[Bug 710453] Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-righthotcorner - A gnome-shell extension for an additional hot corner
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=710453 Ian Weller i...@ianweller.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||i...@ianweller.org --- Comment #4 from Ian Weller i...@ianweller.org 2011-06-13 02:18:14 EDT --- Tim, the fedora-review flag needs to be set to + for an approved review. Thanks! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 710453] Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-righthotcorner - A gnome-shell extension for an additional hot corner
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=710453 Tim Lauridsen t...@rasmil.dk changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Tim Lauridsen t...@rasmil.dk 2011-06-13 02:37:55 EDT --- (In reply to comment #4) Tim, the fedora-review flag needs to be set to + for an approved review. Thanks! I must have forgot that :) flag is set now. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 710751] Review Request: php-pecl-oauth - PHP OAuth extension
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=710751
Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fed...@famillecollet.com
--- Comment #2 from Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com 2011-06-13 04:41:48
EDT ---
private-shared-object-provides = check others pecl extensions
%{?filter_setup:
%filter_provides_in %{php_extdir}/.*\.so$
%filter_setup
}
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 712447] Review Request: PyQtMobility - Python bindings for Qt Mobility
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=712447 Jaroslav Reznik jrez...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jrez...@redhat.com Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 710751] Review Request: php-pecl-oauth - PHP OAuth extension
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=710751
--- Comment #3 from Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com 2011-06-13 04:59:43
EDT ---
There is no test provided by upstream, but you could, at least, provides a
minimal %check section to check than the build module is loadable
Something like:
%check
cd %{pecl_name}-%{version}
php -n \
-d extension_dir=modules \
-d extension=%{pecl_name}.so \
--modules | grep OAuth
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 703322] Review Request: tpp - text presentation program
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=703322
Golo Fuchert packa...@golotop.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #20 from Golo Fuchert packa...@golotop.de 2011-06-13 06:02:28 EDT
---
Everything looks fine to me now. Here is the review:
-
[+] = ok
[o] = does not apply
[-] = needs work
-
[+] rpmlint output:
rpmlint RPMS/noarch/tpp-1.3.1-9.fc15.noarch.rpm SRPMS/tpp-1.3.1-9.fc15.src.rpm
SPECS/tpp.spec
tpp.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) ncurses - nurses, curses, n
curses
tpp.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ncurses - nurses, curses,
n curses
tpp.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US framebuffer - frame
buffer, frame-buffer, framer
tpp.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/tpp-1.3.1/COPYING
tpp.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) ncurses - nurses, curses, n curses
tpp.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ncurses - nurses, curses, n
curses
tpp.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US framebuffer - frame buffer,
frame-buffer, framer
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 6 warnings.
The spelling errors are all ok, the fsf address has to be fixed upstream and is
not a blocker.
[+] The package is named according to the guidelines
[+] Spec file name matches base package name
[+] The package follows the Packaging Guidelines
[+] The license is an approved licence (GPLv2)
[+] The License field matches the actual licence
[+] License file from source file is included in %doc
[+] The spec file is written in American English
[+] The spec file is legible
[+] Packaged sources match with upstream sources (md5)
md5sum tpp-1.3.1.tar.gz.{packaged,upstream}
35eebb38497e802df1faa57077dab2d1 tpp-1.3.1.tar.gz.packaged
35eebb38497e802df1faa57077dab2d1 tpp-1.3.1.tar.gz.upstream
[+] Package build at least on one primary architecture
[+] ExecludeArch is not known to be needed.
[+] All build dependencies are listed in the BuildRequires section
[o] No locales for the package
[o] Package stores no shared libraries
[+] Package does not bundle copies of system libraries
[o] Package is not relocatable
[+] Package owns all directories it installs.
[+] No files are listed more then once in the %files section
[+] File permissions are set properly (%defattr(...) is used)
[+] Consistent use of macros
[+] Package contains code and documentation only, no content
[+] No large documentation files in the base package
[+] %doc files do not affect runtime
[o] No header files packaged
[o] No static libraries included
[o] library files ending with .so included in devel subpackage
[o] no -devel subpackage
[+] No libtool .la archives included
[o] No GUI application, no need for a .desktop file
[+] Package does not own files or directories that are owned by other packages
(well, it owns %{_emacs_sitelispdir}, but this is a necessary exception,
since emacs is not required)
[+] All filenames are valid UTF-8
SHOULD items:
[o] Source package does already include license text as a separate file from
upstream.
[o] No other Non-English languages supported.
[+] The package builds in mock.
[+] koji scratch build successful.
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3127759
[+] Tested: tpp starts and an example presentation from the homepage is
properly displayed.
[+] No exotic scriptlets used.
[o] No subpackages.
[o] No pkgconfig(.pc) files.
[o] No file dependencies.
[+] Man page included.
-
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 712560] Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-theme-selector - extension for review change gnome-shell themes
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=712560 Tim Lauridsen t...@rasmil.dk changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |gnome-shell-extensions-them |gnome-shell-extension-theme |e-selector - extension for |-selector - extension for |review change gnome-shell |review change gnome-shell |themes |themes -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 712560] Review Request: gnome-shell-extensions-theme-selector - extension for review change gnome-shell themes
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=712560 --- Comment #2 from Tim Lauridsen t...@rasmil.dk 2011-06-13 05:57:41 EDT --- Renamed from gnome-shell-extensions-theme-selector to gnome-shell-extension-theme-selector SPEC: http://timlau.fedorapeople.org/files/gnome-shell/extensions/SPECS/gnome-shell-extension-theme-selector.spec SRPM: http://timlau.fedorapeople.org/files/gnome-shell/extensions/SRPMS/gnome-shell-extension-theme-selector-0.9-3.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 710453] Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-righthotcorner - A gnome-shell extension for an additional hot corner
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=710453 Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net 2011-06-13 06:53:45 EDT --- Thanks for setting the flag, Tim. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: gnome-shell-extension-righthotcorner Short Description: A gnome-shell extension for an additional hot corner Owners: fab Branches: 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 712662] Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-autohidetopbar - auto hide topbar extension
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=712662 Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||methe...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com 2011-06-13 07:32:02 EDT --- This extension has a bug. If I hit the top left corner where activities is, it stops auto hiding. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 712682] Review Request: pinpoint - a tool for making hackers do excellent presentations
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=712682 Paul W. Frields sticks...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Paul W. Frields sticks...@gmail.com 2011-06-13 07:56:51 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: pinpoint Short Description: A tool for making hackers do excellent presentations Owners: pfrields pbrobinson Branches: 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 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 #12 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2011-06-13 08:17:27 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 710453] Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-righthotcorner - A gnome-shell extension for an additional hot corner
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=710453 --- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2011-06-13 08:39:37 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 712682] Review Request: pinpoint - a tool for making hackers do excellent presentations
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=712682 --- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2011-06-13 09:11:28 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 712682] Review Request: pinpoint - a tool for making hackers do excellent presentations
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=712682 Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net changed: What|Removed |Added CC||l...@jcomserv.net --- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2011-06-13 09:13:20 EDT --- FYI, git is not *quite* done, as pkgs.fp.o is down ATM. . . -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 706934] Review Request: rubygem-rspec-rails - RSpec-2 for Rails-3
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=706934
--- Comment #4 from Marcela Mašláňová mmasl...@redhat.com 2011-06-13 09:20:00
EDT ---
- rpmlint OK
- package must be named according to Guidelines OK
- spec file name must match the base package %{name} OK
- package must meet the Packaging Guidelines OK
- package must be licensed with Fedora approved license OK
- license field must match actual license OK
- text of the license in its own file must be included in %doc OK
- sources must match the upstream source OK
- package MUST successfully compile and build ?
- architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in bugzilla OK
- build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires OK
- handle locales properly with %find_lang macro OK
- shared library files must call ldconfig in %post(un) OK
- packages must NOT bundle system libraries OK
- package must own all directories that it creates OK
- permissions on files must be set properly OK
- package must consistently use macros OK
- package must contain code, or permissable content OK
- large documentation must go in a -doc OK
- %doc must not affect the runtime of the application OK
- header files must be in a -devel package OK
- static libraries must be in a -static package OK
- library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel OK
- devel package usually require base package OK
- packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives OK
- GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file OK
- packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages OK
Otherwise package looks good. Let's wait for fix of bug blocking this 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 712682] Review Request: pinpoint - a tool for making hackers do excellent presentations
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=712682 --- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2011-06-13 09:28:27 EDT --- Ok, should be good now. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 712693] Review Request: libsysactivity - Library for retrieving statistics of the system`s activity
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=712693 José Matos jama...@fc.up.pt changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jama...@fc.up.pt --- Comment #2 from José Matos jama...@fc.up.pt 2011-06-13 09:39:33 EDT --- Hi Carlos, in order to be a Fedora packager you need to be follows the instructions given at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join and as it says in that page you should show that you understand the packaging guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines The way we usually access the understanding of the packaging guidelines is through the revision of other packages submissions. Since you are not yet a packager those reviews are not official but they allow me to see your understanding of the guidelines. So if you want to choose two or three packages to review I am available to sponsor you in the process. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 710902] Review Request: octave-struct - Structure handling for Octave
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=710902 José Matos jama...@fc.up.pt changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jama...@fc.up.pt Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from José Matos jama...@fc.up.pt 2011-06-13 10:08:40 EDT --- I will take this package review. One question meanwhile, why is not this package NoArch? I only see octave code, I do not see any architecture dependent code in the final 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 693677] Review Request: avl - AVL tree manipulation 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=693677 Matej Cepl mc...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2011-06-13 10:21:22 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 710902] Review Request: octave-struct - Structure handling for Octave
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=710902
José Matos jama...@fc.up.pt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #2 from José Matos jama...@fc.up.pt 2011-06-13 10:32:55 EDT ---
OK, after looking into further detail you can ignore my last remark.
Here follows the review with points to take care at the end. They are quite
small but I would like to have your input on them.
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
[x] : MUST - Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported architecture.
[x] : MUST - Each %files section contains %defattr
[x] : MUST - Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x] : MUST - Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x] : MUST - Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=...
doesn't work.
[x] : MUST - Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x] : MUST - Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
MD5SUM this package : b067676d6360dbed7995658fa4266076
MD5SUM upstream package : b067676d6360dbed7995658fa4266076
[x] : MUST - Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[-] : MUST - %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[-] : MUST - Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop using
desktop-file-install file if it is a GUI application.
[-] : MUST - Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[-] : MUST - Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] : MUST - ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[-] : MUST - License file installed when any subpackage combination is
installed.
[-] : MUST - The spec file handles locales properly.
[-] : MUST - No %config files under /usr.
[-] : MUST - Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] : MUST - Static libraries in -static subpackage, if present.
[!] : MUST - Rpmlint output is silent.
rpmlint octave-struct-1.0.9-1.fc16.i686.rpm
octave-struct.i686: W: obsolete-not-provided octave-forge
octave-struct.i686: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/share/octave/packages/struct-1.0.9/packinfo/.autoload
octave-struct.i686: E: zero-length
/usr/share/octave/packages/struct-1.0.9/packinfo/.autoload
octave-struct.i686: W: dangerous-command-in-%preun rm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings.
rpmlint octave-struct-debuginfo-1.0.9-1.fc16.i686.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
rpmlint octave-struct-1.0.9-1.fc16.src.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[x] : MUST - Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and
meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[-] : MUST - %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x] : MUST - All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x] : MUST - Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x] : MUST - Changelog in prescribed format.
[x] : MUST - Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-] : MUST - Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x] : MUST - Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x] : MUST - Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x] : MUST - Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x] : MUST - Permissions on files are set properly.
[x] : MUST - Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[-] : MUST - Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x] : MUST - If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %doc.
[x] : MUST - License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x] : MUST - Package consistently uses macros. instead of hard-coded directory
names.
[x] : MUST - Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
[x] : MUST - Package does not generates any conflict.
