[Bug 703719] Review Request: spice-xpi - mozilla extension for spice client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=703719 --- Comment #6 from Peter Hatina 2011-06-09 02:54:54 EDT --- My fedora account name is "phatina". -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 690728] Review Request: Nitrate - A test case management system written in Django
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=690728 --- Comment #34 from Jens Petersen 2011-06-09 02:03:15 EDT --- (In reply to comment #32) > One question, you suggested to drop "BuildRoot" but it seems after I remove > this macro from spec, this variable '$RPM_BUILD_ROOT' will become undefined > thus causing errors while packaging. Where are you testing? They are no longer need to be defined for Fedora releases or EPEL 6: they are still needed for EPEL5 afaik: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#.25clean But if you really intend to build for EPEL5 I guess you could still keep them. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 706701] Review Request: perl-Test-Pod-Content - Test a Pod's content
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=706701 --- Comment #4 from Iain Arnell 2011-06-09 01:32:50 EDT --- (In reply to comment #3) > (In reply to comment #2) > > I'm not at all concerned about the author tests, but Ralf is correct about > > missing deps if building for f14. > > IMO, we should exercise all tests if possible, because these often provide > insights into the general quality of a package and because such tests also > often expose bugs in other parts of Fedora. Sure, author tests are often nice to have, but as you mentioned earlier, not required for the review. If Emmanuel wants to enable them, it's his call. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 711762] Review Request: osc - openSUSE Build Service Commander
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=711762
--- Comment #5 from Haïkel Guémar 2011-06-09 01:19:36
EDT ---
$ rpmlint -iv osc-0.132.1-2.fc15.src.rpm
osc.src: I: checking
osc.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) openSUSE -> opens Use, open SUSE,
open-SUSE
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
osc.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Commandline -> Command line,
Command-line, Commandment
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
osc.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US openSUSE -> opens Use, open
SUSE, open-SUSE
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
osc.src: I: checking-url http://www.gitorious.org/opensuse/osc (timeout 10
seconds)
osc.src:51: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/osc
A library path is hardcoded to one of the following paths: /lib, /usr/lib. It
should be replaced by something like /%{_lib} or %{_libdir}.
osc.src:52: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/osc/complete
A library path is hardcoded to one of the following paths: /lib, /usr/lib. It
should be replaced by something like /%{_lib} or %{_libdir}.
osc.src:65: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/osc/complete
A library path is hardcoded to one of the following paths: /lib, /usr/lib. It
should be replaced by something like /%{_lib} or %{_libdir}.
osc.src: W: invalid-url Source0: osc-0.132.1.tar.gz
The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL.
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 4 warnings.
$ rpmlint -iv osc-0.132.1-2.fc15.noarch.rpm
osc.noarch: I: checking
osc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) openSUSE -> opens Use, open SUSE,
open-SUSE
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
osc.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Commandline -> Command
line, Command-line, Commandment
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
osc.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US openSUSE -> opens Use, open
SUSE, open-SUSE
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
osc.noarch: I: checking-url http://www.gitorious.org/opensuse/osc (timeout 10
seconds)
osc.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary osc-wrapper.py
Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page.
osc.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary osc_hotshot.py
Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page.
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
==> rpmlint output is ok (don't worry about the hardcoded-library-path error
for reasons stated above)
package builds in mock and is functional.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 665877] Review Request: freeDiameter - a Diameter protocol open 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=665877
Parag AN(पराग) changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Parag AN(पराग) 2011-06-09 00:59:22 EDT
---
Review:
1) Upstream source verified as (sha1sum)
ddd683b90f2755163605064deb8fab5f15d22414 1.1.0.tar.gz
ddd683b90f2755163605064deb8fab5f15d22414 ../SOURCES/freeDiameter-1.1.0.tar.gz
2) rpmlint output on rpms gave
freeDiameter-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
freeDiameter.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libfdcore.so.1.1.0
exit@GLIBC_2.2.5
freeDiameter.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary freeDiameterd
freeDiameter.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary freeDiameterd-1.1.0
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
3) Package follows packaging guidelines.
Suggestions:
1) The only working download link I found is
http://www.freediameter.net/hg/freeDiameter/archive/1.1.0.tar.gz
so change the Source0 tag to
Source0:
http://www.freediameter.net/hg/%{name}/archive/%{version}.tar.gz
and add a comment before this Source tag that upstream tarball is renamed to
follow %{name}-%{version}.tar.gz conventions.
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 706701] Review Request: perl-Test-Pod-Content - Test a Pod's content
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=706701 --- Comment #3 from Ralf Corsepius 2011-06-09 01:01:01 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2) > I'm not at all concerned about the author tests, but Ralf is correct about > missing deps if building for f14. IMO, we should exercise all tests if possible, because these often provide insights into the general quality of a package and because such tests also often expose bugs in other parts of Fedora. For example, in recent times, I have been facing bugs in perl's aspell/hunspell integration, which so far only have been exposed in AUTHOR checks in other 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 711313] Review Request: wicd-kde - a Wicd client built on the KDE Development Platform
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=711313 --- Comment #10 from Dmitrij S. Kryzhevich 2011-06-09 00:50:12 EDT --- %make_install defines DESTDIR var itself. Check it. Speration two desktop-file-install with empty line will add legibility. You had not mentioned any changes done with spec file in the %changelog section (with Release number update). And, I think, that is all I can do for 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 706701] Review Request: perl-Test-Pod-Content - Test a Pod's content
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=706701 Iain Arnell changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |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 706701] Review Request: perl-Test-Pod-Content - Test a Pod's content
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=706701 --- Comment #2 from Iain Arnell 2011-06-09 00:28:56 EDT --- I'm not at all concerned about the author tests, but Ralf is correct about missing deps if building for f14. APPROVED. koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3120281 Spec looks sane, clean and consistent; license is correct (GPL+ or Artistic); make test passes cleanly. Source tarballs match upstream (sha1sum): 1062f39845f15a956cee520498a1108c025d7c19 Test-Pod-Content-0.0.5.tar.gz 1062f39845f15a956cee520498a1108c025d7c19 Test-Pod-Content-0.0.5.tar.gz.srpm Final provides / requires are sane: ==> perl-Test-Pod-Content-0.0.5-1.fc16.noarch.rpm <== > rpmlint 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. > provides perl(Test::Pod::Content) perl-Test-Pod-Content = 0.0.5-1.fc16 > requires perl(base) perl(Exporter) perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.12.3) perl(Pod::Simple) perl(strict) perl(Test::More) perl(version) perl(warnings) > obsoletes > conflicts ==> perl-Test-Pod-Content-0.0.5-1.fc16.src.rpm <== > rpmlint 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. > provides > requires perl(Module::Build) perl(Pod::Simple) perl(Test::More) perl(Test::Perl::Critic) perl(version) > obsoletes > conflicts > mock install INFO: mock.py version 1.1.10 starting... State Changed: init plugins INFO: selinux enabled State Changed: start Mock Version: 1.1.10 INFO: Mock Version: 1.1.10 State Changed: lock buildroot INFO: installing package(s): perl-Test-Pod-Content-0.0.5-1.fc16.noarch.rpm INFO: Package Arch Version Repository Size Installing: perl-Test-Pod-Content noarch 0.0.5-1.fc16 /perl-Test-Pod-Content-0.0.5-1.fc16.noarch 12 k Installing for dependencies: perl-CPAN noarch 1.9402-160.fc16 fedora 246 k perl-Digest-SHA x86_64 1:5.47-160.fc16 fedora 63 k perl-ExtUtils-MakeMaker noarch 6.56-160.fc16 fedora 289 k perl-ExtUtils-ParseXS noarch 1:2.2206-160.fc16 fedora 44 k perl-Test-Harness noarch 3.17-160.fc16 fedora 239 k perl-Test-Simplenoarch 0.98-1.fc16 fedora 117 k perl-devel x86_64 4:5.12.3-160.fc16 fedora 449 k perl-versionx86_64 3:0.88-3.fc16 fedora 66 k python x86_64 2.7.1-8.fc16 fedora 72 k systemtap-sdt-devel x86_64 1.5-2.fc16fedora 44 k Transaction Summary Install 11 Package(s) Total size: 1.6 M Installed size: 4.3 M Installed: perl-Test-Pod-Content.noarch 0:0.0.5-1.fc16 Dependency Installed: perl-CPAN.noarch 0:1.9402-160.fc16 perl-Digest-SHA.x86_64 1:5.47-160.fc16 perl-ExtUtils-MakeMaker.noarch 0:6.56-160.fc16 perl-ExtUtils-ParseXS.noarch 1:2.2206-160.fc16 perl-Test-Harness.noarch 0:3.17-160.fc16 perl-Test-Simple.noarch 0:0.98-1.fc16 perl-devel.x86_64 4:5.12.3-160.fc16 perl-version.x86_64 3:0.88-3.fc16 python.x86_64 0:2.7.1-8.fc16 systemtap-sdt-devel.x86_64 0:1.5-2.fc16 State Changed: unlock buildroot State Changed: end -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 710672] Review Request: pnmixer - Lightweight mixer applet
