[Bug 707002] Review Request: FreeMedForms - An open Electronic Medical Record Manager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=707002
Eric Maeker changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||eric.mae...@gmail.com
--- Comment #2 from Eric Maeker 2011-06-15 02:49:59 EDT
---
Hi Ankur,
Thanks for this great work. We are greatly pleased to be included in Fedora
Medical and in Fedora in general.
Just some comments on the presentation:
- license is mainly GPLv3 + LGPL (for some parts)
- need Qt v4.6.2 at least
For the spec:
- in order to create the translation add in the %build tag (before the qmake
step)
lrelease global_resources/translations/*.ts
- LOWERED_APPNAME=FreeMedForms --> needs to be lowered ;) so
LOWERED_APPNAME="freemedforms". Then libs and plugs should be installed in
%{_libdir}/freemedforms
I saw a problem with rpath, 0.5.9~alpha2 should solve it (idem for the debian
packages).
There should be a small issue with the version numbering (because the version
is parsed in the code). Can't you use 0.5.9~alpha1 instead of 0.5.9-0.1.alpha1
? Otherwise I need to patch the 0.5.9~alpha2 code ;)
Can you add a link to our main website: http://www.freemedforms.com/
Fell free to contact us at any time for any question at
freemedfo...@googlegroups.com
Thanks for your work
Eric Maeker
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 630216] Review Request: ghc-vector-space - Vector & affine spaces, linear maps, and derivatives
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=630216 --- Comment #5 from Jens Petersen 2011-06-15 02:24:37 EDT --- Ping? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 662283] Review Request: hledger-web - A hledger add-on command providing a web interface
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=662283 Jens Petersen changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|634048(Haskell-pkg-reviews) | --- Comment #3 from Jens Petersen 2011-06-15 02:22:17 EDT --- Removing for now from bug 634048 since it is still not ready and depends on hledger and huge yesod stack which are still to be reviewed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 630206] Review Request: ghc-hledger-lib - Core types and utilities for working with hledger data
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=630206 --- Comment #9 from Jens Petersen 2011-06-15 02:20:41 EDT --- Ping? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 662277] Review Request: hledger-vty - A hledger add-on command providing a full-window console interface
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=662277 Jens Petersen changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|634048(Haskell-pkg-reviews) | --- Comment #1 from Jens Petersen 2011-06-15 02:19:14 EDT --- Removing for now from Haskell-pkg-reviews since it has not been ready for a while and still depends on a stack of unreviewed packages. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 713361] Review Request: ghc-pcre-light - Haskell binding to pcre
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=713361 Jens Petersen changed: What|Removed |Added CC||maths...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Jens Petersen 2011-06-15 02:01:42 EDT --- *** Bug 662258 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 662258] Review Request: ghc-pcre-light - A regex library for Perl 5 compatible regular expressions
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=662258 Jens Petersen changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|662259(git-annex), | |709949(highlighting-kate) | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 662259] Review Request: git-annex - Manage files with git, without checking their contents in
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=662259 Jens Petersen changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on|662258(ghc-pcre-light) | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 709949] Review Request: highlighting-kate - Source code highlighting tool and 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=709949 Jens Petersen changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on|662258(ghc-pcre-light) | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 662258] Review Request: ghc-pcre-light - A regex library for Perl 5 compatible regular expressions
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=662258 Jens Petersen changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||DUPLICATE Last Closed||2011-06-15 02:01:42 --- Comment #15 from Jens Petersen 2011-06-15 02:01:42 EDT --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 713361 *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 662259] Review Request: git-annex - Manage files with git, without checking their contents in
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=662259 Bug 662259 depends on bug 662258, which changed state. Bug 662258 Summary: Review Request: ghc-pcre-light - A regex library for Perl 5 compatible regular expressions https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=662258 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||DUPLICATE Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 709949] Review Request: highlighting-kate - Source code highlighting tool and 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=709949 Bug 709949 depends on bug 662258, which changed state. Bug 662258 Summary: Review Request: ghc-pcre-light - A regex library for Perl 5 compatible regular expressions https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=662258 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||DUPLICATE Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 713361] Review Request: ghc-pcre-light - Haskell binding to pcre
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=713361 Jens Petersen changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||662259(git-annex), ||709949(highlighting-kate) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 662259] Review Request: git-annex - Manage files with git, without checking their contents in
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=662259 Jens Petersen changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||713361 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 709949] Review Request: highlighting-kate - Source code highlighting tool and 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=709949 Jens Petersen changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||713361 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 713361] New: Review Request: ghc-pcre-light - Haskell binding to pcre