[x] : MUST -
[Bug 710751] Review Request: php-pecl-oauth - PHP OAuth extension
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=710751 --- Comment #4 from François Kooman fkoo...@tuxed.net 2011-06-13 10:41:04 EDT --- Thanks! Addressed both issues: [fkooman@franet SPECS]$ rpmlint php-pecl-oauth.spec ../SRPMS/php-pecl-oauth-1.1.0-4.fc15.src.rpm ../RPMS/i686/php-pecl-oauth-1.1.0-4.fc15.i686.rpm php-pecl-oauth.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US usernames - user names, user-names, surnames php-pecl-oauth.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US usernames - user names, user-names, surnames 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. [fkooman@franet SPECS]$ Spec URL: http://fkooman.fedorapeople.org/php-pecl-oauth/php-pecl-oauth.spec SRPM URL: http://fkooman.fedorapeople.org/php-pecl-oauth/php-pecl-oauth-1.1.0-4.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 712909] New: Review Request: rubygem-POpen4 - Open4 cross-platform
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-POpen4 - Open4 cross-platform https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=712909 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-POpen4 - Open4 cross-platform Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: vondr...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/vondruch/rubygem-POpen4.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/vondruch/rubygem-POpen4-0.1.4-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: POpen4 provides the Rubyist a single API across platforms for executing a command in a child process with handles on stdout, stderr, stdin streams as well as access to the process ID and exit status. It does very little other than to provide an easy way to use either Ara Howard’s Open4 library or the win32-popen3 library by Park Heesob and Daniel Berger depending on your platform and without having to code around the slight differences in their APIs. Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3128029 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 Athmane Madjoudj athm...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||athm...@fedoraproject.org --- Comment #36 from Athmane Madjoudj athm...@fedoraproject.org 2011-06-13 10:58:01 EDT --- Seems it has some bundled libraries: ./tcms/core/lib/odfpy = provided by package: odfpy.noarch ./tcms/core/lib/django-pagination = provided by package: django-pagination.noarch http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 712913] New: Review Request: virt-dmesg - Print kernel messages from a Linux virtual machine
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: virt-dmesg - Print kernel messages from a Linux virtual machine https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=712913 Summary: Review Request: virt-dmesg - Print kernel messages from a Linux virtual machine Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rjo...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Spec URL: http://oirase.annexia.org/reviews/dmesg/virt-dmesg.spec SRPM URL: http://oirase.annexia.org/reviews/dmesg/virt-dmesg-0.2.0-1.fc15.src.rpm Description: Print kernel messages from a Linux virtual machine virt-dmesg prints the kernel messages from a running Linux virtual machine. It is like dmesg(1) except that it works on virtual machines instead of the host. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 712913] Review Request: virt-dmesg - Print kernel messages from a Linux virtual machine
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=712913 --- Comment #1 from Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com 2011-06-13 11:03:41 EDT --- $ rpmlint SRPMS/virt-dmesg-0.2.0-1.fc15.src.rpm RPMS/x86_64/virt-dmesg-0.2.0-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 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 712913] Review Request: virt-dmesg - Print kernel messages from a Linux virtual machine
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=712913 --- Comment #2 from Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com 2011-06-13 11:06:16 EDT --- Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3128080 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 710911] Review Request: octave-audio - Audio for Octave
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=710911 José Matos jama...@fc.up.pt changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||jama...@fc.up.pt Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from José Matos jama...@fc.up.pt 2011-06-13 11:23:37 EDT --- I will take the review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 710904] Review Request: octave-communications - Communications for Octave
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=710904 José Matos jama...@fc.up.pt changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||jama...@fc.up.pt Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from José Matos jama...@fc.up.pt 2011-06-13 11:21:41 EDT --- I will take the review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 710912] Review Request: octave-control - Control systems for Octave
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=710912 José Matos jama...@fc.up.pt changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||jama...@fc.up.pt Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from José Matos jama...@fc.up.pt 2011-06-13 11:23:19 EDT --- I will take the review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 710903] Review Request: octave-miscellaneous - Miscellaneous functions for Octave
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=710903 José Matos jama...@fc.up.pt changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||jama...@fc.up.pt Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from José Matos jama...@fc.up.pt 2011-06-13 11:21:03 EDT --- I will take the review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 710914] Review Request: octave-quaternion - Quaternion package for Octave
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=710914 José Matos jama...@fc.up.pt changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||jama...@fc.up.pt Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from José Matos jama...@fc.up.pt 2011-06-13 11:23:00 EDT --- I will take the review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 710905] Review Request: octave-optim - Optimization for Octave
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=710905 José Matos jama...@fc.up.pt changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||jama...@fc.up.pt Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from José Matos jama...@fc.up.pt 2011-06-13 11:24:23 EDT --- I will take the review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 710906] Review Request: octave-signal - Signal processing for Octave
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=710906 José Matos jama...@fc.up.pt changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||jama...@fc.up.pt Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from José Matos jama...@fc.up.pt 2011-06-13 11:24:07 EDT --- I will take the review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 710909] Review Request: octave-symbolic - Symbolic computations for Octave
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=710909 José Matos jama...@fc.up.pt changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||jama...@fc.up.pt Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from José Matos jama...@fc.up.pt 2011-06-13 11:23:54 EDT --- I will take the review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 712921] New: Review Request: zabbix18 - Open-source monitoring solution for your IT infrastructure
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: zabbix18 - Open-source monitoring solution for your IT infrastructure https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=712921 Summary: Review Request: zabbix18 - Open-source monitoring solution for your IT infrastructure 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/zabbix18.spec SRPM URL: http://fedora.danny.cz/zabbix18-1.8.5-4.fc16.src.rpm Notes: This a Zabbix in version 1.8 packaged (mainly) for EPEL-5 and EPEL-4. The spec file is shared with Zabbix in Fedora and EPEL-6, the only difference is the Name tag and can serve as example how to package other major versions in parallel. Parallel installation is not possible, an explicit conflict is set. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 712923] New: Review Request: gnome-contacts - Contacts manager for GNOME
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: gnome-contacts - Contacts manager for GNOME https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=712923 Summary: Review Request: gnome-contacts - Contacts manager for GNOME Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: el...@doom.co.il QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Spec URL: http://elad.fedorapeople.org/reviews/gnome-contacts.spec SRPM URL: http://elad.fedorapeople.org/reviews/gnome-contacts-0.1.0-1.fc15.src.rpm Description: gnome-contacts is a standalone contacts manager for GNOME desktop. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 407571] Review Request: tinyxml - A simple, small, C++ XML parser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=407571 Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jussi.leht...@iki.fi --- Comment #32 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi 2011-06-13 11:45:17 EDT --- Rakesh: please build tinyxml on el4 ASAP as per comment #30 so I can update cppcheck. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 710751] Review Request: php-pecl-oauth - PHP OAuth extension
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=710751
Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|fed...@famillecollet.com
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com 2011-06-13 11:49:58
EDT ---
=== FORMAL REVIEW ===
-=N/A x=Check !=Problem, ?=Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x] Rpmlint output:
php-pecl-oauth.spec: I: checking-url http://pecl.php.net/get/oauth-1.1.0.tgz
(timeout 10 seconds)
php-pecl-oauth.src: I: checking
php-pecl-oauth.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US usernames - user
names, user-names, surnames
php-pecl-oauth.src: I: checking-url http://pecl.php.net/package/oauth (timeout
10 seconds)
php-pecl-oauth.src: I: checking-url http://pecl.php.net/get/oauth-1.1.0.tgz
(timeout 10 seconds)
php-pecl-oauth.x86_64: I: checking
php-pecl-oauth.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US usernames -
user names, user-names, surnames
php-pecl-oauth.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.1.0-4
['1.1.0-4.fc15.remi', '1.1.0-4.remi']
php-pecl-oauth.x86_64: I: checking-url http://pecl.php.net/package/oauth
(timeout 10 seconds)
php-pecl-oauth-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking
php-pecl-oauth-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking-url
http://pecl.php.net/package/oauth (timeout 10 seconds)
3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
[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 PHP specific items
[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: BSD
[x] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package is included in %doc.
