO-Stty - Change and print terminal line settings
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691403 --- Comment #6 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com 2011-05-31 02:57:46 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 707613] Review Request: dcm4che-test - Test images for dcm4che2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=707613 --- Comment #15 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com 2011-05-31 03:01:18 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 705108] Review Request: shinken - python monitoring tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=705108 --- Comment #9 from David Hannequin david.hanneq...@gmail.com 2011-05-31 03:16:29 EDT --- Hi, New spec file and SRPM : Spec URL: http://hvad.fedorapeople.org/fedora/shinken/shinken.spec SRPM URL: http://hvad.fedorapeople.org/fedora/shinken/shinken-0.6.4-3.fc15.src.rpm Best regard -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 708371] Review Request: perl-RPM-VersionCompare - Compare RPM version strings
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=708371 --- Comment #3 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com 2011-05-31 03:21:37 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 708645] Review Request: fusesource-pom - Parent POM for FuseSource Maven projects
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=708645 --- Comment #4 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com 2011-05-31 03:23:40 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 708670] Review Request: hawtjni - Code generator that produces the JNI code
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=708670 --- Comment #11 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com 2011-05-31 03:25:58 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 709232] Review Request: base64coder-java - Fast and compact Base64 encoder/decoder 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=709232 Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net changed: What|Removed |Added CC||fab...@bernewireless.net Summary|Review Request: main |Review Request: |package name here - short |base64coder-java - Fast and |summary here |compact Base64 ||encoder/decoder library -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 708371] Review Request: perl-RPM-VersionCompare - Compare RPM version strings
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=708371 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Fixed In Version||perl-RPM-VersionCompare-0.1 ||.0-1.fc16 Resolution||RAWHIDE Last Closed||2011-05-31 03:46:33 --- Comment #4 from Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com 2011-05-31 03:46:33 EDT --- Thank you for the review and the repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 690569] Review Request: perl-Task-Perl-Critic - Install everything Perl::Critic
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=690569
Petr Sabata psab...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Petr Sabata psab...@redhat.com 2011-05-31 04:14:51 EDT ---
--- a/perl-Task-Perl-Critic.spec
+++ b/perl-Task-Perl-Critic.spec
@@ -6,7 +6,6 @@ License:GPL+ or Artistic
Group: Development/Libraries
URL:http://search.cpan.org/dist/Task-Perl-Critic/
Source0:
http://www.cpan.org/authors/id/E/EL/ELLIOTJS/Task-Perl-Critic-%{version}.tar.gz
-BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
BuildArch: noarch
BuildRequires: perl(Module::Build)
# Other requires from META.yml are not needed at build and check time. There
@@ -40,7 +39,7 @@ This module does nothing but act as a placeholder. See Task.
%setup -q -n Task-Perl-Critic-%{version}
%build
-%{__perl} Build.PL installdirs=core
+%{__perl} Build.PL installdirs=vendor
./Build
%install
@@ -52,9 +51,8 @@ find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -depth -type d -exec rmdir {}
2/dev/null \;
./Build test
%files
-%defattr(-,root,root,-)
%doc Changes LICENSE README
-%{perl_privlib}/*
+%{perl_vendorlib}/*
%{_mandir}/man3/*
%changelog
@@ -63,5 +61,5 @@ find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -depth -type d -exec rmdir {}
2/dev/null \;
- Do not BuildRequire run-time dependencies, they are not used at build and
check time indeed.
- Remove BuildRoot stuff
-- Install into perl core directory
+- Remove explicit defattr
--
Approving.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 708663] Review Request: ConozcoNicaragua - Geographycal Activity for Sugar
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=708663 Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net changed: What|Removed |Added CC||fab...@bernewireless.net --- Comment #3 from Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net 2011-05-31 04:43:07 EDT --- As far as I know are all sugar activities named like sugar-[activitiy name]. Why not just remove the shebangs? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 708663] Review Request: ConozcoNicaragua - Geographycal Activity for Sugar
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=708663 --- Comment #4 from Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net 2011-05-31 04:43:33 EDT --- More details about sugar packages: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SugarActivityGuidelines -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 690569] Review Request: perl-Task-Perl-Critic - Install everything Perl::Critic
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=690569 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 690569] Review Request: perl-Task-Perl-Critic - Install everything Perl::Critic
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=690569 --- Comment #5 from Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com 2011-05-31 05:02:00 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: perl-Task-Perl-Critic Short Description: Install everything Perl::Critic Owners: ppisar mmaslano psabata Branches: InitialCC: perl-sig -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 706984] Review Request: args4j - Small Java lib that makes it easy to parse command line options/args in CUI apps
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=706984 --- Comment #12 from Jaromír Cápík jca...@redhat.com 2011-05-31 05:33:13 EDT --- Hi Marek. The differences are caused by the svn export, since it produces different timestamps of the directories. That's why MD5SUM cannot be used in this case. Only the directory diff is helpful. BR, J. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 709290] New: Review Request: perl-LWP-Protocol-http10 - Legacy HTTP/1.0 support for LWP
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-LWP-Protocol-http10 - Legacy HTTP/1.0 support for LWP https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=709290 Summary: Review Request: perl-LWP-Protocol-http10 - Legacy HTTP/1.0 support for LWP Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rc040...@freenet.de QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Spec URL: http://corsepiu.fedorapeople.org/packages/perl-LWP-Protocol-http10.spec SRPM URL: http://corsepiu.fedorapeople.org/packages/perl-LWP-Protocol-http10-6.02-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: The LWP::Protocol::http10 module provide support for using HTTP/1.0 protocol with LWP. To use it you need to call LWP::Protocol::implementor() to override the standard handler for http URLs. Notes: 1) This package does not build on Fedora 16, because Fedora 16 does not provide sufficiently new modules this package depends upon. 2) This package is an optional dependency of perl-Plack's testsuite. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 709290] Review Request: perl-LWP-Protocol-http10 - Legacy HTTP/1.0 support for LWP
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=709290 Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||665096 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 708934] Review Request: rubygem-pg - A Ruby interface to the PostgreSQL RDBMS
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=708934
--- Comment #3 from Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com 2011-05-31 06:04:19 EDT
---
I have uploaded new revision:
Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/vondruch/rubygem-pg.spec
SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/vondruch/rubygem-pg-0.11.0-2.fc16.src.rpm
(In reply to comment #1)
- rpmlint ?
rpmlint rubygem-pg-0.11.0-1.fc16.i686.rpm
rubygem-pg.i686: W: no-soname
/usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/pg-0.11.0/lib/pg_ext.so
I am not going to fix this issue since Ruby does not care.
rubygem-pg.i686: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/pg-0.11.0/ext/compat.c
rubygem-pg.i686: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/pg-0.11.0/ext/compat.h
rubygem-pg.i686: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/pg-0.11.0/ext/extconf.h
rubygem-pg.i686: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/pg-0.11.0/ext/pg.c
rubygem-pg.i686: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/pg-0.11.0/ext/pg.h
I have completely removed the ext directory, since the extension is build
anyway. Nobody should miss it.
rubygem-pg.i686: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/pg-0.11.0/lib/pg.rb 0644L /usr/bin/env
I have removed the shebang from this file, as well as from others, and fixed
shebangs in spec files.