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=710672 Christoph Wickert changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2011-06-09 00:29:55 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 706701] Review Request: perl-Test-Pod-Content - Test a Pod's content
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=706701 Iain Arnell changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|iarn...@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 711777] Review Request: perl-Test-Spec - Write tests in a declarative specification style
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=711777 --- Comment #3 from Iain Arnell 2011-06-09 00:17:36 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: perl-Test-Spec Short Description: Write tests in a declarative specification style Owners: iarnell Branches: f14 f15 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 711777] Review Request: perl-Test-Spec - Write tests in a declarative specification style
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=711777 Iain Arnell 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 706701] Review Request: perl-Test-Pod-Content - Test a Pod's content
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=706701 Iain Arnell 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 619355] Review Request: python26-numpy - A fast multidimensional array facility for Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=619355 --- Comment #24 from Jon Ciesla 2011-06-08 21:24:23 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 702846] Review Request: mingw-gdb - MinGW Windows port of the GDB debugger
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=702846 Kalev Lember changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Fixed In Version||mingw-gdb-7.2-2.fc16 Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2011-06-08 21:10:44 --- Comment #10 from Kalev Lember 2011-06-08 21:10:44 EDT --- Package imported and built; closing the 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 620112] Review Request: udpxy - UDP-to-HTTP multicast traffic relay daemon
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=620112
--- Comment #10 from nucleo 2011-06-08 20:50:12 EDT
---
%{_unitdir} used instead of /lib/systemd/system, so now no
hardcoded-library-path rpmlint error.
Spec URL:
http://nucleo.fedorapeople.org/pkg-reviews/udpxy/1.0.19/udpxy.spec
SRPM URL:
http://nucleo.fedorapeople.org/pkg-reviews/udpxy/1.0.19/udpxy-1.0.19-1.fc15.src.rpm
Scratch build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3120223
$ rpmlint udpxy-1.0.19-1.fc15.i686.rpm udpxy-debuginfo-1.0.19-1.fc15.i686.rpm
udpxy-1.0.19-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm udpxy-debuginfo-1.0.19-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm
udpxy-1.0.19-1.fc15.src.rpm
udpxy.i686: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) multicast -> Multics, simulcast
udpxy.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multicast -> Multics,
simulcast
udpxy.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary udpxrec
udpxy.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary udpxy
udpxy.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) multicast -> Multics, simulcast
udpxy.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multicast -> Multics,
simulcast
udpxy.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary udpxrec
udpxy.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary udpxy
udpxy.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) multicast -> Multics, simulcast
udpxy.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multicast -> Multics,
simulcast
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 10 warnings.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 710672] Review Request: pnmixer - Lightweight mixer applet
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=710672 Fedora Update System 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 710672] Review Request: pnmixer - Lightweight mixer applet
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=710672 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System 2011-06-08 20:14:09 EDT --- pnmixer-0.3-1.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/pnmixer-0.3-1.fc15 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 710672] Review Request: pnmixer - Lightweight mixer applet
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=710672 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System 2011-06-08 20:13:48 EDT --- pnmixer-0.3-1.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/pnmixer-0.3-1.fc14 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 700571] Review Request: spindown - Daemon that can spindown idle disks
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=700571 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|spindown-0.4.0-3.fc14 |spindown-0.4.0-3.fc15 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 700571] Review Request: spindown - Daemon that can spindown idle disks
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=700571 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System 2011-06-08 20:06:28 EDT --- spindown-0.4.0-3.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 stable repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 705133] Review Request: btparser - Parser and analyzer for backtraces produced by GDB
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=705133 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System 2011-06-08 20:02:46 EDT --- btparser-0.13-1.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 testing repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 651656] Review Request: ghc-ltk - A UI toolkit for Leksah
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=651656 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|ghc-ltk-0.10.0.4-2.fc15 |ghc-ltk-0.10.0.4-2.fc14 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 533167] Review Request: emacs-ecb - Emacs Code Browser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=533167 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|emacs-ecb-2.40.1-0.4.cvs201 |emacs-ecb-2.40.1-0.4.cvs201 |01021.fc15 |01021.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 651656] Review Request: ghc-ltk - A UI toolkit for Leksah
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=651656 --- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System 2011-06-08 20:03:09 EDT --- ghc-ltk-0.10.0.4-2.fc14 has been pushed to the Fedora 14 stable repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 533167] Review Request: emacs-ecb - Emacs Code Browser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=533167 --- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System 2011-06-08 20:04:15 EDT --- emacs-ecb-2.40.1-0.4.cvs20101021.fc14 has been pushed to the Fedora 14 stable repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System 2011-06-08 19:59:20 EDT --- gx_head-0.14.0-3.fc14 has been pushed to the Fedora 14 testing repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 710194] Review Request: tepache - Code sketcher for python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=710194 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System 2011-06-08 19:59:26 EDT --- tepache-1.1.2-1.fc14 has been pushed to the Fedora 14 testing repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 700833] Review Request: colorgcc - Script to colorize the terminal output of gcc, g++, cc, c++
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=700833 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|colorgcc-1.3.2-2.fc14 |colorgcc-1.3.2-2.fc15 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 698576] Review Request: pal - Command line calendar that displays holidays and events
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=698576 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|pal-0.4.3-2.fc14|pal-0.4.3-2.fc15 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 700833] Review Request: colorgcc - Script to colorize the terminal output of gcc, g++, cc, c++
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=700833 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System 2011-06-08 19:56:00 EDT --- colorgcc-1.3.2-2.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 stable repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 698576] Review Request: pal - Command line calendar that displays holidays and events