[x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
md5sum : 26359ba5f04848e725a97c9aef9713b6 oauth-1.1.0.tgz
[x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture.
Tested on: f15 x86_64
[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] Packages don't bundle copies of system librarie
[x] Package is not relocatable.
[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.
[!] Package consistently uses macros.
[x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Static libraries in -static subpackage, if present.
[-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[ ] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages with %{?_isa}, if present.
[x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
[-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
[-] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8
[x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
[x] Final requires
php(zend-abi) = 20090626-x86-64
php(api) = 20090626-x86-64
/usr/bin/pecl
...
[x] Final provides
php-pecl(oauth) = 1.1.0
php-pecl-oauth = 1.1.0-4.fc15.remi
php-pecl-oauth(x86-64) = 1.1.0-4.fc15.remi
[x] Latest version is packaged.
[-] If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[-] The description and summary sections in the package spec file should
contain
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
Tested on: Koji
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3128201
[x] The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
Tested on:
[!] Package functions as described.
[x] If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane.
[x] If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin,
/usr/bin, or /usr/sbin
[Bug 702143] Review Request: wallaby - configuration service for Condor pools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=702143
Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tcall...@redhat.com
--- Comment #3 from Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com 2011-06-13
12:36:12 EDT ---
Initial Review:
* BuildRoot is not necessary, except on EPEL 5 and older.
* rm -rf %{buildroot} at the beginning of %install is not necessary, except on
EPEL 5 and older
* %clean section is not necessary if it is just rm -rf %{buildroot}, except on
EPEL 5 or older
* %defattr(-,root,root,-) is not necessary in %files sections, except on EPEL 5
or older.
All four of those items have sane defaults in current Fedora. :)
* Given that this is a Fedora Hosted project, I would really like to see the
release tarball have a canonical upstream home, e.g.
https://fedorahosted.org/releases/g/r/grid/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
Once that happens, the Source0 field in the spec file should reflect that.
* Is there a need for Requires: ruby if you have Requires: ruby(abi) = 1.8 ?
* Also, you have the BuildRequires split out (and duplicated) across subpackage
sections, this is unnecessary. BuildRequires apply to the SRPM only, so just
put them all at the top (once).
* Descriptions should be proper sentences and end in periods. Also, try to
flesh them out a bit. Two of your subpackages have identical descriptions.
* Strongly consider making a systemd unit file instead. SysVinit files are
deprecated. (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Systemd)
* You're missing the exit 0 at the end of %pre (see
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:UsersAndGroups)
* Your %postun scriptlet seems entirely inappropriate. Compare it to the Fedora
standard here:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SysVInitScript#Initscripts_in_spec_file_scriptlets
Of course, you're going to move to a systemd unit file, right? :)
* Please read the guidelines concerning file and directory ownership:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_and_Directory_Ownership
I suspect you need to own some/all of the directories under %{ruby_sitelib}
that you're using. You may also be able to simplify the %files listings as a
result.
* Don't bother conditionalizing for Fedora newer than 12. At this point, you
can assume this package will never go into a Fedora older than 14. Just drop
those conditionals, or reframe them for RHEL if you want to put this in EPEL.
Show me a new package, and I'll do the final 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 712662] Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-autohidetopbar - auto hide topbar extension
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=712662 --- Comment #2 from Tim Lauridsen t...@rasmil.dk 2011-06-13 12:45:28 EDT --- Bug or feature :-) If move the mouse pointer to top left corner to show the overview and uses the Super-Key to close the overview, then the top bar will be visible until you move the mouse pointer to the top of the screen, then it will hide again. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 712662] Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-autohidetopbar - auto hide topbar extension
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=712662 --- Comment #3 from Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com 2011-06-13 12:51:38 EDT --- I am aware of this but find it annoyingly inconsistent. Can you talk to the developer of this extension and find out if this is a bug? I suspect it is -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 711181] Review Request: mono-reflection - Helper library for Mono Reflection 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=711181 --- Comment #2 from Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com 2011-06-13 13:16:41 EDT --- Thanks, all items addressed: New SRPM: http://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/new/mono-reflection-0.1-0.2.20110613git304d1d.fc15.src.rpm New SPEC: http://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/new/mono-reflection.spec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 712949] New: Review Request: gnome-online-accounts - Provide online accounts information
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: gnome-online-accounts - Provide online accounts information https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=712949 Summary: Review Request: gnome-online-accounts - Provide online accounts information Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: bnoc...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Spec URL: http://people.fedoraproject.org/~hadess/gnome-online-accounts/gnome-online-accounts.spec SRPM URL: http://people.fedoraproject.org/~hadess/gnome-online-accounts/gnome-online-accounts-3.1.0-1.fc15.src.rpm Description: The gnome-online-accounts-devel package contains libraries and header files for developing applications that use gnome-online-accounts. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 710902] Review Request: octave-struct - Structure handling for Octave
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=710902
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Sailer t.sai...@alumni.ethz.ch 2011-06-13 13:45:33
EDT ---
(In reply to comment #2)
Thank you for taking the review!
[!] : MUST - Rpmlint output is silent.
Please compare this to Bug 693798, the review of octave-image.
rpmlint octave-struct-1.0.9-1.fc16.i686.rpm
octave-struct.i686: W: obsolete-not-provided octave-forge
As Orion Poplawski argued in the above referred bug, the obsoletes is
necessary.
octave-struct.i686: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/share/octave/packages/struct-1.0.9/packinfo/.autoload
octave-struct.i686: E: zero-length
/usr/share/octave/packages/struct-1.0.9/packinfo/.autoload
This is the way the octave packaging system works; octave-image also contains
such an empty .autoload file
octave-struct.i686: W: dangerous-command-in-%preun rm
This warning comes from the rpm macros installed by octave, and should be fixed
there, IMO. That was already discussed in bug 693798.
[!] : SHOULD - SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
Patch0: octave-struct-nostrip.patch
(octave-struct-nostrip.patch)
Changed to:
Patch0: %{name}-nostrip.patch
Issues:
[!] : SHOULD - Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
justified.
Ok, I will take the otherwise justified route.
Upstream made a deliberate choice to strip binaries upon installation.