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: ghc-pcre-light - Haskell binding to pcre https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=713361 Summary: Review Request: ghc-pcre-light - Haskell binding to pcre Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: peter...@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://petersen.fedorapeople.org/ghc-pcre-light/ghc-pcre-light.spec SRPM URL: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/ghc-pcre-light/ghc-pcre-light-0.4-3.fc15.src.rpm Description: Perl5 compatible regular expressions library for Haskell -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 705104] Review Request: freediams - Pharmaceutical Drugs Prescriptor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=705104 --- Comment #12 from Ankur Sinha 2011-06-15 01:54:35 EDT --- I've mailed upstream to clarify some of the issues: https://fedorahosted.org/pipermail/medical-sig/2011-June/000187.html -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 710517] Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-remove-accessibility-icon - A gnome-shell extension for removing the accessibility icon
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=710517 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||gnome-shell-extension-remov ||e-accessibility-icon-201106 ||03-1.fc15 Resolution||ERRATA Last Closed||2011-06-15 01:49:27 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 710517] Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-remove-accessibility-icon - A gnome-shell extension for removing the accessibility icon
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=710517 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System 2011-06-15 01:49:22 EDT --- gnome-shell-extension-remove-accessibility-icon-20110603-1.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 stable repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 700962] Review Request: pydf - Fully colorized df clone written in python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=700962 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System 2011-06-15 01:43:08 EDT --- pydf-9-3.fc14 has been pushed to the Fedora 14 stable repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System 2011-06-15 01:43:02 EDT --- php-pecl-oauth-1.1.0-5.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 testing repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 700962] Review Request: pydf - Fully colorized df clone written in python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=700962 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|pydf-9-3.fc15 |pydf-9-3.fc14 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 630303] Review Request: yesod - Creation of type-safe, RESTful web applications
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=630303 Jens Petersen changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||677253 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 711606] Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-mediaplayers - A gnome-shell extension to control mediaplayers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=711606 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System 2011-06-15 01:38:36 EDT --- gnome-shell-extension-mediaplayers-0-0.1.git259f96e.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 testing repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 630273] Review Request: ghc-authenticate - Authentication methods for Haskell web applications
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=630273 Jens Petersen changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||630303(yesod) Bug 630273 depends on bug 648100, which changed state. Bug 648100 Summary: Review Request: ghc-xml - A simple XML library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=648100 What|Old Value |New Value Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA Resolution||ERRATA Status|ON_QA |CLOSED --- Comment #4 from Jens Petersen 2011-06-15 01:40:01 EDT --- This is needed by yesod-auth which has not yet been submitted. Making it block yesod for 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 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 changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System 2011-06-15 01:39:22 EDT --- pinpoint-0.1.2-1.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 testing repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 630303] Review Request: yesod - Creation of type-safe, RESTful web applications
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=630303 Jens Petersen changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||630273(ghc-authenticate) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 710045] Review Request: ghc-MonadCatchIO-mtl - Monad-transformer for Control.Exception
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=710045 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System 2011-06-15 01:36:50 EDT --- ghc-MonadCatchIO-mtl-0.3.0.3-2.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 testing repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 709949] Review Request: highlighting-kate - Source code highlighting tool and 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=709949 Jens Petersen changed: What|Removed |Added Alias||highlighting-kate -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 696982] Review Request: ghc-strict - Haskell library providing strict data types
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=696982 Jens Petersen changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|peter...@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 662258] Review Request: ghc-pcre-light - A regex library for Perl 5 compatible regular expressions
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=662258 --- Comment #14 from Jens Petersen 2011-06-15 01:21:48 EDT --- Ok this review has been stalled for quite a while. I will submit a new review shortly and close this one as a duplicate. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 648247] Review Request: ghc-tagged - Newtype wrappers for phantom types
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=648247 Jens Petersen changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||713359 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 701332] Review Request: ghc-blaze-html - Fast HTML combinator library for Haskell