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=698576 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System 2011-06-08 19:56:26 EDT --- pal-0.4.3-2.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 stable repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 694994] Review Request: yoshimi - Rewrite of ZynAddSubFx aiming for better JACK support
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=694994 --- Comment #14 from Adam Huffman 2011-06-08 18:48:31 EDT --- Brendan, Thanks for taking this on. I wasn't quite sure what to do about the .bankdir file - is it necessary for yoshimi to use preset banks properly? So, I'll contact upstream about it. I will fix the second error too. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 #5 from Adam Huffman 2011-06-08 18:45:45 EDT --- Have built it locally and installed on my F14 system and it seems fine. My only remaining query regards the documentation in the -devel package. If I open the index.html file, there is a web page with some images, but it says "Qwt Polar User's Guide Documentation" and there's nothing else on the page. Is that intentional? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 710672] Review Request: pnmixer - Lightweight mixer applet
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=710672 --- Comment #13 from Jon Ciesla 2011-06-08 18:35:40 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 702846] Review Request: mingw-gdb - MinGW Windows port of the GDB debugger
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=702846 --- Comment #9 from Jon Ciesla 2011-06-08 18:34:28 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 619355] Review Request: python26-numpy - A fast multidimensional array facility for Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=619355 Steve Traylen changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #23 from Steve Traylen 2011-06-08 18:32:19 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python26-numpy Short Description: A fast multi-dimensional array facility for Python Owners: stevetraylen Branches: el5 InitialCC: Thanks a lot for the review and for all the comments from previous folk as well. Steve. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 711899] New: Review Request: opendnssec - DNSSEC key and zone management software
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: opendnssec - DNSSEC key and zone management software https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=711899 Summary: Review Request: opendnssec - DNSSEC key and zone management software Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: p...@xelerance.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Spec URL: ftp://ftp.xelerance.com/opendnssec/opendnssec.spec SRPM URL: ftp://ftp.xelerance.com/opendnssec/opendnssec-1.3.0-0.1.rc2.fc14.src.rpm Description: OpenDNSSEC was created as an open-source turn-key solution for DNSSEC. It secures zone data just before it is published in an authoritative name server. It requires a PKCS#11 crypto module library, such as softhsm Note this package requires rubygem-dnsruby, new package requested at: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=711893 rpmlint: opendnssec.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US crypto -> crypt, crypts, crypt o opendnssec.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US softhsm -> softhearted, softness, softwood opendnssec.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US crypto -> crypt, crypts, crypt o opendnssec.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US softhsm -> softhearted, softness, softwood opendnssec.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib opendnssec.x86_64: E: non-readable /etc/opendnssec/conf.xml 0640L opendnssec.x86_64: E: non-readable /etc/opendnssec/zonefetch.xml 0640L opendnssec.x86_64: E: non-readable /etc/opendnssec/conf.xml.sample 0640L opendnssec.x86_64: E: non-readable /etc/opendnssec/zonefetch.xml.sample 0640L opendnssec.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ods-kasp2html 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 6 warnings. Config files should be readable only to root or a (new) dnssec user. Sample files should go away The ruby code in /usr/lib64/opendnssec/kasp_auditor should be moved to /usr/lib/ (will talk to 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 711777] Review Request: perl-Test-Spec - Write tests in a declarative specification style
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=711777
Emmanuel Seyman changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Emmanuel Seyman
2011-06-08 18:24:08 EDT ---
=== KEY ===
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines including the Perl specific items
[x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture.
Tested on: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3119954
[x] Rpmlint output:
perl-Test-Spec.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US itis -> iris,
its, ibis
perl-Test-Spec.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US itis -> iris, its,
ibis
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
[x] Package is not relocatable.
[x] Buildroot is correct
None used in spec file, default used
[x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type: GPL+ or Artistic
[-] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package is included in %doc.
[x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
f5df9f12285491689e3f6320f9520a7e Test-Spec-0.31.tar.gz
[x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch
[x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[-] The spec file handles locales properly.
[-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x] Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x] Permissions on files are set properly.
[x] Package consistently uses macros.
[x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[-] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present.
[-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[-] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
[-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
[x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
[x] Latest version is packaged.
[x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
Tested on: rawhide.x86-64
[x] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
Tested on: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3119954
[?] Package functions as described.
[-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct.
[-] File based requires are sane.
[x] %check is present and the tests pass
All tests successful.
Files=8, Tests=81, 3 wallclock secs ( 0.09 usr 0.05 sys + 1.97 cusr 0.39
csys = 2.50 CPU)
Result: PASS
+ exit 0
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 710672] Review Request: pnmixer - Lightweight mixer applet
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=710672 Christoph Wickert changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #12 from Christoph Wickert 2011-06-08 18:15:16 EDT --- Thanks for the quick review. I wish I found this package in time for F15 because I had to had to switch from gmixer (orphaned) to pavucontrol, so the panel icon was missing. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: pnmixer Short Description: Lightweight mixer applet Owners: cwickert Branches: f14 f15 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 711762] Review Request: osc - openSUSE Build Service Commander
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=711762 --- Comment #4 from Jerome Soyer 2011-06-08 18:08:55 EDT --- Spec URL : http://fedorapeople.org/~saispo/osc.spec SRPMS URL : http://fedorapeople.org/~saispo/osc-0.132.1-2.fc15.src.rpm Fixed Spec and SRPMS for a non-arch dependent shell script (multilib compliant) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 711895] New: Review Request: softhsm - Software version of a PKCS#11 Hardware Security Module
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: softhsm - Software version of a PKCS#11 Hardware Security Module https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=711895 Summary: Review Request: softhsm - Software version of a PKCS#11 Hardware Security Module Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: p...@xelerance.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Spec URL: ftp://ftp.xelerance.com/opendnssec/softhsm.spec SRPM URL: ftp://ftp.xelerance.com/opendnssec/softhsm-1.2.1-1.fc14.src.rpm Description: OpenDNSSEC is providing a software implementation of a generic cryptographic device with a PKCS#11 interface, the SoftHSM. SoftHSM is designed to meet the requirements of OpenDNSSEC, but can also work together with other cryptographic products because of the PKCS#11 interface. current rpmlint output: softhsm.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libsofthsm.so libsofthsm.so softhsm.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/softhsm 0700L softhsm-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libsofthsm -> libertinism, softhearted The invalid-soname is something I'm talking to upstream about right now. They changed from a shared library to a module but need to change the install location. Will be fixed in a rebuild when upstream has decided on a place (or else I'll pick one in a day or two) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 711893] New: Review Request: rubygem-dnsruby - Ruby DNS(SEC) implementation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: rubygem-dnsruby - Ruby DNS(SEC) implementation https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=711893 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-dnsruby - Ruby DNS(SEC) implementation Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: p...@xelerance.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Spec URL: ftp://ftp.xelerance.com/opendnssec/rubygem-dnsruby.spec SRPM URL: ftp://ftp.xelerance.com/opendnssec/rubygem-dnsruby-1.52-1.fc14.src.rpm Description: Ruby DNS(SEC) implementation Note there are a bunch of warnings about macros in the doc files that I'm still checking out from rpmlint. rubygem-dnsruby.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/dnsruby-1.52/ri/Dnsruby/Dnssec/no_keys%3f-c.yaml %3f Othen then that, rpmlint is quiet. This package is a requirement for opendnssec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 629744] Review Request: sparkleshare - sharing work made easy