This however runs counter to our packaging guidelines (namely that we
do not want useless debug packages). This patch just patches out the
stripping on installation. This is, therefore, a fedora specific
change, that needs not be reported to upstream (they will ignore it anyway
as it runs counter to their decision)
* You can remove octave from the BuildRequires field since octave-devel
already
requires it (as it is usual for all *-devel to depend on the non-devel part)
Removed BR octave
* The description part could be expanded a bit (I am aware that this is what
shows the project page).
I tried to come up with a slightly longer and more informative text.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 710751] Review Request: php-pecl-oauth - PHP OAuth extension
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=710751 François Kooman fkoo...@tuxed.net changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from François Kooman fkoo...@tuxed.net 2011-06-13 13:47:44 EDT --- Thanks for the review! Issues: - I removed the macro - upstream in trunk has fixed this, by setting 1.1.1-dev now, I hope they remove the -dev when it is time to release (http://svn.php.net/viewvc/pecl/oauth/trunk/php_oauth.h?revision=311716view=markup, line 72) for now I can patch this myself. or should I just leave it? - The trunk version has some tests included, when/if 1.1.1 is released I'll add those tests to the spec file as well... You want to be co-maintainer for this package? New Package SCM Request === Package Name: php-pecl-oauth Short Description: PHP OAuth extension Owners: fkooman 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 710751] Review Request: php-pecl-oauth - PHP OAuth extension
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=710751 --- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2011-06-13 14:00:18 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 710902] Review Request: octave-struct - Structure handling for Octave
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=710902
--- Comment #4 from José Matos jama...@fc.up.pt 2011-06-13 14:07:13 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #3)
(In reply to comment #2)
Thank you for taking the review!
You are welcome.
[!] : MUST - Rpmlint output is silent.
Please compare this to Bug 693798, the review of octave-image.
rpmlint octave-struct-1.0.9-1.fc16.i686.rpm
octave-struct.i686: W: obsolete-not-provided octave-forge
As Orion Poplawski argued in the above referred bug, the obsoletes is
necessary.
octave-struct.i686: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/share/octave/packages/struct-1.0.9/packinfo/.autoload
octave-struct.i686: E: zero-length
/usr/share/octave/packages/struct-1.0.9/packinfo/.autoload
This is the way the octave packaging system works; octave-image also contains
such an empty .autoload file
octave-struct.i686: W: dangerous-command-in-%preun rm
This warning comes from the rpm macros installed by octave, and should be
fixed
there, IMO. That was already discussed in bug 693798.
I am aware that is why I did not consider them to be an issue.
On retrospective I should have placed a note saying exactly that.
[!] : SHOULD - SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
Patch0: octave-struct-nostrip.patch
(octave-struct-nostrip.patch)
Changed to:
Patch0: %{name}-nostrip.patch
Issues:
[!] : SHOULD - Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
justified.
Ok, I will take the otherwise justified route.
Upstream made a deliberate choice to strip binaries upon installation.
This however runs counter to our packaging guidelines (namely that we
do not want useless debug packages). This patch just patches out the
stripping on installation. This is, therefore, a fedora specific
change, that needs not be reported to upstream (they will ignore it anyway
as it runs counter to their decision)
My point here is that a single comment like:
# Avoid package stripping to have a useful debug package
over the patch is enough. You can rephrase it as you wish, but you get the
idea.
* You can remove octave from the BuildRequires field since octave-devel
already
requires it (as it is usual for all *-devel to depend on the non-devel part)
Removed BR octave
* The description part could be expanded a bit (I am aware that this is what
shows the project page).
I tried to come up with a slightly longer and more informative text.
Usually it is nice to have a link for the new sources. It is not required but
it is nice. :-)
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 711058] Review Request: akonadi-googledata - Google contacts and calendar akonadi resource
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=711058 Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #27 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu 2011-06-13 14:07:23 EDT --- Looks like a winner, APPROVED. Let me know your fas username, and I'll sponsor 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 712949] Review Request: gnome-online-accounts - Provide online accounts information
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=712949 Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||pbrobin...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|pbrobin...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com 2011-06-13 14:12:22 EDT --- I'll review this -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 711058] Review Request: akonadi-googledata - Google contacts and calendar akonadi resource
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=711058 --- Comment #28 from Mario Santagiuliana ma...@marionline.it 2011-06-13 14:23:15 EDT --- Wow :) thank you Rex, and thank you Dmitrij too :) My fas uesrname is marionline . Thank you very much :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 710902] Review Request: octave-struct - Structure handling for Octave
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=710902 --- Comment #5 from Thomas Sailer t.sai...@alumni.ethz.ch 2011-06-13 14:34:41 EDT --- (In reply to comment #4) over the patch is enough. You can rephrase it as you wish, but you get the idea. Now I understand; I've done now just that. Usually it is nice to have a link for the new sources. It is not required but it is nice. :-) Sorry about that, I just copied it at the original place. But here are the updated links: http://sailer.fedorapeople.org/octave-struct-1.0.9-3.fc15.src.rpm http://sailer.fedorapeople.org/octave-struct.spec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 712682] Review Request: pinpoint - a tool for making hackers do excellent presentations
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=712682 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-06-13 14:39:04 EDT --- pinpoint-0.1.2-1.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/pinpoint-0.1.2-1.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 693231] Review Request: gedit-collaboration - collaboration plugin for gedit
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=693231
--- Comment #9 from John (J5) Palmieri jo...@redhat.com 2011-06-13 14:37:04
EDT ---
Package review:
MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build
produces. The output should be posted in the review.[1]
$ rpmlint gedit-collaboration-3.0.0-1.fc16.src.rpm
gedit-collaboration.src: W: invalid-url URL: http://project.gnome.org/gedit
urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
The correct URL is http://projects.gnome.org/gedit
MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
OK
MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
OK
MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines
OK
MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines .
OK
MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
OK, GPLv3 as stated in COPYING. Sources don't have license header except of
gedit-collaboration-plugin.c which states GPLv2+
MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for
the package must be included in %doc.[4]
OK
MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
OK
MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
OK
MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no
upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL
Guidelines for how to deal with this.
OK
MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture.
OK, tested in koji
MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work
on that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line.
OK
MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
OK
MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden
OK
MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library
files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must
call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
Ok, Libraries present but not in ld search paths as these are dynamic loaded
plugins
MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
OK
MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker.
OK, none
MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not
create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
create that directory.
OK
MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific situations)
OK
MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
%defattr(...) line.
OK
MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
OK
MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
OK
MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition
of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted
to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity).
OK, no extra docs.
MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime
of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run
properly if it is not present.
OK
MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
N/A
MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
N/A
MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1),
then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel
package.