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=701332 --- Comment #1 from Jens Petersen 2011-06-15 01:07:43 EDT --- Updating to 0.4.1.3: Spec: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/ghc-blaze-html/ghc-blaze-html.spec SRPM: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/ghc-blaze-html/ghc-blaze-html-0.4.1.3-1.fc15.src.rpm http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3131784 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 713334] Review Request: profdepanne - help desk for user
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=713334 patr_...@yahoo.fr changed: What|Removed |Added URL||http://codingteam.net/proje ||ct/profdepanne Platform|All |noarch Version|rawhide |15 Depends on||492018(futex,Java,wait) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 713334] New: Review Request: profdepanne - help desk for user
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: profdepanne - help desk for user https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=713334 Summary: Review Request: profdepanne - help desk for user Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: unspecified Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: patr_...@yahoo.fr QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Spec URL: http://andre-ani.fr/profdepanne.spec SRPM URL: http://andre-ani.fr/profdepanne-2.6-1.fc15.src.rpm Description: profdepanne is a free software (GPL) in Java, that help users to resolve themselves their computer problems. it also help to migrate to a Gnu/Linux system, install and use it. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 713320] New: Review Request: oz - Library and utilities for automated guest OS installs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: oz - Library and utilities for automated guest OS installs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=713320 Summary: Review Request: oz - Library and utilities for automated guest OS installs Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: p...@draigbrady.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.pixelbeat.org/patches/oz.spec SRPM URL: http://www.pixelbeat.org/patches/oz-0.4.0-2.fc15.src.rpm Hi, oz is part of http://aeolusproject.org/ and we'd like to make it available in Fedora. One question I had was, perhaps it would be better named as aeolus-oz to make it immediately obvious to what function it belongs? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 713313] New: Review Request: msktutil - Program for interoperability with Active Directory
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: msktutil - Program for interoperability with Active Directory https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=713313 Summary: Review Request: msktutil - Program for interoperability with Active Directory Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: ktdre...@ktdreyer.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://adiemus.org/~kdreyer/rpms/msktutil.spec SRPM URL: http://adiemus.org/~kdreyer/rpms/msktutil-0.4-1.el5.src.rpm Description: Msktutil is a program for interoperability with Active Directory that can create a computer account in Active Directory, create a system Kerberos keytab, add and remove principals to and from that keytab, and change the computer account's password. rpmlint is clean on the spec and SRPM, except for a spelling false positive for "keytab". At the time of this review request the upstream URL is down, hopefully temporarily. Builds in EL5, EL6, F14, F15. Will not build against rawhide yet, pending an update promised in #550889. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 693118] Review Request: drupal6-admin_menu - Theme-independent administration interface for Drupal 6
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=693118 Peter Borsa changed: What|Removed |Added CC||peter.bo...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|peter.bo...@gmail.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 699697] Review Request: drupal6-diff - Show diff-type changes in Drupal 6
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=699697 Peter Borsa changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 693118] Review Request: drupal6-admin_menu - Theme-independent administration interface for Drupal 6
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=693118 Peter Borsa changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 693118] Review Request: drupal6-admin_menu - Theme-independent administration interface for Drupal 6
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=693118 --- Comment #1 from Peter Borsa 2011-06-14 17:53:41 EDT --- I got the same error. [asrob@alice SPECS]$ rpmlint drupal6-admin_menu.spec ../SRPMS/drupal6-admin_menu-1.6-1.fc15.src.rpm ../RPMS/noarch/drupal6-admin_menu-1.6-1.fc15.noarch.rpm drupal6-admin_menu.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Devel -> Revel, Level, Bevel drupal6-admin_menu.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Devel -> Revel, Level, Bevel drupal6-admin_menu.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/drupal6-admin_menu-1.6/LICENSE.txt 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 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 699697] Review Request: drupal6-diff - Show diff-type changes in Drupal 6
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=699697 --- Comment #2 from Peter Borsa 2011-06-14 17:48:19 EDT --- I rebuilt this package from your spec file and I got an error. [asrob@alice SPECS]$ rpmlint drupal6-diff.spec ../SRPMS/drupal6-diff-2.1-1.fc15.src.rpm ../RPMS/noarch/drupal6-diff-2.1-1.fc15.noarch.rpm drupal6-diff.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US permissioned -> permission ed, permission-ed, permission drupal6-diff.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US permissioned -> permission ed, permission-ed, permission drupal6-diff.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/drupal6-diff-2.1/LICENSE.txt 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 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 699697] Review Request: drupal6-diff - Show diff-type changes in Drupal 6
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=699697 Peter Borsa changed: What|Removed |Added CC||peter.bo...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|peter.bo...@gmail.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 Christian Krause changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Christian Krause 2011-06-14 17:42:20 EDT --- Thanks for the new package, I have verified that all mentioned issues are fixed now -> 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 661902] Review Request: moksha - A platform for creating real-time web applications