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=629744 --- Comment #6 from Jason Tibbitts 2011-06-08 17:55:36 EDT --- If it's ready for review, perhaps you could post working links to the spec and srpm? The only ones I see are invalid. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 710672] Review Request: pnmixer - Lightweight mixer applet
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=710672 Mario Blättermann changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #11 from Mario Blättermann 2011-06-08 17:43:36 EDT --- Small additions to the formal review: [+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source. $ md5sum * 94cfcbb0dc9a1cdb061f195ed26ca75d pnmixer-0.3.tar.gz 94cfcbb0dc9a1cdb061f195ed26ca75d pnmixer-0.3.tar.gz.orig [+] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. (In reply to comment #10) > Thanks also for the > translation. Mario, I really appreciate that. > You know: If I find an untranslated software anywhere in the world, I'll translate it, what else ;) OK, all looks fine so far, that's why: PACKAGE APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 711777] Review Request: perl-Test-Spec - Write tests in a declarative specification style
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=711777 Emmanuel Seyman changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||emmanuel.seyman@club-intern ||et.fr AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|emmanuel.seyman@club-intern ||et.fr --- Comment #1 from Emmanuel Seyman 2011-06-08 17:24:34 EDT --- Taking. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 691894] Review Request: pyrit - A GPGPU-driven WPA/WPA2-PSK key cracker
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691894 Garrett Holmstrom changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||gho...@fedoraproject.org Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #4 from Garrett Holmstrom 2011-06-08 17:01:35 EDT --- Review of pyrit-0.4.0-1.fc15: The dump files and dictionary in pyrit-0.4.0/test are considered content, but the license under which they are distributable is unclear. I recommend asking upstream for clarification. If the license is acceptable, is the content itself considered acceptable for inclusion in a Fedora SRPM? Packaging-wise, please fix the permissions and RPM Provides of _cpyrit_cpu.so. AFAIK the build also needs to either honor Fedora's CFLAGS or justify its failure to do so. Note that distutils respects the CFLAGS environment variable. The remaining issues, specifically man pages and translations, are optional. See below for a full review. Mandatory review guidelines: NO - rpmlint output pyrit.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pre -> per, ore, pee pyrit.src: W: invalid-url Source0: http://pyrit.googlecode.com/files/pyrit-0.4.0.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not Found pyrit.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pre -> per, ore, pee pyrit.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/cpyrit/_cpyrit_cpu.so _cpyrit_cpu.so()(64bit) pyrit.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/cpyrit/_cpyrit_cpu.so 0775L pyrit.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pyrit -- The spelling-error and invalid-url complaints appear to be bogus. ok - Package meets naming guidelines ok - Spec file name matches base package name ok - License is acceptable (GPLv3+ with exceptions) ok - License field in spec is correct The file "pyrit" has no license header; assuming GPLv3+ ok - License files included in package %docs or not included in upstream source ok - License files installed when any subpackage combination is installed ok - Spec written in American English ok - Spec is legible ok - Sources match upstream unless altered to fix permissibility issues Upstream MD5: 7258b6f3dacfb09736ddeed2a379df2d pyrit-0.4.0.tar.gz Your MD5: 7258b6f3dacfb09736ddeed2a379df2d pyrit-0.4.0.tar.gz ok - Build succeeds on at least one supported platform ok - Build succeeds on all supported platforms or has ExcludeArch + bugs filed ok - BuildRequires correct -- - Package handles locales with %find_lang -- - %post, %postun call ldconfig if package contains shared .so files ok - No bundled system libs -- - Relocatability is justified ok - Package owns all directories it creates ok - Package requires other packages for directories it uses but does not own ok - No duplicate files in %files unless necessary for license files NO - File permissions are sane -rwxrwxr-x /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/cpyrit/_cpyrit_cpu.so ok - Each %files section contains %defattr ok - Consistent use of macros NO - Sources contain only permissible code or content test/*.gz has no associated content license. -- - Large documentation files go in -doc package ok - Missing %doc files do not affect runtime -- - Headers go in -devel package -- - Static libs go in -static package -- - Unversioned .so files go in -devel package -- - Devel packages require base with fully-versioned dependency ok - Package contains no .la files -- - GUI app installs .desktop file w/desktop-file-install or has justification ok - Package's files and directories don't conflict with others' or justified ok - File names are valid UTF-8 Optional review guidelines: no - Query upstream about including license files No license for test/*.gz no - Translations of description, Summary ok - Builds in mock ok - Builds on all supported platforms ok - Functions as described -- - Scriptlets are sane -- - Non-devel subpackage Requires are sane -- - .pc files go in -devel unless main package is a development tool ok - No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin no - Man pages included for all executables ok - Package with test-suite executes it in %check section Packaging guidelines: ok - Has dist tag ok - Useful without external bits ok - Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir, /usr/target, /run -- - Programs launched before FS mounting use /run instead of /var/run -- - Binaries in /bin, /sbin do not depend on files in /usr ok - Changelog in prescribed format ok - Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags no - Correct BuildRoot tag on < F10/EL6 This prevents building for epel-5. no - Correct %clean section on < F13/EL6 This prevents
[Bug 710672] Review Request: pnmixer - Lightweight mixer applet
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=710672 --- Comment #10 from Christoph Wickert 2011-06-08 16:54:06 EDT --- (In reply to comment #7) > OK, great, that's the right thing to do. Without getting further information > from upstream I'd say the program is licensed under GPLv2 and would exclude > COPYING from the package. I think this would be the wrong approach. GPL by default is "or any later version", so it would be at least GPLv2+. The headers in the code are probably a leftover from the old obmixer and COPYING was GPLv3. Even if we didn't knew the intentions of the author, GPLv3+ is a sane choice as it meets both: Copying on the one hand and the headers on the other because GPLv3 is a later version of GPLv2. But thanks to Mario we know the proper license now. Thanks also for the translation. Mario, I really appreciate that. Here is the updated package: SPEC URL: http://cwickert.fedorapeople.org/review/pnmixer.spec SRPM URL: http://cwickert.fedorapeople.org/review/pnmixer-0.3-1.fc16.src.rpm I added another patch to change the default mouse scroll step from 1 to 5. Scratch build at http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3119814 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 702846] Review Request: mingw-gdb - MinGW Windows port of the GDB debugger
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=702846 Kalev Lember changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #8 from Kalev Lember 2011-06-08 16:54:01 EDT --- Thanks for the review, Tom! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: mingw-gdb Short Description: MinGW Windows port of the GDB debugger Owners: kalev rjones epienbro sailer Branches: f14 f15 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 702846] Review Request: mingw-gdb - MinGW Windows port of the GDB debugger
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=702846 Thomas Sailer changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review+ --- Comment #7 from Thomas Sailer 2011-06-08 16:46:50 EDT --- I spent about 5 minutes investigating this - nothing obvious, though. I wanted to find some more time to look at it, but it doesn't look like I'll find it soon. APPROVED by sailer. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 676007] Review Request: python26-configobj - ConfigObj for Python 2.6