OK, libraries are plugins and are not versioned
MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} =
%{version}-%{release}
N/A
MUST: Packages must NOT
[Bug 712682] Review Request: pinpoint - a tool for making hackers do excellent presentations
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=712682 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 703824] Review Request python26-paramiko for EPEL 5
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=703824 Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com 2011-06-13 14:41:16 EDT --- Review === - rpmlint checks return: python26-paramiko.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US esperanto - Esperanto python26-paramiko.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US heirarchical - hierarchical python26-paramiko.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rsh - rah, rs, sh python26-paramiko.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sftp - ftp, ftps, s ftp python26-paramiko.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/paramiko/compress.py python26-paramiko.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/paramiko/client.py python26-paramiko.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/python26-paramiko-1.7.6/demos/demo_server.py python26-paramiko.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/paramiko/__init__.py python26-paramiko.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/python26-paramiko-1.7.6/demos/demo_sftp.py python26-paramiko.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/paramiko/sftp_si.py python26-paramiko.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/paramiko/resource.py python26-paramiko.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/paramiko/ssh_exception.py python26-paramiko.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/paramiko/message.py python26-paramiko.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/paramiko/sftp_file.py python26-paramiko.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/paramiko/channel.py python26-paramiko.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/paramiko/buffered_pipe.py python26-paramiko.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/python26-paramiko-1.7.6/demos/demo.py python26-paramiko.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/python26-paramiko-1.7.6/demos/forward.py python26-paramiko.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/paramiko/sftp.py python26-paramiko.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/python26-paramiko-1.7.6/demos/demo_simple.py python26-paramiko.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/paramiko/util.py python26-paramiko.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/paramiko/agent.py python26-paramiko.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/paramiko/pipe.py python26-paramiko.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/paramiko/kex_group1.py python26-paramiko.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/paramiko/pkey.py python26-paramiko.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/paramiko/primes.py python26-paramiko.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/paramiko/transport.py python26-paramiko.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/paramiko/dsskey.py python26-paramiko.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/paramiko/sftp_handle.py python26-paramiko.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/paramiko/config.py python26-paramiko.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/paramiko/file.py python26-paramiko.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/paramiko/sftp_client.py python26-paramiko.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/paramiko/logging22.py python26-paramiko.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/paramiko/auth_handler.py python26-paramiko.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/paramiko/kex_gex.py python26-paramiko.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/python26-paramiko-1.7.6/LICENSE python26-paramiko.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/python26-paramiko-1.7.6/demos/interactive.py python26-paramiko.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/paramiko/sftp_attr.py python26-paramiko.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/paramiko/server.py python26-paramiko.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/paramiko/packet.py python26-paramiko.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/python26-paramiko-1.7.6/demos/rforward.py python26-paramiko.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/paramiko/sftp_server.py python26-paramiko.noarch: E:
[Bug 712949] Review Request: gnome-online-accounts - Provide online accounts information
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=712949
--- Comment #2 from Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com 2011-06-13 14:45:26
EDT ---
These two files need to be in the main package, not in devel.
%{_libdir}/libgoa-1.0.so.0
%{_libdir}/libgoa-backend-1.0.so.0
A few bits that need to be fixed up.
+ rpmlint output
rpmlint gnome-online-accounts-3.1.0-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm
gnome-online-accounts-3.1.0-1.fc16.src.rpm
gnome-online-accounts-devel-3.1.0-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm gnome-online-accounts.spec
gnome-online-accounts.x86_64: E: no-ldconfig-symlink
/usr/lib64/libgoa-backend-1.0.so.0.0.0
gnome-online-accounts.x86_64: E: no-ldconfig-symlink
/usr/lib64/libgoa-1.0.so.0.0.0
gnome-online-accounts.x86_64: E: zero-length
/usr/share/doc/gnome-online-accounts-3.1.0/README
gnome-online-accounts-devel.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink
/usr/lib64/libgoa-backend-1.0.so.0 libgoa-backend-1.0.so.0.0.0
gnome-online-accounts-devel.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink
/usr/lib64/libgoa-1.0.so.0 libgoa-1.0.so.0.0.0
gnome-online-accounts-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/include/goa-1.0/goabackend/goaeditablelabel.h
3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 2 warnings.
+ package name satisfies the packaging naming guidelines
+ specfile name matches the package base name
+ package should satisfy packaging guidelines
+ license meets guidelines and is acceptable to Fedora
+ license matches the actual package license
+ latest version packaged
- %doc includes license file
doesn't include COPYING, README can be dropped as its empty
+ spec file written in American English
+ spec file is legible
+ upstream sources match sources in the srpm
a98926706647d142175a0bcaf0e40fe9 gnome-online-accounts-3.1.0.tar.bz2
+ package successfully builds on at least one architecture
tested using koji scratch build
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3128535
+ BuildRequires list all build dependencies
n/a %find_lang instead of %{_datadir}/locale/*
+ binary RPM with shared library files must call ldconfig in %post and %postun+
does not use Prefix: /usr
n/a package owns all directories it creates
n/a no duplicate files in %files
+ Package perserves timestamps on install
Permissions on files must be set properly
- %defattr line
missing in devel subpackage
+ consistent use of macros
+ package must contain code or permissible content
n/a large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage
+ files marked %doc should not affect package runtime
+ header files should be in -devel
n/a static libraries should be in -static
+ packages containing pkgconfig (.pc) files need 'Requires: pkgconfig'
+ libfoo.so must go in -devel
+ devel must require the fully versioned base
+ packages should not contain libtool .la files
n/a packages containing GUI apps must include %{name}.desktop file
+ packages must not own files or directories owned by other packages
+ filenames must be valid UTF-8
Optional:
+ if there is no license file, packager should query upstream to include it
n/a translations of description and summary for non-English languages, if
available
+ reviewer should build the package in mock/koji
n/a the package should build into binary RPMs on all supported architectures
n/a review should test the package functions as described
+ scriptlets should be sane
n/a non -devel packages should require fully versioned base
n/a pkgconfig files should go in -devel
+ shouldn't have file dependencies outside /etc /bin /sbin /usr/bin or
/usr/sbin
+ Package should have man files
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 712971] New: Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-pidgin - The components necessary to integrate Pidgin with GNOME Shell