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 6 warnings.
- package must be named according to Guidelines OK
- spec file name must match the base package %{name} OK
- package must meet the Packaging Guidelines OK
- package must be licensed with Fedora approved license ?
- license field must match actual license OK
- text of the license in its own file must be included in %doc OK
- sources must match the upstream source OK
- package MUST successfully compile and build OK
- architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in bugzilla OK
- build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires ?
- handle locales properly with %find_lang macro OK
- shared library files must call ldconfig in %post(un) OK
- packages must NOT bundle system libraries OK
- package must own all directories that it creates OK
- permissions on files must be set properly OK
- package must consistently use macros OK
- package must contain code, or permissable content OK
- large documentation must go in a -doc OK
- %doc must not affect the runtime of the application OK
- header files must be in a -devel package OK
- static libraries must be in a -static package OK
- library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel OK
- devel package usually require base package OK
- packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives OK
- GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file OK
- packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages
OK
postgresql-server postgresql-devel should be = as stated in README file.
Even the RHEL-4 contains already PostgreSQL 7.4, so I doubt that it would help
anything.
Imho in license should be postgresql instead of BSD.
I have explicitly asked upstream about versions and they state that the content
of BSD file is wrong, but the BSD license is correct. The upstream issue is
referenced in .spec file, so I think we should be OK.
Why is 'gem install' in prep? I believe install is doing install, so it should
be in install part of spec file.
The true is that gem install is doing all the actions, i.e. %prep, %build and
%install in one step. So it is not that clear where the install should be. But
the %prep section seems to be the most appropriate.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 709300] Review Request: jline2 - JLine is a Java library for handling console input
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=709300 Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||652183(FE-JAVASIG) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 709300] New: Review Request: jline2 - JLine is a Java library for handling console input
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: jline2 - JLine is a Java library for handling console input https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=709300 Summary: Review Request: jline2 - JLine is a Java library for handling console input Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: mgold...@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://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/jline2/1/jline2.spec SRPM URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/jline2/1/jline2-2.5-1.fc15.src.rpm Description: JLine is a Java library for handling console input. It is similar in functionality to BSD editline and GNU readline. People familiar with the readline/editline capabilities for modern shells (such as bash and tcsh) will find most of the command editing features of JLine to be familiar. This package has different group/artifactID from jline which is currently packaged in Fedora. This seems to be a completely new codebase. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 708970] Review Request: rubygem-Platform - Hopefully robust platform sensing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=708970 --- Comment #2 from Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com 2011-05-31 06:27:23 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1) - license field must match actual license ? I found LGPL without version. See the http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing and you will find that if somebody states LGPL, it means actually LGPLv2+ and the short name is LGPLv2+. There is no LGPL short name listed. - text of the license in its own file must be included in %doc ? You should add LGPL statement into doc. What is meant by that? I have no license file, so I have nothing to include. I may request that file from upstream. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 674738] Review Request: kamoso - Application for taking pictures and videos from a webcam
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=674738 Jaroslav Reznik jrez...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #21 from Jaroslav Reznik jrez...@redhat.com 2011-05-31 06:52:15 EDT --- Thanks! 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 708970] Review Request: rubygem-Platform - Hopefully robust platform sensing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=708970 --- Comment #3 from Marcela Mašláňová mmasl...@redhat.com 2011-05-31 06:59:04 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2) (In reply to comment #1) - license field must match actual license ? I found LGPL without version. See the http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing and you will find that if somebody states LGPL, it means actually LGPLv2+ and the short name is LGPLv2+. There is no LGPL short name listed. Ok. - text of the license in its own file must be included in %doc ? You should add LGPL statement into doc. What is meant by that? I have no license file, so I have nothing to include. I may request that file from upstream. License must be included in every package. Details about sub-packages: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Subpackage_Licensing -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 708990] Review Request: rubygem-open4 - open4 is library for management of child processes
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=708990 --- Comment #3 from Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com 2011-05-31 06:46:29 EDT --- I have uploaded new revision: Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/vondruch/rubygem-open4.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/vondruch/rubygem-open4-1.0.1-2.fc16.src.rpm Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3101742 (In reply to comment #1) Requires: rubygems = 0 Why must be requires bigger than 0? Sorry, forgot to do some necessary cleanup. Where is Ruby license stated? I didn't find it in package. https://github.com/ahoward/open4/blob/master/README#L365 Apparently the LICENSE file should be included in next upstream release which is not ready yet. https://github.com/ahoward/open4/commit/e3e61cda38b36cc280cbe3fe0a09e7baec5ab44b You should have text of license in package. Is it worth of the work? I don't think so. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 708934] Review Request: rubygem-pg - A Ruby interface to the PostgreSQL RDBMS
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=708934 --- Comment #4 from Marcela Mašláňová mmasl...@redhat.com 2011-05-31 07:07:50 EDT --- (In reply to comment #3) Imho in license should be postgresql instead of BSD. I have explicitly asked upstream about versions and they state that the content of BSD file is wrong, but the BSD license is correct. The upstream issue is referenced in .spec file, so I think we should be OK. From your comment (License is not that clear) isn't clear, that you have statement from upstream. Sometimes is in specfile included email, where was license claimed. And you should fix new rpmlint complaints: rpmlint rubygem-pg-doc-0.11.0-2.fc16.x86_64.rpm rubygem-pg-doc.x86_64: W: unexpanded-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/pg-0.11.0/ri/PGconn/nonblocking%3f-i.yaml %3f rubygem-pg-doc.x86_64: W: unexpanded-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/pg-0.11.0/ri/PGconn/internal_encoding%3d-i.yaml %3d rubygem-pg-doc.x86_64: W: unexpanded-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/pg-0.11.0/ri/PGresult/%5b%5d-i.yaml %5b rubygem-pg-doc.x86_64: W: unexpanded-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/pg-0.11.0/ri/PGresult/%5b%5d-i.yaml %5d Also license is not packaged in any of sub-packages. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 708842] Review Request: jansi - Jansi is a java library for generating and interpreting ANSI escape sequences
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=708842 Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||709300 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 709300] Review Request: jline2 - JLine is a Java library for handling console input