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=676007 --- Comment #4 from Steve Traylen 2011-06-08 16:26:24 EDT --- SteveH, Did you manage to do any reviews? Steve -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 702846] Review Request: mingw-gdb - MinGW Windows port of the GDB debugger
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=702846 Erik van Pienbroek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||erik-fed...@vanpienbroek.nl --- Comment #6 from Erik van Pienbroek 2011-06-08 16:21:54 EDT --- Just now we've had a user on the #fedora-mingw IRC channel which encountered a segfault in some Fedora MinGW package. To help investigate these kind of crashes the availability of a gdb.exe is really necessary. This also helps to improve the quality of all Fedora MinGW packages so I don't see a strong reason to block this package from entering Fedora. After all it's a very valuable aid for developers and these developers are also the main target audience of the Fedora MinGW 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 682553] Review Request: python26-pycurl - A Python interface to libcurl
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=682553 Jason Tibbitts changed: What|Removed |Added Component|Package Review |Package Review Version|rawhide |el5 Product|Fedora |Fedora EPEL -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 676007] Review Request: python26-configobj - ConfigObj for Python 2.6
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=676007 Jason Tibbitts changed: What|Removed |Added Component|Package Review |Package Review Version|rawhide |el5 Product|Fedora |Fedora EPEL -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 569671] Review Request: elliptics - Distributed hash table storage
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=569671 Jason Tibbitts changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW Blocks|201449(FE-DEADREVIEW) | --- Comment #17 from Jason Tibbitts 2011-06-08 16:13:55 EDT --- The only direct URLs to the spec and srpm (in the original comment) are invalid. Please post correct and direct URLs to the spec and srpm. Also, you neglected to unblock FE-DEADREVIEW. I cleared that out for you. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 711872] Review Request: trytond-account-stock-anglo-saxon - account-stock-anglo-saxon module for Tryton
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=711872 Dan Horák changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |trytond-account-stock-conti |trytond-account-stock-anglo |nental -|-saxon - |account-stock-continental |account-stock-anglo-saxon |module for Tryton |module for Tryton --- Comment #1 from Dan Horák 2011-06-08 16:14:17 EDT --- Updated description: account-stock-anglo-saxon module for Tryton -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 711873] New: Review Request: trytond-account-stock-continental - account-stock-continental module for Tryton
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: trytond-account-stock-continental - account-stock-continental module for Tryton https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=711873 Summary: Review Request: trytond-account-stock-continental - account-stock-continental module for Tryton Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: d...@danny.cz QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Spec URL: http://fedora.danny.cz/tryton/trytond-account-stock-continental.spec SRPM URL: http://fedora.danny.cz/tryton/trytond-account-stock-continental-2.0.0-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: account-stock-continental module for Tryton -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 711872] New: Review Request: trytond-account-stock-continental - account-stock-continental module for Tryton
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: trytond-account-stock-continental - account-stock-continental module for Tryton https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=711872 Summary: Review Request: trytond-account-stock-continental - account-stock-continental module for Tryton Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: d...@danny.cz QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Spec URL: http://fedora.danny.cz/tryton/trytond-account-stock-anglo-saxon.spec SRPM URL: http://fedora.danny.cz/tryton/trytond-account-stock-anglo-saxon-2.0.0-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: account-stock-continental module for Tryton -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 467507] Review Request: hiran-rufscript-fonts - Rufscripts is a decorative handwriting based font
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467507 Jared Smith changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|needinfo?(jaredsmith@jareds | |mith.net) | --- Comment #9 from Jared Smith 2011-06-08 15:32:57 EDT --- Yes, I'll fix it up over the next day or 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 707132] Review Request: java-service-wrapper - Java service wrapper
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=707132 --- Comment #6 from Ville Skyttä 2011-06-08 15:19:57 EDT --- Looks otherwise fine, but the jnilibpath patch still has /usr/lib64/java-service-wrapper path hardwired (probably due to earlier in-place sed'ing) instead of @LIBPATH@, which quite likely means stuff is broken on non-lib64 archs: $ rpmdev-extract -q java-service-wrapper-3.2.5-1.fc15.src.rpm $ grep usr/lib64 java-service-wrapper-3.2.5-1.fc15.src/java-service-wrapper-3.2.4-jnilibpath.patch +System.load( new File( "/usr/lib64/java-service-wrapper", file ).toString() ); -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 708532] Review Request: perl-Term-Animation - ASCII sprite animation framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=708532 --- Comment #7 from Luis Bazan 2011-06-08 15:15:36 EDT --- license ==> http://dev.perl.org/licenses/ I'll make changes -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 708532] Review Request: perl-Term-Animation - ASCII sprite animation framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=708532 --- Comment #6 from Luis Bazan 2011-06-08 15:14:40 EDT --- waiting That I get an e-mail with information =) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 698051] Review Request: spim - An assembly language MIPS32 simulator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=698051 --- Comment #3 from W. Michael Petullo 2011-06-08 14:40:54 EDT --- Spec URL: http://www.flyn.org/SRPMS/spim.spec SRPM URL: http://www.flyn.org/SRPMS/spim-20110608-0.1.svn.fc15.src.rpm Description: spim is a self-contained simulator that runs MIPS32 programs. It reads and executes assembly language programs written for this processor. spim also provides a simple debugger and minimal set of operating system services. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 705917] Review Request: cmuclmtk - Language model trainer for CMU Sphinx speech decoders
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=705917 W. Michael Petullo changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||182235(FE-Legal) Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- --- Comment #2 from W. Michael Petullo 2011-06-08 14:01:50 EDT --- Running rpmlint on SRPM: cmuclmtk.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pocketsphinx -> pocket sphinx, pocket-sphinx, pocketknives cmuclmtk.src: W: invalid-url Source1: cmuclmtk-man.tar.xz 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. The first warning should be fine. I think the second is bacause rpmlint is not aware of the .xz extension, so this should also be fine. Running rpmlint on the binary packages: cmuclmtk.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pocketsphinx -> pocket sphinx, pocket-sphinx, pocketknives cmuclmtk.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libcmuclmtk.so.0.0.0 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. The other question I have is about the license. The RPM specification lists "MIT and BSD." I'd like an expert to review the particular license or point to where the text has already been 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 711848] New: Review Request: kmetronome - KDE MIDI Metronome using ALSA Sequencer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: kmetronome - KDE MIDI Metronome using ALSA Sequencer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=711848 Summary: Review Request: kmetronome - KDE MIDI Metronome using ALSA Sequencer Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: robinlee.s...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Spec URL: http://cheeselee.fedorapeople.org/kmetronome.spec SRPM URL: http://cheeselee.fedorapeople.org/kmetronome-0.10.0-1.fc15.src.rpm Description: KMetronome is a MIDI metronome with KDE interface, based on the ALSA sequencer. The intended audience is musicians and music students. Like solid, real metronomes it is a tool to keep the rhythm while playing musical instruments. It uses MIDI for sound generation instead of digital audio, allowing low CPU usage, and very accurate timing thanks to the ALSA sequencer. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 467507] Review Request: hiran-rufscript-fonts - Rufscripts is a decorative handwriting based font