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=661902 Casey Dahlin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2011-06-14 17:19:55 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 712203] Review Request: eclipse-mercurial - Mercurial plugin for Eclipse
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=712203 --- Comment #10 from Andrew Overholt 2011-06-14 15:17:55 EDT --- Thanks, everything looks good. There's just one final issue: your feature doesn't have all necessary files in its build.properties. I think you should have feature.properties and also a copy of epl-v10.html and license.html. Look at one of the Mylyn features for an example (minus p2.inf). $ ls /usr/share/eclipse/dropins/mylyn/eclipse/features/org.eclipse.mylyn_feature_3.5.1.v20110422-0200/ epl-v10.html feature.properties feature.xml license.html p2.inf -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 702989] Review Request: itstool - Translate XML files with PO using ITS rules
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=702989 --- Comment #12 from Zeeshan Ali 2011-06-14 15:18:25 EDT --- Yikes, I should have checked if anyone else is already on this before starting. :( Anyways, my packages are here, just in case you want to have a look for some reason: http://zeenix.fedorapeople.org/ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 705426] Review Request: blender25 - 3D modeling, animation, rendering and post-production
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=705426 --- Comment #4 from Richard Shaw 2011-06-14 15:16:01 EDT --- Jochen, Please don't take this the wrong way as I'm going to be very direct in order to minimize any misinterpretation/mistranslation. Are you saying that: a. Since this a temporary (or short lifespan) package that you want to continue using scons? or b. You have no interest in moving to cmake, now or anytime in the furture? Also, I'd like your input on include building blender with openCOLLADA support. Although I submitted the review request mainly to become a Fedora packager it would be a shame not to include it as currently blender is the only package that would use it. Otherwise I might as well kill it. Thanks, Richard -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 #38 from Rex Dieter 2011-06-14 15:12:58 EDT --- bodhi will close it once it goes to stable updates. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 #7 from Jon Ciesla 2011-06-14 15:07:53 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 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 Mario Santagiuliana changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2011-06-14 15:01:48 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 705426] Review Request: blender25 - 3D modeling, animation, rendering and post-production
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=705426 --- Comment #3 from Jochen Schmitt 2011-06-14 14:53:11 EDT --- Sorry for the deley. This should only be an intermisch package for Fedora 15 for people which want to try out blender 2.57b on Fedora 15. Belnder-2.57b or a later release should be the default release of blender on Fedora 16. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 #37 from Mario Santagiuliana 2011-06-14 14:47:04 EDT --- Ok, I submit the package. Should I close this bug report? Bodhi should do this alone, isn't? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 #36 from Fedora Update System 2011-06-14 14:41:29 EDT --- akonadi-googledata-1.2.0-4.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/akonadi-googledata-1.2.0-4.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 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 #35 from Fedora Update System 2011-06-14 14:40:06 EDT --- akonadi-googledata-1.2.0-4.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/akonadi-googledata-1.2.0-4.fc14 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 705426] Review Request: blender25 - 3D modeling, animation, rendering and post-production
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=705426 --- Comment #2 from Richard Shaw 2011-06-14 14:38:25 EDT --- ping... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 461991] Review Request: rhm-examples review request
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=461991 Nuno Santos changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||WONTFIX Last Closed||2011-06-14 14:32:12 --- Comment #8 from Nuno Santos 2011-06-14 14:32:12 EDT --- No longer relevant -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 708475] Review Request: pysdm - Python based Storage Device Manager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=708475 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System 2011-06-14 14:27:43 EDT --- pysdm-0.4.1-2.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/pysdm-0.4.1-2.fc15 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 708475] Review Request: pysdm - Python based Storage Device Manager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=708475 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 #18 from Fedora Update System 2011-06-14 14:26:39 EDT --- python26-crypto-2.3-5.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python26-crypto-2.3-5.el5 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 708475] Review Request: pysdm - Python based Storage Device Manager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=708475 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System 2011-06-14 14:27:35 EDT --- pysdm-0.4.1-2.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/pysdm-0.4.1-2.fc14 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 Jesse Keating changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Jesse Keating 2011-06-14 14:07:19 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-gitdb Short Description: A pure-Python git object database Owners: jkeating Branches: f14 f15 el6 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 705104] Review Request: freediams - Pharmaceutical Drugs Prescriptor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=705104
--- Comment #11 from Ankur Sinha 2011-06-14 14:03:25
EDT ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> Please make new releases when you publish your specs. Don't post release 1
> multiple times -- just bump it and make a new changelog entry too. This makes
> it a lot easier for the reviewer and is useful practice.