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=709300 Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||akurt...@redhat.com Depends on||708842 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 708970] Review Request: rubygem-Platform - Hopefully robust platform sensing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=708970 Marcela Mašláňová mmasl...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Marcela Mašláňová mmasl...@redhat.com 2011-05-31 07:18:37 EDT --- 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, this package contain almost nothing, so you don't have anything to package here. 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 708934] Review Request: rubygem-pg - A Ruby interface to the PostgreSQL RDBMS
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=708934 --- Comment #5 from Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com 2011-05-31 07:24:44 EDT --- (In reply to comment #4) (In reply to comment #3) Imho in license should be postgresql instead of BSD. I have explicitly asked upstream about versions and they state that the content of BSD file is wrong, but the BSD license is correct. The upstream issue is referenced in .spec file, so I think we should be OK. From your comment (License is not that clear) isn't clear, that you have statement from upstream. Sometimes is in specfile included email, where was license claimed. I would expect that reviewer could click on the link on the same line to see what is going on, but my expectations might be overly high. And you should fix new rpmlint complaints: rpmlint rubygem-pg-doc-0.11.0-2.fc16.x86_64.rpm rubygem-pg-doc.x86_64: W: unexpanded-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/pg-0.11.0/ri/PGconn/nonblocking%3f-i.yaml %3f rubygem-pg-doc.x86_64: W: unexpanded-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/pg-0.11.0/ri/PGconn/internal_encoding%3d-i.yaml %3d rubygem-pg-doc.x86_64: W: unexpanded-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/pg-0.11.0/ri/PGresult/%5b%5d-i.yaml %5b rubygem-pg-doc.x86_64: W: unexpanded-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/pg-0.11.0/ri/PGresult/%5b%5d-i.yaml %5d These warnings needs to be ignored, since these are valid documentation file names. The filenames are derived from method names, which can contain characters such as []!= Also license is not packaged in any of sub-packages. It is not required, since the subpackage requires the base package. This is quote form guidelines: If a subpackage is dependent (either implicitly or explicitly) upon a base package (where a base package is defined as a resulting binary package from the same source RPM which contains the appropriate license texts as %doc), it is not necessary for that subpackage to also include those license texts as %doc. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 708934] Review Request: rubygem-pg - A Ruby interface to the PostgreSQL RDBMS
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=708934 --- Comment #6 from Marcela Mašláňová mmasl...@redhat.com 2011-05-31 07:35:47 EDT --- (In reply to comment #5) (In reply to comment #4) (In reply to comment #3) Imho in license should be postgresql instead of BSD. I have explicitly asked upstream about versions and they state that the content of BSD file is wrong, but the BSD license is correct. The upstream issue is referenced in .spec file, so I think we should be OK. From your comment (License is not that clear) isn't clear, that you have statement from upstream. Sometimes is in specfile included email, where was license claimed. I would expect that reviewer could click on the link on the same line to see what is going on, but my expectations might be overly high. The link could be gone, but the package could still life in some old release. License must be stated clearly. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 709233] Review Request: base64coder-java - Fast and compact Base64 encoder/decoder 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=709233 --- Comment #1 from Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com 2011-05-31 07:50:18 EDT --- *** Bug 709232 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 709232] Review Request: base64coder-java - Fast and compact Base64 encoder/decoder 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=709232 Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED CC||akurt...@redhat.com Resolution||DUPLICATE Last Closed||2011-05-31 07:50:18 --- Comment #1 from Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com 2011-05-31 07:50:18 EDT --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 709233 *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 567086] Review Request: VXL - C++ Libraries for Computer Vision Research and Implementation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=567086 --- Comment #22 from Mario Ceresa mrcer...@gmail.com 2011-05-31 07:55:00 EDT --- Hey Peter, I think we are getting closer: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3101700 http://mrceresa.fedorapeople.org/vxl-1.14.0-1.fc15.src.rpm http://mrceresa.fedorapeople.org/vxl.spec This solves the missing dependency: a vxl library had no install target in cmake. Still with netlib but without dcmtk, expat, expatpp, minizip and shapelib. ITK also builds correctly with this version! However, rpmlint is *not* silent: [mario@shadow vxl]$ ls *.rpm vxl-1.14.0-1.fc15.x86_64.rpmvxl-devel-1.14.0-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm vxl-debuginfo-1.14.0-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm vxl-doc-1.14.0-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm [mario@shadow vxl]$ rpmlint *.rpm vxl.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libbrct.so.1.14.0 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 vxl.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libvil.so.1.14.0 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 vxl.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libnetlib.so.1.14.0 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 vxl.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libv3p_netlib.so.1.14.0 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 vxl.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libvil1.so.1.14.0 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 vxl.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libvul.so.1.14.0 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 vxl.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libvgl_algo.so.1.14.0 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 vxl.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libmvl.so.1.14.0 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 vxl.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary octree vxl-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 10 warnings. Let me know what do you think of it! Do you still want me to put all libraries in a separate dir, now that expat is out? 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 539387] Review Request: InsightToolkit - Medical imaging processing library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=539387 --- Comment #17 from Mario Ceresa mrcer...@gmail.com 2011-05-31 08:05:54 EDT --- New version where I tested build install with last vxl rpm http://mrceresa.fedorapeople.org/InsightToolkit-3.20.0-5.fc15.src.rpm http://mrceresa.fedorapeople.org/InsightToolkit.spec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 709328] Review Request: psi-plus - Jabber client based on Qt
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=709328 Ivan Romanov dr...@land.ru 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 709328] New: Review Request: psi-plus - Jabber client based on Qt