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467507 Paul Flo Williams changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo?(jaredsmith@jareds ||mith.net) --- Comment #8 from Paul Flo Williams 2011-06-08 13:40:56 EDT --- Jared, are you still interested in 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 705917] Review Request: cmuclmtk - Language model trainer for CMU Sphinx speech decoders
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=705917 W. Michael Petullo changed: What|Removed |Added CC||m...@flyn.org AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|m...@flyn.org 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 708532] Review Request: perl-Term-Animation - ASCII sprite animation framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=708532 Ralf Corsepius changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rc040...@freenet.de --- Comment #5 from Ralf Corsepius 2011-06-08 12:50:52 EDT --- (In reply to comment #3) > not my choice, the license is GPLv2 This doesn't seem to be correct to me. http://cpansearch.perl.org/src/KBAUCOM/Term-Animation-2.6/README tells: "This library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the same terms as Perl itself." This is the standard licensing terms many older perl-modules use. It is an equivalent to "GPL+ or Artistic" -- It is not an equivalent to "GPLv2". -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 708532] Review Request: perl-Term-Animation - ASCII sprite animation framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=708532 --- Comment #4 from Luis Bazan 2011-06-08 12:38:37 EDT --- waiting That I get an e-mail with information =) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 708532] Review Request: perl-Term-Animation - ASCII sprite animation framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=708532 --- Comment #3 from Luis Bazan 2011-06-08 12:32:36 EDT --- Hi, Mario not my choice, the license is GPLv2 yes is a free software -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2011-06-08 12:21:10 --- Comment #15 from Jaromír Cápík 2011-06-08 12:21:10 EDT --- The package has been built successfuly: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=246243 Thanks for the review and git repo. Closing. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 - Fast and compact Base64 encoder/decoder Java 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 changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2011-06-08 12:22:28 --- Comment #8 from Jaromír Cápík 2011-06-08 12:22:28 EDT --- The package has been built successfuly: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=246922 Thanks for the review and git repo. Closing. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 705106] Review Request: snakeyaml - YAML parser and emitter for the Java programming language
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=705106 Bug 705106 depends on bug 709233, which changed state. Bug 709233 Summary: Review Request: base64coder - Fast and compact Base64 encoder/decoder Java library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=709233 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 711734] Review Request: python-vatnumber - Python module to validate VAT numbers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=711734 Dan Horák changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2011-06-08 11:54:02 --- Comment #5 from Dan Horák 2011-06-08 11:54:02 EDT --- Imported, built and submitted with trytond-party as https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/trytond-party-1.8.0-5.fc15,python-vatnumber-0.9-1.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 711762] Review Request: osc - openSUSE Build Service Commander
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=711762
Haïkel Guémar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Comment #3 from Haïkel Guémar 2011-06-08 11:30:43
EDT ---
* i generated a tarball following your instructions in spec, the checksum still
differs but i didn't find any difference using diff
$ sha1sum generated/osc-132.1.tar.gz
2a1069b422292141740a4d0ba839a3bd9e6ec6c8
$ sha1sum osc-0.132.1.tar.gz
ae399f2aeb9108ab5b998731f3473362f2153cd7
$ diff -Naur generated/osc-0.132.1 osc-0.132.1/
* rpmlint
$ rpmlint -iv osc-0.132.1-1.fc15.src.rpm
osc.src: I: checking
osc.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) openSUSE -> opens Use, open SUSE,
open-SUSE
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
osc.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Commandline -> Command line,
Command-line, Commanding
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
osc.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US openSUSE -> opens Use, open
SUSE, open-SUSE
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
osc.src: I: checking-url http://www.gitorious.org/opensuse/osc (timeout 10
seconds)
osc.src:65: W: libdir-macro-in-noarch-package (main package)
%{_libdir}/osc/complete
The %{_libdir} or %{_lib} macro was found in a noarch package in a section
that gets included in binary packages. This is most likely an error because
these macros are expanded on the build host and their values vary between
architectures, probably resulting in a package that does not work properly on
all architectures at runtime. Investigate whether the package is really
architecture independent or if some other dir/macro should be instead.
osc.src: W: invalid-url Source0: osc-0.132.1.tar.gz
The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL.
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
$ rpmlint -iv /home/haikel/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/osc-0.132.1-1.fc15.noarch.rpm
osc.noarch: I: checking
osc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) openSUSE -> opens Use, open SUSE,
open-SUSE
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
osc.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Commandline -> Command
line, Command-line, Commanding
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
osc.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US openSUSE -> opens Use, open
SUSE, open-SUSE
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
osc.noarch: I: checking-url http://www.gitorious.org/opensuse/osc (timeout 10
seconds)
osc.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary osc-wrapper.py
Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page.
osc.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary osc_hotshot.py
Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page.
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
==> you probably misunderstood me about the /usr/lib64/osc/complete, since it's
a non-arch dependent shell script, you should install it in
/usr/lib/osc/complete (to be multilib compliant). Besides it won't break
anything since shell completion configuration file will search autocompletion
helpers in both /usr/lib{,64}/osc/complete
* still builds in mock
as soon as you fix the completion helper location, i'll approve 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 711462] Review Request: perl-Fedora-Rebuild - Rebuilds Fedora packages from scratch
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=711462 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED Fixed In Version||perl-Fedora-Rebuild-0.0.1-1 ||.fc16 --- Comment #9 from Petr Pisar 2011-06-08 10:39:32 EDT --- Thank you for the review and the repository. F15--14 will follow once dependencies get into buildroot. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 711313] Review Request: wicd-kde - a Wicd client built on the KDE Development Platform
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=711313
--- Comment #9 from Minh 2011-06-08 10:33:45 EDT ---
>Added kde-review flag.
thanks
>For convenience plese provide direct links for spec and srpm they could be
>wget-ed.
Spec URL: https://raw.github.com/Ignotus/wicd-kde-fedora/master/wicd-kde.spec
SRPM URL:
https://github.com/Ignotus/wicd-kde-fedora/blob/master/wicd-kde-0.2.2-1.fc15.src.rpm?raw=true
>Desktop-file-install validate .desktop too. There is no need to call
>desktop-file-validate after it.
fixed
>Are you sure wicd-kde.desktop couild be used both as application .desktop and
>as service .desktop?
In CMakeList.txt:
install( PROGRAMS wicd-kde.desktop DESTINATION ${XDG_APPS_INSTALL_DIR} )
install( FILES wicd-kde.desktop DESTINATION ${AUTOSTART_INSTALL_DIR} )
What about kcm_wicd.desktop, it's my mistake. I have fixed it.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 711762] Review Request: osc - openSUSE Build Service Commander
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=711762 --- Comment #2 from Jerome Soyer 2011-06-08 10:35:47 EDT --- I upload a new spec with this correction : - Update to 0.132.1 - Fix tab/space in SPEC file - Add comment and command for tarball creation - Fix libdir-macro-in-noarch-package - Add missing Requires: * python-lxml * python-urlgrabber * fuse-python Spec URL : http://fedorapeople.org/~saispo/osc.spec SRPMS URL : http://fedorapeople.org/~saispo/osc-0.132.1-1.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 711764] Review Request: osc-source_validator - osc source validator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=711764
Yanchuan Nian changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||yanch...@nfs-china.com
--- Comment #1 from Yanchuan Nian 2011-06-08 10:29:14
EDT ---
Few comments
1. you must use a full URL to identify where the pristine source code is.
see here:https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL
2.get_source.sh is not necessary here, for it is contained in
osc-source_validator-0.1.tar.bz2.