Sorry, I forgot to update the changelog in my haste.
>
> Another thing you can do, is add "-b .does_this_and_that" to the patch macro.
> This creates backups of the patched files and also acts as a help to know
> which
> patch is which.
Done
>
> I'd also harmonize the order of BuildArch, Requires and Summary in your
> sub-packages.
Done
>
> Please comment why you delete contrib, since it isn't obvious.
Done
>
> "These files consist of the documentation files for %{name}." -- I'm afraid
> that's bad grammar, plus it should describe a package -- not files.
Corrected
>
> Something is wrong with the main package's description: I think these should
> be
> 3 paragraphs, but I can only see leading spaces.
>
> Also consider this paragraph: "FreeDiams is a multi-platform (MacOS, Linux,
> FreeBSD, Windows), free and open source released under the new BSD license."
> --
> It is more or less clear that it's open source if it's in Fedora and the
> license contradicts -- but you left a comment on that. Personally, I think the
> description could be shorter and more clear.
>
Corrected.
> Do you think "export PATH=$PATH:%{_libdir}/qt4/bin/" is really necessary?
The project documentation page says this is required. No harm in including it,
is there?
It now builds correctly, It also functions. Here's a scratch build one can
test:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3131213
SPEC/SRPM:
http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/freediams/freediams.spec
http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/freediams/freediams-0.5.4-1.fc15.src.rpm
* Tue Jun 14 2011 Ankur Sinha - 0.5.4-1
- let rpath be
-
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines#Rpath_for_Internal_Libraries
- Improved upon description
- Added -b to patch application
- Harmomnized order of tags for sub packages
- Add rationale to removal of contrib directory
Thanks,
Ankur
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on 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 changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Garrett Holmstrom 2011-06-14
13:49:20 EDT ---
Review of python-gitdb-0.5.2-3.20110613git17d9d13.fc16.src.rpm
Everything looks good packaging-wise. Please wait to hear back from upstream
about the content licensing bit before you upload sources.
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
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
ok - File permissions are sane
ok - Each %files section contains %defattr
ok - Consistent use of macros
no - Sources contain only permissible code or content
Upstream contacted about gitdb/test/fixtures/*
-- - 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:
ok - Query upstream about including license files
no - Translations of description, Summary
no - Builds in mock
python-async has not yet made it to mirrors
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
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 Packaging:UsersAndGroups)
-- - Web app files go in /usr/share/%{name}, not /var/www
-- - Conflicts are justified
ok - No external kernel modules
ok - No files in /srv
ok - One project per package
-- - Patches
[Bug 712203] Review Request: eclipse-mercurial - Mercurial plugin for Eclipse
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=712203 --- Comment #9 from minoo ziaei 2011-06-14 13:45:10 EDT --- (In reply to comment #8) > > On second thought, I think this is generated at build time and Fedora's > pdebuild.sh is not capable of doing this. Instead, host a tarball of your > feature at your fedorapeople page and make Source1 a fully-qualified URL to > it. > Done Here are the updated versions: Spec URL: http://mziaei1.fedorapeople.org/eclipse-mercurial/eclipse-mercurial.spec SRPM URL: http://mziaei1.fedorapeople.org/eclipse-mercurial/eclipse-mercurial-1.8.1-3.fc15.src.rpm 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 705917] Review Request: cmuclmtk - Language model trainer for CMU Sphinx speech decoders
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=705917 --- Comment #3 from Jerry James 2011-06-14 13:33:31 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2) > The first warning should be fine. I think the second is bacause rpmlint is not > aware of the .xz extension, so this should also be fine. No, the .xz extension is understood. The warning just indicates that I didn't provide a URL, like http://some.web.site/cmuclmtk-man.tar.xz. That's because I wrote the man pages myself... > The other question I have is about the license. The RPM specification lists > "MIT and BSD." I'd like an expert to review the particular license or point to > where the text has already been approved. That information comes from the top-level "COPYING" file. And, argh! I missed the "for research purposes only" clause in the MIT-like part of that file. I will write to upstream and see if that clause can be removed. If not, then this package cannot go into Fedora. Bummer. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 712203] Review Request: eclipse-mercurial - Mercurial plugin for Eclipse