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: psi-plus - Jabber client based on Qt https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=709328 Summary: Review Request: psi-plus - Jabber client based on Qt Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: Unspecified OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: unspecified Priority: unspecified Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: dr...@land.ru QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Hello. I allready have experience with packaging for Fedora. Spec URL: https://github.com/RussianFedora/psi-plus/blob/5444787be737b51acc4f776b3bc823ee7adc8d74/psi-plus.spec SRPM URL: http://koji.russianfedora.ru/packages/psi-plus/0.15/0.18.20110530svn3954.fc14/src/psi-plus-0.15-0.18.20110530svn3954.fc14.src.rpm Description: Psi+ - Psi IM Mod by psi-...@conference.jabber.ru koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3101902 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 707613] Review Request: dcm4che-test - Test images for dcm4che2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=707613 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 707613] Review Request: dcm4che-test - Test images for dcm4che2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=707613 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-05-31 08:16:50 EDT --- dcm4che-test-2.6-0.1.fc15.20110530svn15516 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/dcm4che-test-2.6-0.1.fc15.20110530svn15516 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 708765] Review Request: Frogr - Flickr Remote Organizer for GNOME
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=708765 --- Comment #6 from Mario Sanchez Prada msanc...@igalia.com 2011-05-31 09:15:10 EDT --- Breaking News: As a result of a conversation in my blog [1] Christophe Fergeau, who obviously knows a lot more than me when it comes to Fedora packaging :-), has been doing some follow-up work on that matter and have updated the frogr.spec file in frogr git repository, which I think you should consider to avoid duplicating efforts: http://git.gnome.org/browse/frogr/tree/frogr.spec I already told him about this being tracked in this bugzilla, so all the people interested can be in the same page. Thanks Christophe! [1] http://blogs.igalia.com/mario/2011/05/27/frogr-0-5-released -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 472639] Review Request: Scilab - Numerical Analysis toolkit
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472639 Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||lemen...@gmail.com --- Comment #45 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com 2011-05-31 09:55:43 EDT --- What's the status of this ticket? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 708836] Review Request: jansi-native - Jansi Native implements the JNI Libraries used by the Jansi project.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=708836 Stanislav Ochotnicky socho...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||socho...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|socho...@redhat.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Stanislav Ochotnicky socho...@redhat.com 2011-05-31 10:22:20 EDT --- I'll review this -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 706984] Review Request: args4j - Small Java lib that makes it easy to parse command line options/args in CUI apps
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=706984 Jaromír Cápík jca...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #13 from Jaromír Cápík jca...@redhat.com 2011-05-31 10:24:15 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: args4j Short Description: Small Java lib that makes it easy to parse command line options/args in CUI apps Owners: jcapik Branches: f15 InitialCC: java-sig -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 693425] Review Request: openerp - OpenERP business application
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=693425 Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo? --- Comment #50 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com 2011-05-31 10:39:23 EDT --- Beats me, need more help! According to the links in #48, an exception request should be entered as a ticket in the trac system. However, I find no info on how to get permissions to submit such a ticket. Are we missing something, or is this a mistake in the new Getting an exception-process? How should Panos proceed to submit ticket(s) at https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 708990] Review Request: rubygem-open4 - open4 is library for management of child processes
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=708990 Marcela Mašláňová mmasl...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Marcela Mašláňová mmasl...@redhat.com 2011-05-31 10:41:38 EDT --- 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 693425] Review Request: openerp - OpenERP business application
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=693425 David Nalley da...@gnsa.us changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|needinfo? | --- Comment #51 from David Nalley da...@gnsa.us 2011-05-31 10:45:44 EDT --- He'll need to login with his FAS account to create a ticket there. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 708836] Review Request: jansi-native - Jansi Native implements the JNI Libraries used by the Jansi project.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=708836
--- Comment #2 from Stanislav Ochotnicky socho...@redhat.com 2011-05-31
10:51:07 EDT ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[!] Rpmlint output:
jansi-native.i686: W: summary-ended-with-dot C Jansi Native implements the JNI
Libraries used by the Jansi project.
jansi-native.i686: E: no-binary
jansi-native.i686: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/maven/fragments/jansi-native
jansi-native.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot C Jansi Native implements the JNI
Libraries used by the Jansi project.
jansi-native.src: W: invalid-url Source0: jansi-native-1.1.tar.gz
jansi-native-debuginfo.i686: E: empty-debuginfo-package
jansi-native-javadoc.i686: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Javadocs - Java
docs, Java-docs, Avocados
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 5 warnings.
1. fix summary
2. fix debuginfo package, most probably by defining %global debug_package
%{nil}
no-binary error is bogus, in this case the binary is hidden inside jar
[x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines[1].
[x] Spec file name must match the base package name, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines[2].
[x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms.
[x] Buildroot definition is not present
[x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines[3,4].
[x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type: ASL 2.0
[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.
[!] All independent sub-packages have license of their own
javadoc should include license
[x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[!] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
tar.gz has unstable timestamps/md5sums. I suggest using lzma/xz instead
[!] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines[5].
hawtjni-maven-plugin should be added
[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 does NOT have a %clean section which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}
(or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). (not needed anymore)
[x] Package consistently uses macros (no %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
mixing)
[x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[x] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
[x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x] Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
subpackage
[x] Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlinks)
[x] Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
[x] Javadoc subpackages have Require: jpackage-utils
[x] Package uses %global not %define
[x] If package uses tarball from VCS include comment how to re-create that
tarball (svn export URL, git clone URL, ...)
[-] If source tarball includes bundled jar/class files these need to be
removed prior to building
[x] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
[x] Jar files are installed to %{_javadir}/%{name}.jar (see [6] for details)
[x] If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even when
building with ant
[x] pom files has correct add_to_maven_depmap call which resolves to the pom
file (use JPP. and JPP- correctly)
=== Maven ===
[x] Use %{_mavenpomdir} macro for placing pom files instead of
%{_datadir}/maven2/poms
[-] If package uses -Dmaven.test.skip=true explain why it was needed in a
comment
[-] If package uses custom depmap -Dmaven2.jpp.depmap.file=* explain why
it's needed in a comment
[x] Package uses %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun
[x] Packages have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on jpackage-utils (for
%update_maven_depmap macro)
=== Other suggestions ===
[x] If possible use upstream build method (maven/ant/javac)
[x] Avoid having BuildRequires on exact NVR unless necessary
[-] Package has BuildArch: noarch (if possible)
[x] Latest version is packaged.