You'd better remove Source1 from the spec file.
3.Fedora (as of F-10) does not require the presence of the BuildRoot tag in the
spec.
see here:https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag
4. The name of the rpm is just what the Source unpacks to, so -n
%{name}-%{version} should be removed from %prep.
see
here:https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_an_RPM_package#.25prep_section:_.25setup_command
5./usr/lib is for architecture-dependent data, while /usr/share is for
architecture-independent data.
That way, systems with different CPUs can share /usr/share.
%install
mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{_prefix}/lib/osc/source_validators
cp -a [0-9]* helpers %{buildroot}%{_prefix}/lib/osc/source_validators
%files
%defattr(-,root,root,-)
%doc COPYING
%{_prefix}/lib/osc
should be changed to
%install
mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{_datarootdir}/osc/source_validators
cp -a [0-9]* helpers %{buildroot}%{_datarootdir}/osc/source_validators
%files
%defattr(-,root,root,-)
%doc COPYING
%{_datarootdir}/osc
see
here:https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_an_RPM_package#.25files_and_Filesystem_Hierarchy_Standard_.28FHS.29
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 574545] Review Request: python26-mysqldb : Interface to MySQL for python26 on EPEL5
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=574545 --- Comment #6 from Dave Malcolm 2011-06-08 10:28:14 EDT --- (In reply to comment #5) > Hi Dave, > > Do you mind if I take this review over? Sure. Thanks for your work on this so far, and sorry for the lack of response. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 682544] Review request: gargoyle - multi-format interactive fiction interpreter
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=682544 Ken Dreyer changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||182235(FE-Legal) --- Comment #10 from Ken Dreyer 2011-06-08 10:07:49 EDT --- (In reply to comment #9) > Jason, it's the upstream gargoyle project that does the bundling. And it's not > bundling libraries, but it's distributing its own versions of the executables > for each interpreter, modified to use the Gargoyle display library. Indeed, > that is the only library contained in this package. Fedora's policy is to work with upstream to get changes pushed to the respective project owners. So, if the Gargoyle project has modified another underlying project, they need to push those changes back to the project's upstream owner. > So even if one of the bundled interpreters was present on a system, gargoyle > would be unable to take advantage of that, even in principle. This sounds like they have made some changes to the bundled interpreters that need to go upstream into those interpreters. > Changing this would be a major rearchitecting of the upstream project. You have the freedom to apply for an exception from FESCo, but they will want more details regarding why Fedora's policy would not apply here. Please carefully read over http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries . (Not to be a pain on this, but if we don't ask about this, someone else will.) > Ken, I agree that is some weird phrasing. But it is not self-contradictory, > merely redundant. So I don't see it as a problem. > > If it is a problem, how could this be addressed? Would I need to obtain a > statement from Andrew Plotkin clarifying his intention? The best thing imho would be if Andrew could just re-license his package under something that is already approved by Fedora, eg MIT. His terms sound similar to the MIT License, although Andrew is also requiring that his URL be preserved, so I'm really not sure. I asked on le...@lists.fp.o in case Andrew is unwilling to re-license. http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/legal/2011-June/001674.html - In the course of my review I found two technical things that should be fixed in the package: $ rpmlint gargoyle-2010.1-3.fc14.src.rpm gargoyle.src: W: strange-permission generate-tarball.sh 0775L gargoyle.src: W: invalid-url Source0: gargoyle-2010.1.tar.bz2 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Please fix the permissions on generate-tarball.sh (755 should be ok) $ rpmlint gargoyle-debuginfo-2010.1-3.fc14.i686.rpm gargoyle-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/gargoyle-2010.1/terps/nitfol/globals.c [snip] 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 81 errors, 0 warnings. The 81 warnings on the debuginfo package are all for the incorrect FSF address. Would you mind filing bug(s) upstream on 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 708532] Review Request: perl-Term-Animation - ASCII sprite animation framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=708532
Mario Blättermann changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mari...@freenet.de
--- Comment #2 from Mario Blättermann 2011-06-08 10:00:44
EDT ---
$ rpmlint -v *
perl-Term-Animation.noarch: I: checking
perl-Term-Animation.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US newwin ->
new win, new-win, newline
perl-Term-Animation.noarch: I: checking-url
http://search.cpan.org/CPAN/authors/id/K/KB/KBAUCOM/Term-Animation-2.5.tar.gz
(timeout 10 seconds)
perl-Term-Animation.src: I: checking
perl-Term-Animation.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US newwin -> new
win, new-win, newline
perl-Term-Animation.src: I: checking-url
http://search.cpan.org/CPAN/authors/id/K/KB/KBAUCOM/Term-Animation-2.5.tar.gz
(timeout 10 seconds)
perl-Term-Animation.src: W: strange-permission Term-Animation-2.5.tar.gz 0600L
perl-Term-Animation.src:57: W: macro-in-comment %{perl_vendorarch}
perl-Term-Animation.src:58: W: macro-in-comment %exclude
perl-Term-Animation.src:58: W: macro-in-comment %dir
perl-Term-Animation.src:58: W: macro-in-comment %{perl_vendorarch}
perl-Term-Animation.src: I: checking-url
http://search.cpan.org/CPAN/authors/id/K/KB/KBAUCOM/Term-Animation-2.5.tar.gz
(timeout 10 seconds)
perl-Term-Animation.src: W: file-size-mismatch Term-Animation-2.5.tar.gz =
19395,
http://search.cpan.org/CPAN/authors/id/K/KB/KBAUCOM/Term-Animation-2.5.tar.gz =
19506
perl-Term-Animation.spec:57: W: macro-in-comment %{perl_vendorarch}
perl-Term-Animation.spec:58: W: macro-in-comment %exclude
perl-Term-Animation.spec:58: W: macro-in-comment %dir
perl-Term-Animation.spec:58: W: macro-in-comment %{perl_vendorarch}
perl-Term-Animation.spec: I: checking-url
http://search.cpan.org/CPAN/authors/id/K/KB/KBAUCOM/Term-Animation-2.5.tar.gz
(timeout 10 seconds)
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 12 warnings.
The macro-in-comment issue can be ignored, also the "spelling error".
There are no further license infos. No COPYING, no info in the source header.
Only this:
"This library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under the same terms as Perl itself."