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=712203 --- Comment #8 from Andrew Overholt 2011-06-14 13:25:23 EDT --- (In reply to comment #7) > (In reply to comment #5) > > $ rpmlint > > /home/overholt/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/eclipse-mercurial-1.8.1-1.fc15.noarch.rpm > > eclipse-mercurial.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm > > > /usr/share/eclipse/dropins/mercurial/eclipse/features/com.vectrace.mercurialeclipse_0.1.1 > I'm not actually getting this error. Maybe I changed something else that > affected this error as well. Could you please double check? Weird, it must be something on my machine. Forget it :) > > [!] Permissions on files are set properly. > Is it related to what causes rpmlint error? Or I'm missing something here? Yes, just the rpmlint error. > > 4. I see a feature in the upstream p2 repository: > > mercurialeclipse.feature.group=1.8.1.v201104191217. Can you ask them if > they'd like to distribute such a feature? > Will do. On second thought, I think this is generated at build time and Fedora's pdebuild.sh is not capable of doing this. Instead, host a tarball of your feature at your fedorapeople page and make Source1 a fully-qualified URL to it. > Was just wondering did you find this feature.group in > eclipse-marketplace or javaforge? I got it from the output of this: eclipse -consolelog -nosplash -application org.eclipse.equinox.p2.director -repository http://cbes.javaforge.com/update -list -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 --- Comment #8 from Jon Ciesla 2011-06-14 13:25:01 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 698051] Review Request: spim - An assembly language MIPS32 simulator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=698051
--- Comment #4 from Jerry James 2011-06-14 13:20:40 EDT
---
Legend:
+: OK
-: Must be fixed
=: Should be fixed, or incompletely checked by reviewer
N: Not applicable
MUST items:
[-] rpmlint output:
spim.spec: W: invalid-url Source2: spimsimulator-Documentation-20110608.tar.gz
spim.spec: W: invalid-url Source1: spimsimulator-CPU-20110608.tar.gz
spim.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: spimsimulator-spim-20110608.tar.gz
spim.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 9.0.5-1
['20110608-0.1.svn.fc15', '20110608-0.1.svn']
spim.x86_64: E: standard-dir-owned-by-package /usr/share/man
spim.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/doc/spim-20110608/README
spim.x86_64: E: standard-dir-owned-by-package /usr/share/man/man1
spim-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/src/debug/spim-20110608/CPU/inst.c
spim-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/src/debug/spim-20110608/spim/spim.c
spim-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/src/debug/spim-20110608/CPU/inst.h
spim-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/src/debug/spim-20110608/CPU/mem.h
spim-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/src/debug/spim-20110608/CPU/mem.c
spim-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/src/debug/spim-20110608/CPU/data.c
spim-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/src/debug/spim-20110608/CPU/sym-tbl.c
spim-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/src/debug/spim-20110608/CPU/display-utils.c
spim-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/src/debug/spim-20110608/CPU/sym-tbl.h
spim-debuginfo.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/src/debug/spim-20110608/CPU/scanner.l
spim-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/src/debug/spim-20110608/CPU/scanner.h
spim-debuginfo.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/src/debug/spim-20110608/CPU/parser.y
spim-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/src/debug/spim-20110608/CPU/run.c
spim-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/src/debug/spim-20110608/CPU/parser.h
spim-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/src/debug/spim-20110608/CPU/string-stream.h
spim-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/src/debug/spim-20110608/CPU/syscall.c
spim-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/src/debug/spim-20110608/CPU/string-stream.c
spim-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/src/debug/spim-20110608/CPU/spim-utils.h
spim-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/src/debug/spim-20110608/CPU/spim-utils.c
spim-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/src/debug/spim-20110608/CPU/spim.h
spim-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/src/debug/spim-20110608/CPU/reg.h
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 24 warnings.