[x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
Tested on: fedora-rawhide-i686
=== Issues ===
1. license
2. summary
3. debuginfo subpackage
4. native-linux jar contains architecture specific file (libjansi.so). I'm
taking this to SIG meeting since we haven't encountered things like this
before. It
[Bug 708836] Review Request: jansi-native - Jansi Native implements the JNI Libraries used by the Jansi project.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=708836 --- Comment #3 from Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com 2011-05-31 11:21:39 EDT --- Just so things will not run out of my head, updated the files with above comments I could fix. Waiting for the meeting and resolution hints. Thanks! Spec URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/jansi-native/2/jansi-native.spec SRPM URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/jansi-native/2/jansi-native-1.1-2.fc15.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 673589] Review Request: UpTools - C++ library for hpc, networking, db, memory, etc.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=673589 --- Comment #56 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-05-31 11:57:03 EDT --- UpTools-8.5.5-2.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/UpTools-8.5.5-2.el5 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 693425] Review Request: openerp - OpenERP business application
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=693425 --- Comment #52 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com 2011-05-31 12:07:37 EDT --- I. e., https://admin.fedoraproject.org/accounts/. BTW, this needs to be added to the trac main page. When coming from nowhere, this is far from obvious. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 #32 from Ole ole.er...@gmail.com 2011-05-31 12:17:39 EDT ---
The bindir definition can be shortened by replacing
%{_datadir}/%{name}
with
%{homedir}
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 524147] Review Request: libnetdevname -Development environment for libnetdevname
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=524147 Praveen K Paladugu praveen_palad...@dell.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2011-05-31 12:21:14 --- Comment #24 from Praveen K Paladugu praveen_palad...@dell.com 2011-05-31 12:21:14 EDT --- This package is currently replaced by biosdevname package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 683127] Review Request: TPM Quote Tools - TPM-based attestation using the TPM quote operation (tools)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=683127 --- Comment #5 from Daniel Walsh dwa...@redhat.com 2011-05-31 13:27:10 EDT --- Any movement on this package? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 702209] Review Request: apache-commons-vfs - Provides a single API for accessing various different file 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=702209 --- Comment #1 from Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com 2011-05-31 13:27:07 EDT --- http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/apache-commons-vfs.spec http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/apache-commons-vfs-1.0-2.fc15.src.rpm * Tue May 31 2011 Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com 1.0-2 - Use pom.xml from upstream svn -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 683127] Review Request: tpm-quote-tools - TPM-based attestation using the TPM quote operation (tools)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=683127 William Lima wl...@primate.com.br changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: TPM Quote |Review Request: |Tools - TPM-based |tpm-quote-tools - TPM-based |attestation using the TPM |attestation using the TPM |quote operation (tools) |quote operation (tools) --- Comment #6 from William Lima wl...@primate.com.br 2011-05-31 13:55:59 EDT --- I've fixed your review summary. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 690919] Review Request: aswvdial - Dockapp for wvdial
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=690919 --- Comment #11 from Mario Blättermann mari...@freenet.de 2011-05-31 14:02:54 EDT --- OK, I've removed the MIT license again and added CFLAGS. Spec URL: http://mariobl.fedorapeople.org/Review/SPECS/aswvdial.spec SRPM URL: http://mariobl.fedorapeople.org/Review/SRPMS/aswvdial-1.7-3.fc15.src.rpm Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3102572 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 683127] Review Request: tpm-quote-tools - TPM-based attestation using the TPM quote operation (tools)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=683127 William Lima wl...@primate.com.br changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) --- Comment #7 from William Lima wl...@primate.com.br 2011-05-31 14:11:37 EDT --- Added FE-NEEDSPONSOR to you. For more information read: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 703698] Review Request: gx_head - a mono tube amplifier (guitarix branch)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=703698 Orcan Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||oget.fed...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|oget.fed...@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 683127] Review Request: tpm-quote-tools - TPM-based attestation using the TPM quote operation (tools)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=683127 --- Comment #8 from William Lima wl...@primate.com.br 2011-05-31 14:23:49 EDT --- Where is your %changelog? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_an_RPM_package -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 #33 from Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com 2011-05-31
14:40:29 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #32)
The bindir definition can be shortened by replacing
%{_datadir}/%{name}
with
%{homedir}
Would you mind opening a new bug with git patch attached to do all the
simplifications you suggest?
It's good to keep review bugs on review issuess. Thanks in advance.
I'm closing this bug now.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE Last Closed||2011-05-31 14:41:26 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 708711] Review Request: nomnom - The graphical video download tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=708711 --- Comment #4 from Nicoleau Fabien nicoleau.fab...@gmail.com 2011-05-31 14:48:33 EDT --- Updated : Spec URL: http://rpms.nicoleau-fabien.net/SPECS/nomnom.spec SRPM URL: http://rpms.nicoleau-fabien.net/SRPMS/nomnom-0.1.3-3.fc15.src.rpm %changelog * Tue May 31 2011 Nicoleau Fabien nicoleau.fab...@gmail.com 0.1.3-3 - Manage a all compression of the man pages About the default video player used (the xdg-open command), it was discussed here : http://www.spinics.net/lists/fedora-devel/msg151512.html But I'm still not sure if it's a better solution than totem. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 708765] Review Request: Frogr - Flickr Remote Organizer for GNOME
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=708765 --- Comment #7 from Mario Blättermann mari...@freenet.de 2011-05-31 14:56:08 EDT --- Many thanks for all the hints and improvements! I've now crowded the old spec file and built a new one based on the one in Git. Spec URL: http://mariobl.fedorapeople.org/Review/SPECS/frogr.spec SRPM URL: http://mariobl.fedorapeople.org/Review/SRPMS/frogr-0.5-1.fc15.src.rpm Description: Frogr is a small application for the GNOME desktop that allows users to manage their accounts in the Flickr image hosting website. It supports all the basic tasks, including uploading pictures, adding descriptions, setting tags and managing sets. However, I'm unsure if we need such a changelog. It reflects all the changes due to the software itself, although our package changelog is actually for changes to the package. The packaging guidelines say the following [1]: Changelog entries should provide a brief summary of the changes done to the package between releases, including noting updating to a new version, adding a patch, fixing other spec sections, note bugs fixed, and CVE's if any. They must never simply contain an entire copy of the source CHANGELOG entries. The intent is to give the user a hint as to what changed in a package update without overwhelming them with the technical details. Links to upstream changelogs can be entered for those who want additional information. Means, we can drop all the changelog entries which also be found in the upstream changelog anyway. [1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines#Changelogs -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 708765] Review Request: Frogr - Flickr Remote Organizer for GNOME
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=708765 --- Comment #8 from Mario Blättermann mari...@freenet.de 2011-05-31 14:57:44 EDT --- Sorry, just pushed the wrong srpm link. The right one is: SRPM URL: http://mariobl.fedorapeople.org/Review/SRPMS/frogr-0.5-2.fc15.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 706984] Review Request: args4j - Small Java lib that makes it easy to parse command line options/args in CUI apps
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=706984 --- Comment #14 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2011-05-31 15:15:54 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 674738] Review Request: kamoso - Application for taking pictures and videos from a webcam
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=674738 --- Comment #23 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2011-05-31 15:15:09 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 690569] Review Request: perl-Task-Perl-Critic - Install everything Perl::Critic
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=690569 --- Comment #6 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2011-05-31 15:15:29 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 708765] Review Request: Frogr - Flickr Remote Organizer for GNOME