Does this lead automatically to GPLv2? Or is it completely your choice which
license do you declare?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 675705] Review Request: rubygem-tilt - Generic interface to multiple Ruby template engines
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=675705 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System 2011-06-08 09:47:30 EDT --- rubygem-tilt-1.2.2-2.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rubygem-tilt-1.2.2-2.fc14 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 711762] Review Request: osc - openSUSE Build Service Commander
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=711762
--- Comment #1 from Haïkel Guémar 2011-06-08 09:38:52
EDT ---
osc (python noarch package)
MUST: rpmlint must be run on src.rpm and rpm. KO
$ rpmlint -iv /home/haikel/rpmbuild/SRPMS/osc-0.132.0-1.fc14.src.rpm
osc.src: I: checking
osc.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) openSUSE -> opens Use, open SUSE,
open-SUSE
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
osc.src: W: summary-not-capitalized C openSUSE Build Service Commander
Summary doesn't begin with a capital letter.
osc.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Commandline -> Command line,
Command-line, Commanding
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
osc.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US openSUSE -> opens Use, open
SUSE, open-SUSE
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
osc.src: I: checking-url http://www.gitorious.org/opensuse/osc (timeout 10
seconds)
osc.src:62: W: libdir-macro-in-noarch-package (main package) %dir
%{_prefix}/%{_lib}/osc
The %{_libdir} or %{_lib} macro was found in a noarch package in a section
that gets included in binary packages. This is most likely an error because
these macros are expanded on the build host and their values vary between
architectures, probably resulting in a package that does not work properly on
all architectures at runtime. Investigate whether the package is really
architecture independent or if some other dir/macro should be instead.
osc.src:63: W: libdir-macro-in-noarch-package (main package)
%{_prefix}/%{_lib}/osc/complete
The %{_libdir} or %{_lib} macro was found in a noarch package in a section
that gets included in binary packages. This is most likely an error because
these macros are expanded on the build host and their values vary between
architectures, probably resulting in a package that does not work properly on
all architectures at runtime. Investigate whether the package is really
architecture independent or if some other dir/macro should be instead.
osc.src:15: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 6, tab: line 15)
The specfile mixes use of spaces and tabs for indentation, which is a cosmetic
annoyance. Use either spaces or tabs for indentation, not both.
osc.src: W: invalid-url Source0: osc-0.132.0.tar.gz
The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL.
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings.
$ rpmlint -iv /home/haikel/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/osc-0.132.0-1.fc14.noarch.rpm
osc.noarch: I: checking
osc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) openSUSE -> opens Use, open SUSE,
open-SUSE
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
osc.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C openSUSE Build Service Commander
Summary doesn't begin with a capital letter.
osc.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Commandline -> Command
line, Command-line, Commanding
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
osc.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US openSUSE -> opens Use, open
SUSE, open-SUSE
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
osc.noarch: I: checking-url http://www.gitorious.org/opensuse/osc (timeout 10
seconds)
osc.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary osc-wrapper.py
Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page.
osc.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary osc_hotshot.py
Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page.
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings.
==> Must be fixed:
* summary warning
* libdir-macro-in-noarch-package: since complete is a shell script, it should
be installed in %{_prefix}/lib
* mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs
* how did you generate the tarball ? did you download it from somewhere, did
you rename gitorious generated tarball ?
MUST: package named accordingly to package naming guidelines. OK
osc is mostly a command-line tool and does not provide a module usable by
third-party.
MUST: spec file name match %{name}. OK
MUST: package meets packaging guidelines.
MUST: package must be licensed under a fedora-compliant license. OK (GPLv2+)
MUST: license field in package spec match actual license. OK
MUST: spec is in legible american english. OK
MUST sources provided match upstream's. KO
provided sources sha1sum: 6264436693397fca89d517f34c4ed737223f3b78
upstream sources sha1sum: 70ef54c03310ff1fca37e048467f0b3f5c20f604
MUST: package successfully compiles on at least one primary architecture (all
of them). OK
MUST: all build dependencies are listed in BR (mock compliant). OK
MUST: package must own all directories it creates. OK
MUST: package does not list a file more than once in %files section. OK
MUST: permissions are properly set. OK
MUST: package consistenly use macros. OK
MUST: package contains p
[Bug 706357] Review Request: lsw - Prints all window titles of DISPLAY to standard output
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=706357 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System 2011-06-08 09:37:35 EDT --- lsw-0.2-1.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/lsw-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 706357] Review Request: lsw - Prints all window titles of DISPLAY to standard output
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=706357 Fedora Update System 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 704239] Review Request: python-yolk - Command-line tool querying PyPI and Python packages installed on your 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=704239 --- Comment #2 from Jerome Soyer 2011-06-08 09:31:48 EDT --- I upload a new Spec and SRPM : Spec URL: http://saispo.fedorapeople.org/python-yolk.spec SRPM URL: http://saispo.fedorapeople.org/python-yolk-0.4.1-2.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 603346] Review Request: php-voms-admin - Web based interface to control VOMS parameters written in PHP
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=603346 --- Comment #7 from Mattias Ellert 2011-06-08 09:29:22 EDT --- Thanks Andrii for addressing the issues raised by the reviewer. I have updated the package with your latest changes: SPEC: http://www.grid.tsl.uu.se/review/php-voms-admin.spec SRPM: http://www.grid.tsl.uu.se/review/php-voms-admin-0.5.1-1.fc14.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 706357] Review Request: lsw - Prints all window titles of DISPLAY to standard output
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=706357 --- Comment #7 from Petr Sabata 2011-06-08 09:20:38 EDT --- Thank you both! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 711777] New: Review Request: perl-Test-Spec - Write tests in a declarative specification style
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-Test-Spec - Write tests in a declarative specification style Alias: perl-Test-Spec https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=711777 Summary: Review Request: perl-Test-Spec - Write tests in a declarative specification style Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: Unspecified URL: http://search.cpan.org/dist/Test-Spec/ OS/Version: Unspecified Status: NEW Severity: unspecified Priority: unspecified Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: iarn...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~iarnell/review/perl-Test-Spec.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~iarnell/review/perl-Test-Spec-0.31-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: This is a declarative specification-style testing system for behavior-driven development (BDD) in Perl. The tests (a.k.a. examples) are named with strings instead of subroutine names, so your fingers will suffer less fatigue from underscore-itis, with the side benefit that the test reports are more legible. Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3119077 *rt-0.10_01 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 711734] Review Request: python-vatnumber - Python module to validate VAT numbers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=711734 --- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla 2011-06-08 09:15:42 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 711462] Review Request: perl-Fedora-Rebuild - Rebuilds Fedora packages from scratch
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=711462 --- Comment #8 from Jon Ciesla 2011-06-08 09:13:40 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 711606] Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-mediaplayers - A gnome-shell extension to control mediaplayers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=711606 --- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla 2011-06-08 09:14:27 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 604971] Review Request: jwm - Joe's Window 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=604971 --- Comment #13 from Mario Blättermann 2011-06-08 09:09:08 EDT --- BTW, I'm missing a scriptlet for a proper *.desktop file installation, see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#desktop-file-install_usage. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 675705] Review Request: rubygem-tilt - Generic interface to multiple Ruby template engines
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=675705 --- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla 2011-06-08 09:10:03 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests). Assuming vondruch should be the owner, not specified. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 706357] Review Request: lsw - Prints all window titles of DISPLAY to standard output
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=706357 --- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla 2011-06-08 09:12:09 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 705106] Review Request: snakeyaml - YAML parser and emitter for the Java programming language
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=705106 --- Comment #8 from Jon Ciesla 2011-06-08 09:11:05 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 604971] Review Request: jwm - Joe's Window 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=604971 Mario Blättermann 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 703719] Review Request: spice-xpi - mozilla extension for spice client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=703719 Hans de Goede changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | Flag||fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Hans de Goede 2011-06-08 09:03:09 EDT --- Looks good now, approved. If you let me know your FAS account name I'll add you to the packagers group and sponsor you. For more info on getting a FAS account if you don't have one already and the next steps after sponsoring, see: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