[=] Package name follows the Package Naming Guidelines: I'm not sure. The
project is named "spimsimulator", and it distributes two products, "QtSpim" and
"PCSpim". The spec file doesn't indicate if this is one of those two products
or something else. Can you clarify this, please?
[+] Spec file name matches the base package name
[-] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines: some problems are indicated by the
rpmlint output. More on that below. Also $RPM_OPT_FLAGS / %{optflags} should
be used to compile, but is not.
[+] Package has a Fedora-approved license
[+] License field matches the actual license
[+] Iff the license appears in a file, that file is in %doc.
[+] Spec file is in American Engligh
[+] Spec file is legible
[=] Sources match the upstream sources: I don't know how to check. Please
include instructions on how to generate the source files in a comment just
above Source0. For example, this is from one of my packages:
# The source for this package was pulled from upstream's CVS repository. Use
# the following commands to generate the tarball:
# cvs -d:pserver:anonym...@cvs.savannah.gnu.org:/sources/gcl export \
# -r Version_2_6_8pre -D 2010-11-16 -d gcl-2.6.8 gcl
# tar cvf gcl-2.6.8.tar gcl-2.6.8
# xz gcl-2.6.8.tar
Source0:gcl-%{version}.tar.xz
[+] Source RPM builds on a least one arch: x86_64
[N] Appropriate use of ExcludeArch
[-] BuildRequires for all build-time dependencies: flex is also invoked, but is
not listed in BuildRequires
[N] Proper handling of locales
[N] Proper use of ldconfig in %post and %postun
[+] No bundled copies of system libraries
[N] No relocatable packages
[+] Package owns all directories it creates
[+] No duplicates in %files
[+] Appropriate permissions on files (except for debuginfo files; see below)
[+] Consistent use of macros
[+] Package contains code or permissible content
[N] Large documentation goes into a -doc subpackage
[+] No runtime dependencies in %doc
[N] Header files in -devel
[N] Static libraries in -static
[N] If a shared library has a suffix, then a .so symlink is i
[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 #4 from Jesse Keating 2011-06-14 13:19:01 EDT --- BR added. Upstream contacted asking for explicit mention of the data files. http://jkeating.fedorapeople.org/review/python-gitdb.spec http://jkeating.fedorapeople.org/review/python-gitdb-0.5.2-3.20110613git17d9d13.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 710907] Review Request: octave-specfun - Specfun 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=710907
José Matos changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from José Matos 2011-06-14 13:14:18 EDT ---
The usual suggestions apply:
1) buildroot
2) the license file marked as %doc
3) the spell checker is right in this case, in the Description, you should fix
Heaviside and Dirac's capitalization
Again I trust you to fix this after importing it.
The package is APPROVED.
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 : 264ab3748fa01aed0efde413b629f63d
MD5SUM upstream package : 264ab3748fa01aed0efde413b629f63d
[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-specfun-debuginfo-1.0.9-1.fc16.i686.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
rpmlint octave-specfun-1.0.9-1.fc16.i686.rpm
octave-specfun.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US heaviside
-> Heaviside
octave-specfun.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dirac ->
Dirac
octave-specfun.i686: W: obsolete-not-provided octave-forge
octave-specfun.i686: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/share/octave/packages/specfun-1.0.9/packinfo/.autoload
octave-specfun.i686: E: zero-length
/usr/share/octave/packages/specfun-1.0.9/packinfo/.autoload
octave-specfun.i686: W: dangerous-command-in-%preun rm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 5 warnings.
rpmlint octave-specfun-1.0.9-1.fc16.src.rpm
octave-specfun.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US heaviside
-> Heaviside
octave-specfun.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dirac ->
Dirac
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
Known issues not related with this package (octave specific).
[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.
[x] : 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.
[x] : 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.