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-pidgin - The components necessary to integrate Pidgin with GNOME Shell https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=712971 Summary: Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-pidgin - The components necessary to integrate Pidgin with GNOME Shell Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: tcall...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Spec URL: http://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/new/gnome-shell-extension-pidgin.spec SRPM URL: http://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/new/gnome-shell-extension-pidgin-0-0.1.git4ca78b1.fc15.src.rpm Koji Scratch Build (dist-f15): http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3128621 Description: This package contains the necessary components to integrate pidgin with GNOME Shell: * Izhar Firdaus's GNOME Shell Extension to display Pidgin chats as notifications in the Shell message tray. * Wojtek Surówka's Pidgin status notifier plugin In order to activate these components, you will need to: * Be running Pidgin (the extension uses Pidgin's DBUS API) * Restart GNOME Shell after installation * Enable the GNOME Shell Connector plugin within Pidgin -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 710751] Review Request: php-pecl-oauth - PHP OAuth extension
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=710751 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-06-13 14:52:50 EDT --- php-pecl-oauth-1.1.0-5.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/php-pecl-oauth-1.1.0-5.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 710751] Review Request: php-pecl-oauth - PHP OAuth extension
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=710751 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |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 710902] Review Request: octave-struct - Structure handling for Octave
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=710902 José Matos jama...@fc.up.pt changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from José Matos jama...@fc.up.pt 2011-06-13 14:57:18 EDT --- OK, thank you. :-) The packaged is APPROVED. BTW nice work with the description I really like it now. :-) I will have leave soon so I will not review the other packages until tomorrow. If there are cases that are similar to the issues raised in this package it would be nice if you could take care of them because then the review will be even easier. :-) At least but not at least nice work with this and all the other octave packages, it is appreciated. :-) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 700667] Review Request python26-crypto
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=700667 Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | --- Comment #15 from Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com 2011-06-13 15:12:58 EDT --- I just sponsored Andy. Lifting FE-NEEDSPONSOR -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 710902] Review Request: octave-struct - Structure handling for Octave
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=710902 --- Comment #7 from Thomas Sailer t.sai...@alumni.ethz.ch 2011-06-13 15:16:02 EDT --- Thanks Jose! I will go over the other packages tomorrow. Those with a scratch build btw are those that should go in first, the others depend on those with scratch build. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: octave-struct Short Description: Structure handling for Octave Owners: sailer Branches: 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 711058] Review Request: akonadi-googledata - Google contacts and calendar akonadi resource
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=711058 --- Comment #29 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu 2011-06-13 15:26:47 EDT --- sponsored, you can now move on to, http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join#Add_Package_to_Source_Code_Management_.28SCM.29_system_and_Set_Owner and the following steps. Feel free to stop by on freenode irc, #fedora-kde (or #fedora-devel) channels if you have any questions, or just want to chat. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 239336] Review Request: thunderbird-enigmail - Enigmail extension for Mozilla Thunderbird
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=239336 --- Comment #12 from redhat-u...@themoreiknow.info 2011-06-13 15:44:02 EDT --- (In reply to comment #11) === thunderbird-enigmail package is available in rpmfusion. === I'm a week late in doing so, but I still wanted to thank you, Remi, for that information. I've read a little bit about RPM Fusion[1][2], and I applaud the incredible amount of work those volunteers do. (That includes you, Remi, as I see you are a contributor.) It would be nice if RPM Fusion provided Enigmail not only for Thunderbird but for SeaMonkey, too. But what I think would be better is if the Fedora Project packaged Enigmail for both. They already package Thunderbird SeaMonkey, and I think more people would trust this encryption/security-related package if it came from them. (Not knocking the RPM Fusion volunteers -- it is just one has to wonder why the Fedora Project doesn't package this, themselves.) I would like to suggest adding Enigmail to Fedora's package wish list[3], but it appears only contributors can edit that wiki page. (If only I had the time skills to contribute...) Anybody know how to suggest a package for inclusion in Fedora? [1]http://rpmfusion.org/FAQ#head-38ded7f78e78c78126311641353711b9823a36e3 [2]http://rpmfusion.org/FoundingPrinciples [3]http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/WishList#General_Fedora_Packages_WishList -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 700667] Review Request python26-crypto
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=700667 Andy Grimm agr...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #16 from Andy Grimm agr...@gmail.com 2011-06-13 16:36:16 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python26-crypto Short Description: Cryptography library for Python Owners: arg gholms Branches: el5 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 708820] Review Request: python-async - A framework to process interdependent tasks in a pool of workers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=708820 Jesse Keating jkeat...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Jesse Keating jkeat...@redhat.com 2011-06-13 16:40:31 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-async Short Description: A framework to process interdependent tasks in a pool of workers Owners: jkeating Branches: 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 703824] Review Request python26-paramiko for EPEL 5
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=703824 Andy Grimm agr...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Andy Grimm agr...@gmail.com 2011-06-13 16:39:44 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python26-paramiko Short Description: An SSH2 protocol library for python Owners: arg gholms Branches: el5 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 712522] Review Request: eclipse-wtp-common - Common Web Tools Platform utilities and infrastructure
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=712522 Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 700667] Review Request python26-crypto
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=700667 --- Comment #17 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2011-06-13 18:12:16 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 703824] Review Request python26-paramiko for EPEL 5
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=703824 --- Comment #3 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2011-06-13 18:12:49 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 708820] Review Request: python-async - A framework to process interdependent tasks in a pool of workers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=708820 --- Comment #3 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2011-06-13 18:13:16 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 708820] Review Request: python-async - A framework to process interdependent tasks in a pool of workers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=708820 Jesse Keating jkeat...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE Last Closed||2011-06-13 18:45:46 --- Comment #4 from Jesse Keating jkeat...@redhat.com 2011-06-13 18:45:46 EDT --- Built for rawhide. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 643140] Review Request: autokey - A desktop automation utility
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=643140 --- Comment #22 from Raghu Udiyar raghusidda...@gmail.com 2011-06-13 19:14:33 EDT --- Hi David, Could you confirm if the above addresses your queries? Following are the new spec/srpm files : http://dl.dropbox.com/u/7899621/autokey/autokey.spec http://dl.dropbox.com/u/7899621/autokey/autokey-0.71.3-2.fc14.src.rpm $ rpmlint autokey.spec autokey.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: http://autokey.googlecode.com/files/autokey_0.71.3.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not Found 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 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 708826] Review Request: python-gitdb - A pure-Python git object database