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=708765 --- Comment #9 from Mario Blättermann mari...@freenet.de 2011-05-31 15:20:39 EDT --- Just tested Frogr 0.5. It starts with an empty window, although Frogr is already authorized to Flickr correctly. I can choose local pictures, tag them, change the description and upload them. But once the pictures have been uploaded to Flickr, the window becomes empty again. Is this behavior intended to be so, or should I actually be able to browse through the pictures at flickr.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 708475] Review Request: pysdm - Python based Storage Device Manager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=708475 --- Comment #1 from Richard Shaw hobbes1...@gmail.com 2011-05-31 15:34:02 EDT --- rpmlint output: $ rpmlint pysdm.spec pysdm-0.4.1-1.fc14.src.rpm pysdm-0.4.1-1.fc14.noarch.rpm pysdm.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mountpoints - mount points, mount-points, mountaintops pysdm.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US fstab - stab, f stab, fiesta pysdm.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US udev - udder, Udine, nude pysdm.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mountpoints - mount points, mount-points, mountaintops pysdm.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US fstab - stab, f stab, fiesta pysdm.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US udev - udder, Udine, nude pysdm.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/pysdm-0.4.1/README pysdm.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/pysdm-0.4.1/NEWS pysdm.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/pysdm-0.4.1/COPYING pysdm.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pysdm 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 7 warnings. The zero length docs are in the source. I guess they could be removed but would need to be added back if they ever contained anything. I think it's easier to leave them in so their contents (whenever added) will automatically find their way into the package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 707819] Review Request: DSDP - Software for semidefinite programming
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=707819 Richard Shaw hobbes1...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hobbes1...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|hobbes1...@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 701079] Review Request: wmSun - Rise/Set time of Sun in a dockapp
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=701079 --- Comment #2 from Mario Blättermann mari...@freenet.de 2011-05-31 15:41:26 EDT --- Thanks for the hint. New files: Spec URL: http://mariobl.fedorapeople.org/Review/SPECS/wmSun.spec SRPM URL: http://mariobl.fedorapeople.org/Review/SRPMS/wmSun-1.03-2.fc15.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 708765] Review Request: Frogr - Flickr Remote Organizer for GNOME
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=708765 --- Comment #10 from Mario Sanchez Prada msanc...@igalia.com 2011-05-31 15:43:46 EDT --- (In reply to comment #7) [...] However, I'm unsure if we need such a changelog. It reflects all the changes due to the software itself, although our package changelog is actually for changes to the package. The packaging guidelines say the following [1]: [...] Means, we can drop all the changelog entries which also be found in the upstream changelog anyway. [1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines#Changelogs I agree with you. Let's drop all the entries (that are in NEWS file anyway) and keep there just the changes related to the package, as it's already being done in Debian (I mean, in the package shipped with debian distros, not in my particular version of the debian/changelog file) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 674738] Review Request: kamoso - Application for taking pictures and videos from a webcam
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=674738 --- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-05-31 15:50:09 EDT --- kamoso-2.0.2-1.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/kamoso-2.0.2-1.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 708765] Review Request: Frogr - Flickr Remote Organizer for GNOME
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=708765 --- Comment #11 from Mario Sanchez Prada msanc...@igalia.com 2011-05-31 15:49:03 EDT --- (In reply to comment #9) Just tested Frogr 0.5. It starts with an empty window, although Frogr is already authorized to Flickr correctly. I can choose local pictures, tag them, change the description and upload them. But once the pictures have been uploaded to Flickr, the window becomes empty again. Is this behavior intended to be so, or should I actually be able to browse through the pictures at flickr.com? What you described is exactly the expected behavior :-) Even though the original idea behind frogr is to have a full featured flickr manager, the truth is that at the moment it is just a flickr uploader, so that's why you don't see anything as soon as you start frogr, and the only feedback you have about being logged in is the string in the status bar saying Connected as username. Also, the behavior of getting the window empty again after uploading is also the expected behaviour, since every picture is removed after a successful upload, both to give feedback to the user (as in one picture less to be uploaded) and to leave the application in a handy state if something fails in the middle, so resuming the process would be just a matter of clicking upload again. So, short answer: yes, it's the expected behaviour, since it's just an uploader at the moment, despite of the word organizer in the app name. 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 674738] Review Request: kamoso - Application for taking pictures and videos from a webcam
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=674738 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 674738] Review Request: kamoso - Application for taking pictures and videos from a webcam
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=674738 --- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-05-31 15:49:33 EDT --- kamoso-2.0.2-1.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/kamoso-2.0.2-1.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 708765] Review Request: Frogr - Flickr Remote Organizer for GNOME
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=708765
--- Comment #14 from Christophe Fergeau cferg...@redhat.com 2011-05-31
15:54:23 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #12)
Don't you need to list there something like %{_datadir}/gnome/help/%{name}/*?
Yes you do, but only when you're using git :) The help files were added a few
days ago so are not part of the 0.5 release. The rpm build fails when there are
files that were installed by make install but are not listed in %files, so
missing files get noticed.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 708765] Review Request: Frogr - Flickr Remote Organizer for GNOME
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=708765 --- Comment #13 from Christophe Fergeau cferg...@redhat.com 2011-05-31 15:52:47 EDT --- Fwiw, $ rpmlint frogr-0.5-2.fc15.src.rpm frogr.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Flickr - Flick, Flicker, Flicks frogr.src: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found de frogr.src:4: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 4, tab: line 1) 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. The 1st warning is a false alarm, I'm not sure what the 2nd one means, but it's related to the german descriptions that are in there I guess, the last one should be fixed :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 708765] Review Request: Frogr - Flickr Remote Organizer for GNOME
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=708765
--- Comment #12 from Mario Sanchez Prada msanc...@igalia.com 2011-05-31
15:52:16 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #7)
Many thanks for all the hints and improvements! I've now crowded the old spec
file and built a new one based on the one in Git.
Spec URL: http://mariobl.fedorapeople.org/Review/SPECS/frogr.spec
[...]
In the following section:
%files -f %{name}.lang
%defattr(-,root,root,-)
%{_bindir}/%{name}
%{_datadir}/%{name}/*
%{_datadir}/pixmaps/%{name}.xpm
%{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/*/apps/%{name}.png
%{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/*/apps/%{name}.svg
%{_datadir}/applications/%{name}.desktop
%{_mandir}/man1/frogr.1.*
%doc README NEWS COPYING AUTHORS THANKS TODO MAINTAINERS TRANSLATORS
Don't you need to list there something like %{_datadir}/gnome/help/%{name}/*?
I'm talking from my vast ignorance on the topic, just wondering because when I
was playing yesterday with the .spec file, I needed to do it so the help files
got installed through the rpm package.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 700587] Review Request: surfer - visualization of algebraic geometry
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=700587 --- Comment #5 from Mario Blättermann mari...@freenet.de 2011-05-31 16:02:14 EDT --- Sorry for the blurb. The folder are properly owned by your package. I was a bit mislead by the packaging guidelines. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 701841] Review Request: cargo-parent - cargo parent pom
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=701841 Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2011-05-31 16:07:53 --- Comment #5 from Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com 2011-05-31 16:07:53 EDT --- Checked in and built. Thanks all. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 708765] Review Request: Frogr - Flickr Remote Organizer for GNOME
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=708765
--- Comment #15 from Mario Blättermann mari...@freenet.de 2011-05-31 16:12:14
EDT ---
(In reply to comment #14)
(In reply to comment #12)
Don't you need to list there something like
%{_datadir}/gnome/help/%{name}/*?
Yes you do, but only when you're using git :) The help files were added a few
days ago so are not part of the 0.5 release. The rpm build fails when there
are
files that were installed by make install but are not listed in %files, so
missing files get noticed.
Right. Currently, we speak about v0.5, which doesn't ship the help files yet.
Given the current state of the manual, you shouldn't think about a new release.
We should concentrate the effort now to package the 0.5 release for F15 and
Rawhide.
Moreover, I think about to provide a GTK+2 based version for F14. Is Frogr
still fully compatible to GTK+2, or are there any constraints?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 708765] Review Request: Frogr - Flickr Remote Organizer for GNOME
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=708765
--- Comment #16 from Mario Sanchez Prada msanc...@igalia.com 2011-05-31
16:34:20 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #14)
(In reply to comment #12)
Don't you need to list there something like
%{_datadir}/gnome/help/%{name}/*?
Yes you do, but only when you're using git :) The help files were added a few
days ago so are not part of the 0.5 release. The rpm build fails when there
are
files that were installed by make install but are not listed in %files, so
missing files get noticed.
Ah! Yes, you're right, sorry for the noise. I forgot for a moment that we were
talking about 0.5 :-)
PS: Nice to see anyway that I was not wrong with my guessing :-)
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 708765] Review Request: Frogr - Flickr Remote Organizer for GNOME
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=708765 --- Comment #17 from Mario Sanchez Prada msanc...@igalia.com 2011-05-31 16:44:13 EDT --- (In reply to comment #15) [...] Right. Currently, we speak about v0.5, which doesn't ship the help files yet. Given the current state of the manual, you shouldn't think about a new release. We should concentrate the effort now to package the 0.5 release for F15 and Rawhide. Yes, forget about it (see my previous comment) Moreover, I think about to provide a GTK+2 based version for F14. Is Frogr still fully compatible to GTK+2, or are there any constraints? Yes, it's fully compatible (no constraints at all), actually the packages I provide in my PPA for Ubuntu Lucid and Maverick are compiled with gtk2, while in Ubuntu Natty the packe is compiled with gtk3. The configure.ac is written so frogr will compile this way: * If gtk3 devel files are present, frogr will build with gtk3 (default). * If no gtk3 devel files are present, but gtk2 devel files are, frogr will build with gtk2 (default fallback when gtk3 is not present). * If both gtk2 and gtk3 devel files installed frogr will build with gtk3. * If both gtk2 and gtk3 devel files installed, but you still want to force using gtk2, you can pass --with-gtk=2.0 to the configure script. So as you can see, gtk3 is the default but frogr will build with gtk2 perfectly anyway, either by not having gtk3 dev files present or because you explicitly say it so. About restrictions there are none of them since the code already uses some #ifdef ... #endif regions to take into account the differences that must be taken into account in frogr when it comes to using gtk2 or gtk3 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 673790] Rename Request: mingw32-w32api - mingw-headers - Win32/Win64 header files and stubs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=673790 --- Comment #3 from Erik van Pienbroek erik-fed...@vanpienbroek.nl 2011-05-31 17:15:11 EDT --- @FE-Legal: Did you already had a chance to look at this package? We need to have legal approval for this package (and the mingw-runtime package, bug 673792) before we can introduce the mingw-w64 toolchain in Fedora and we wish to get everything ready in time for the Fedora 16 feature freeze (which will be in about 2 months from now). The legal approval is the main blocking issue for us at the moment -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 707819] Review Request: DSDP - Software for semidefinite programming
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=707819 --- Comment #1 from Richard Shaw hobbes1...@gmail.com 2011-05-31 17:36:09 EDT --- I built it under mock for x86_64 since I'm still running F14. Here's the rpmlint output: $ rpmlint DSDP.spec DSDP-5.8-1.fc15.src.rpm DSDP-5.8-1.fc15.*.rpm DSDP.spec: W: invalid-url Source1: DSDP-man.tar.xz DSDP.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) semidefinite - semi definite, semi-definite, definiteness DSDP.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US semidefinite - semi definite, semi-definite, definiteness DSDP.src: W: invalid-url Source1: DSDP-man.tar.xz DSDP.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) semidefinite - semi definite, semi-definite, definiteness DSDP.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US semidefinite - semi definite, semi-definite, definiteness DSDP.src: W: invalid-url Source1: DSDP-man.tar.xz DSDP.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) semidefinite - semi definite, semi-definite, definiteness DSDP.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US semidefinite - semi definite, semi-definite, definiteness DSDP.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libdsdp.so.5.8 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 DSDP.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/libdsdp.so.5.8 0775L 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 10 warnings. I'm thinking we should fix the error. Maybe change the cp -p to install -p -m 0755... I made the change and it worked. I also did this for the DSDP-exmples after I realized I forgot to run rpmlint on those packages as well. I'm not sure what we should do about the last warning... --- $ rpmlint -I shared-lib-calls-exit shared-lib-calls-exit: This library package calls exit() or _exit(), probably in a non-fork() context. Doing so from a library is strongly discouraged - when a library function calls exit(), it prevents the calling program from handling the error, reporting it to the user, closing files properly, and cleaning up any state that the program has. It is preferred for the library to return an actual error code and let the calling program decide how to handle the situation. --- Is this a problem? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 691635] Review Request: prepaid-manager-applet - An applet for the GNOME Desktop for GSM mobile prepaid SIM cards
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691635 Felix Möller fe...@derklecks.de changed: What|Removed |Added CC||fe...@derklecks.de --- Comment #12 from Felix Möller fe...@derklecks.de 2011-05-31 17:40:18 EDT --- I think there is some breakage in the current upstream release. The accountdb.py is not even in the release tarball and therefore missing from the resulting RPM ... Nice to see the package here. Just read about it on planet-gnome. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 700814] Review Request: din - A musical instrument using multiple Bezier curves
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=700814 --- Comment #7 from Adam Huffman bl...@verdurin.com 2011-05-31 17:49:05 EDT --- Don't know whether you noticed in the recent release notes, but a factory reset has been required i.e. removing ~/.din if you've used an earlier version. I tried that just know with a local build of my 1.6.1 package and it starts up and runs fine. Could you try again after renaming your ~/.din? (Mine is on F14 - haven't upgraded my main desktop yet) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 707819] Review Request: DSDP - Software for semidefinite programming
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=707819 --- Comment #2 from Richard Shaw hobbes1...@gmail.com 2011-05-31 18:03:51 EDT --- Working my way down the MUST list: MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. I can't find anywhere where the license type is specified. The license file just says it's ok to use/distribute as long as the license file is included. I didn't find any evidence of a MIT license in the source files either using grep. Perhaps it would be better to use: Freely redistributable without restriction per the guidelines[1]? More when I have time... Richard [1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#.22Distributable.22 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 706593] Review Request: qwtpolar - Display values on a polar coordinate system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=706593 Adam Huffman bl...@verdurin.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 706593] Review Request: qwtpolar - Display values on a polar coordinate system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=706593
--- Comment #1 from Adam Huffman bl...@verdurin.com 2011-05-31 18:04:49 EDT
---
Here's an initial check:
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
[x] : MUST - Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported architecture.