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=708826 Garrett Holmstrom gho...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||gho...@fedoraproject.org Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Garrett Holmstrom gho...@fedoraproject.org 2011-06-13 19:34:58 EDT --- Review of python-gitdb-0.5.2-1.git17d9d13.fc16: The git object and packs and such in gitdb/test/fixtures are considered content, but the license under which they are distributable is unclear. I recommend asking upstream for clarification. Packaging-wise, please fix the permissions of _perf.so and add a date to the snapshot portion of the Release field as specified in the packaging guidelines [1]. All the other issues are optional, though if the included test suite isn't difficult to run I encourage you to add a %check section. See below for the complete review. [1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Snapshot_packages Mandatory review guidelines: NO - rpmlint output python-gitdb.src: W: invalid-url Source0: gitpython-developers-gitdb-0.5.2-16-g17d9d13.tar.gz python-gitdb.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/gitdb/_perf.so 0775L -- The first of these is acceptable. NO - Package meets naming guidelines Snapshot release tags must contain dates. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Snapshot_packages ok - Spec file name matches base package name ok - License is acceptable (BSD) ok - License field in spec is correct 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 Github does not supply tarballs with consistent checksums 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 root root /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/gitdb/_perf.so ok - Each %files section contains %defattr ok - Consistent use of macros NO - Sources contain only permissible code or content gitdb/test/fixtures/* have 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 -- - 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 content license given for gitdb/test/fixtures/* no - Translations of description, Summary ok - Builds in mock ok - Builds on all supported platforms -- - 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 -- - Man pages included for all executables no - 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 ok - Correct BuildRoot tag on F10/EL6 ok - Correct %clean section on F13/EL6 ok - Requires correct, justified where necessary ok - Summary, description do not use trademarks incorrectly ok - All relevant documentation is packaged, tagged appropriately ok - Documentation files do not have executable permissions ok - %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise -- - Package with .pc files Requires pkgconfig on EL6 ok - Useful -debuginfo package or disabled and justified ok - No static executables ok
[Bug 708826] Review Request: python-gitdb - A pure-Python git object database
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=708826 --- Comment #2 from Jesse Keating jkeat...@redhat.com 2011-06-13 20:17:00 EDT --- Ok, all set. http://jkeating.fedorapeople.org/review/python-gitdb.spec http://jkeating.fedorapeople.org/review/python-gitdb-0.5.2-2.20110613git17d9d13.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 708826] Review Request: python-gitdb - A pure-Python git object database
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=708826
--- Comment #3 from Garrett Holmstrom gho...@fedoraproject.org 2011-06-13
20:38:11 EDT ---
Review of python-gitdb-0.5.2-2.20110613git17d9d13.fc16:
Please add a BuildRequires entry for python-async so the included tests can
run. The failed %check section currently terminates the build process.
The git object and packs and such in gitdb/test/fixtures are considered
content, but the license under which they are distributable is unclear. I
recommend asking upstream for clarification.
A complete review follows.
Mandatory review guidelines:
ok - rpmlint output
python-gitdb.src: W: invalid-url Source0: gitdb-0.5.2-17d9d13.tar.gz
ok - Package meets naming guidelines
ok - Spec file name matches base package name
ok - License is acceptable (BSD)
ok - License field in spec is correct
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
Github does not supply tarballs with consistent checksums
NO - Build succeeds on at least one supported platform
%check section requires python-async to run
NO - Build succeeds on all supported platforms or has ExcludeArch + bugs filed
%check section requires python-async to run
NO - BuildRequires correct
%check section requires python-async to run
-- - 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
ok - File permissions are sane
ok - Each %files section contains %defattr
ok - Consistent use of macros
NO - Sources contain only permissible code or content
gitdb/test/fixtures/* have 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
-- - 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 content license given for gitdb/test/fixtures/*
no - Translations of description, Summary
no - Builds in mock
no - Builds on all supported platforms
-- - 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
-- - 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
ok - Correct BuildRoot tag on F10/EL6
ok - Correct %clean section on F13/EL6
ok - Requires correct, justified where necessary
ok - Summary, description do not use trademarks incorrectly
ok - All relevant documentation is packaged, tagged appropriately
ok - Documentation files do not have executable permissions
ok - %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise
-- - Package with .pc files Requires pkgconfig on EL6
ok - Useful -debuginfo package or disabled and justified
ok - No static executables
ok - Rpath absent or only used for internal libs
-- - Config files marked with %config
-- - %config files marked noreplace or justified
ok - No %config files under /usr
-- - SysV-style init script
ok - Spec uses macros instead of hard-coded directory names where appropriate
ok - Spec uses macros for executables only when configurability is needed
ok - %makeinstall used only when ``make install DESTDIR=...'' doesn't work
ok - Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time
-- - Spec uses %{SOURCE#} instead of $RPM_SOURCE_DIR or %{sourcedir}
ok - %global instead of %define where appropriate
-- - Package containing translations BuildRequires gettext
ok - File timestamps preserved by file ops
-- - Parallel make
ok - Spec does not use Requires(pre,post) notation
-- - User, group creation handled correctly (See
[Bug 709125] Review Request: obdgpslogger - OBDII and GPS data logger for your car
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=709125 --- Comment #8 from Gary Briggs chu...@icculus.org 2011-06-13 23:42:58 EDT --- I asked in IRC about followups, they suggested another ping by appending a comment on this bug. So, erm, here it is. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 #37 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com 2011-06-13 23:43:57 EDT --- Thanks for the update. The rpmlint now looks clean - very good. Any suggestions how to test the package? (In reply to comment #35) I changed Django from 1.2.3 to 1.2.5 Ok, but the question was: (why) do you need to specify the version there? Current Fedora has version 1.3. ;) I suggest not to specify the version or if you want to safeguard with a minimum safe django version use =. The easiest is just to drop the version unless it is absolutely needed. and fixed the issues you mentioned in comment 31 So you need mod_python? http://yuwang.fedorapeople.org/nitrate.spec https://fedorahosted.org/releases/n/i/nitrate/nitrate-3.3.4-2.src.rpm https://fedorahosted.org/releases/n/i/nitrate/nitrate-3.3.4.tar.bz2 You changed the tarball without bumping the version which is generally considered bad practice. (You don't have to keep the upstream .spec file in sync for this review BTW, though you are free to backport changes when you want.) https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/JavaScript As I said before I would like to see a declaration of all the third-party (javascript) libraries being used by nitrate, where they come from, and their license. Did you look at the tinymce review? (bug 608574) This library is large and certainly should be packaged separately. Since the above referenced package review seems to have stalled perhaps you could help to get the package into Fedora. (In reply to comment #36) ./tcms/core/lib/odfpy = provided by package: odfpy.noarch ./tcms/core/lib/django-pagination = provided by package: django-pagination.noarch Thanks Athmane for catching 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 712662] Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-autohidetopbar - auto hide topbar extension
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=712662 --- Comment #4 from Tim Lauridsen t...@rasmil.dk 2011-06-14 01:38:11 EDT --- Yes, I will do 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