[x] : MUST - Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x] : MUST - Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x] : MUST - ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x] : MUST - Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x] : MUST - Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=...
doesn't work.
[x] : MUST - Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x] : MUST - Rpmlint output is silent.
rpmlint qwtpolar-0.1.0-1.fc16.i686.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
rpmlint qwtpolar-devel-0.1.0-1.fc16.i686.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
rpmlint qwtpolar-debuginfo-0.1.0-1.fc16.i686.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
rpmlint qwtpolar-0.1.0-1.fc16.src.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[x] : MUST - Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x] : MUST - Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
MD5SUM this package : eda110ec4fcf1ee03a507328de864cdc
MD5SUM upstream package : eda110ec4fcf1ee03a507328de864cdc
[x] : MUST - Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[-] : MUST - %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[-] : MUST - Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop using
desktop-file-install file if it is a GUI application.
[-] : MUST - The spec file handles locales properly.
[-] : MUST - No %config files under /usr.
[-] : MUST - Static libraries in -static subpackage, if present.
[ ] : MUST - Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and
meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[ ] : MUST - %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[ ] : MUST - All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[ ] : MUST - Package contains no bundled libraries.
[ ] : MUST - Changelog in prescribed format.
[ ] : MUST - Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[ ] : MUST - Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[ ] : MUST - Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[ ] : MUST - Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[ ] : MUST - Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[ ] : MUST - Permissions on files are set properly.
[ ] : MUST - Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[ ] : MUST - Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[ ] : MUST - If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %doc.
[ ] : MUST - License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[ ] : MUST - License file installed when any subpackage combination is
installed.
[ ] : MUST - Package consistently uses macros. instead of hard-coded directory
names.
[ ] : MUST - Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
[ ] : MUST - Package does not generates any conflict.
[ ] : MUST - Package does not contains kernel modules.
[ ] : MUST - Package contains no static executables.
[ ] : MUST - Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[ ] : MUST - Package must own all directories that it creates.
[ ] : MUST - Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[ ] : MUST - Package installs properly.
[ ] : MUST - Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[ ] : MUST - Package is not relocatable.
[ ] : MUST - Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[ ] : MUST - Spec file is legible and written in American
[Bug 706593] Review Request: qwtpolar - Display values on a polar coordinate system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=706593 Adam Huffman bl...@verdurin.com changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|bl...@verdurin.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 705799] Review Request: EvtxParser - Windows Event Log parsing tools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=705799 --- Comment #4 from Adam Huffman bl...@verdurin.com 2011-05-31 18:15:21 EDT --- Tried to build this in Mock and saw the following error: Executing(%build): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.vvj1p5 + umask 022 + cd /builddir/build/BUILD + cd evtxtools-1.0.7 + LANG=C + export LANG + unset DISPLAY + perl Makefile.PL INSTALLDIRS=vendor Can't locate ExtUtils/MakeMaker.pm in @INC (@INC contains: /usr/local/lib/perl5 /usr/local/share/perl5 /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl /usr/lib/perl5 /usr/share/perl5 .) at Makefile.PL line 1. BEGIN failed--compilation aborted at Makefile.PL line 1. RPM build errors: error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.vvj1p5 (%build) Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.vvj1p5 (%build) Child returncode was: 1 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 705799] Review Request: EvtxParser - Windows Event Log parsing tools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=705799 --- Comment #5 from Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com 2011-05-31 18:23:01 EDT --- Strange. perl(ExtUtils::MakeMaker) is a build requirement, so mock ought to install it. Is it expected that the Perl path should contain /usr/local? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 706705] Review Request: libmtag-python - Simple python bindings for libmtag music tagging 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=706705 Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo?(hdegoede@redhat.c ||om) --- Comment #2 from Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com 2011-05-31 18:46:15 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1) === -package does not meet naming guidelines, python modules should be called python-name rather then name-python, see: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Addon_Packages_.28python_modules.29 Error 503 Service Unavailable So the package (and the specfile) should be named python-libmtag, I realize this contradicts what upstream does, but Fedora names all python modules this way for consistency Are you sure? There are *a lot* of packages this way: zinnia-python xapian-bindings-python vtk-python vips-python vigra-python util-vserver-python thunarx-pythonx telepathy-farsight-python stfl-python spice-gtk-python I could go on. If I go to the cached page I even see these as examples: * gstreamer-python * gnome-python2 * rpm-python -There is no clear license info available in the upstream source tarbal, please ask upstream (I think that may mean asking yourself :) to add a LICENSE file and proper copyright headers to the source files. Copy LGPL v2.1? Ok. -Please include NEWS in the %doc files Ok. -It is ok to include the egginfo file in the Fedora package, see: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Packaging_eggs_and_setuptools_concerns But if you consider it not useful to have it is ok to leave it out too I don't see the point. I'll leave that out. Please clarify on the naming scheme, it doesn't seem to be strongly enforced. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 571019] Review Request: libmtag - An advanced C music tagging library with a simple 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=571019 --- Comment #16 from Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com 2011-05-31 18:51:11 EDT --- (In reply to comment #15) Correction to previous comment, the license is LGPLv2, which is mentioned correctly in the spec file. Huh? Correction to what? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 555655] Review Request: sslstrip - tool that provides a demonstration of HTTPS stripping attacks
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=555655 --- Comment #4 from manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro 2011-05-31 19:19:59 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2) Spec URL: http://maxamillion.fedorapeople.org/sslstrip.spec SRPM URL: http://maxamillion.fedorapeople.org/sslstrip-0.7-3.fc13.src.rpm All notes have been fixed. Apologies for the delay. -AdamM Sorry for the huge delay, wrong mail config on my side made tons of messages pass by unseen. Adam, since sslstrip-0.9 is available for 2 weeks and http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3102819 shows that the package from comment#2 fails to build, if I promise to take care of the review [much] faster this time, can you please update the package to the current version and provide a new link here ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 709328] Review Request: psi-plus - Jabber client based on Qt
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=709328 Ivan Romanov dr...@land.ru 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