[!] : M
[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 Bastien Nocera changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Bastien Nocera 2011-06-14 13:08:29 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: gnome-online-accounts Short Description: Provide online accounts information Owners: hadess davidz 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 710907] Review Request: octave-specfun - Specfun 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=710907 José Matos changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||jama...@fc.up.pt Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from José Matos 2011-06-14 12:56:30 EDT --- I will take 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 713122] Review Request: flyback - Aplle's Timemachine for Linux
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=713122 --- Comment #3 from Heiko Adams 2011-06-14 12:43:32 EDT --- okay, will be changed with next release. Thanks for advice. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 713212] New: Review Request: perl-Language-Functional - Module which makes Perl slightly more functional
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: perl-Language-Functional - Module which makes Perl slightly more functional https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=713212 Summary: Review Request: perl-Language-Functional - Module which makes Perl slightly more functional Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: ppi...@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://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/perl-Language-Functional/perl-Language-Functional.spec SRPM URL: http://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/perl-Language-Functional/perl-Language-Functional-0.04-1.fc15.src.rpm Description: Perl already contains some functional-like functions, such as map and grep. The purpose of this module is to add other functional-like functions to Perl, such as foldl and foldr, as well as the use of infinite lists. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 #34 from Rex Dieter 2011-06-14 12:40:34 EDT --- collaboration (if possible), for the win, indeed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 #33 from Mario Santagiuliana 2011-06-14 12:25:27 EDT --- I never seen this package before, I'm writing to him to undestand if is possible to merge the two projects. I think that would be the best solution for users and for the developers. I think that two-three developers on one common projects is best than three developers on three different projects, isn't? Thank you for your reply, I will push akonadi-googledata in scm. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 712203] Review Request: eclipse-mercurial - Mercurial plugin for Eclipse
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=712203 --- Comment #7 from minoo ziaei 2011-06-14 11:48:48 EDT --- (In reply to comment #5) > [!] Rpmlint output: > $ rpmlint > /home/overholt/rpmbuild/SRPMS/eclipse-mercurial-1.8.1-1.fc15.src.rpm > eclipse-mercurial.src:33: W: setup-not-quiet > eclipse-mercurial.src:34: W: setup-not-quiet Fixed > rpmlint also gives an error on the resulting binary package. This should be > fixed in your source .tar.bz2 for the feature. > > $ rpmlint > /home/overholt/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/eclipse-mercurial-1.8.1-1.fc15.noarch.rpm > eclipse-mercurial.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm > /usr/share/eclipse/dropins/mercurial/eclipse/features/com.vectrace.mercurialeclipse_0.1.1 I'm not actually getting this error. Maybe I changed something else that affected this error as well. Could you please double check? > [!] Permissions on files are set properly. Is it related to what causes rpmlint error? Or I'm missing something here? > === Final Notes === > 1. Don't forget to bump the Release in your .spec with each change you make > (and add a %changelog comment each time). > 2. Lines are <= 80 character except for the unzip line in %install; > 3. Please make the qualifier match the upstream one: v201104191217. > 5. As for the feature you've created, it's fine but I'd like to see a comment > in the .spec about how you generated it, why it's necessary, etc. Fixed > 4. I see a feature in the upstream p2 repository: > mercurialeclipse.feature.group=1.8.1.v201104191217. Can you ask them if > they'd like to distribute such a feature? Will do. Was just wondering did you find this feature.group in eclipse-marketplace or javaforge? Here are the updated versions: Spec URL: http://mziaei1.fedorapeople.org/eclipse-mercurial/eclipse-mercurial.spec SRPM URL: http://mziaei1.fedorapeople.org/eclipse-mercurial/eclipse-mercurial-1.8.1-2.fc15.src.rpm 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 713161] Review Request: itstool - Translate your XML documents
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=713161 Christopher Aillon changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||DUPLICATE Last Closed||2011-06-14 11:50:20 --- Comment #3 from Christopher Aillon 2011-06-14 11:50:20 EDT --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 702989 *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 702989] Review Request: itstool - Translate XML files with PO using ITS rules
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=702989 Christopher Aillon changed: What|Removed |Added CC||z...@redhat.com --- Comment #11 from Christopher Aillon 2011-06-14 11:50:20 EDT --- *** Bug 713161 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from José Matos 2011-06-14 11:33:00 EDT ---
The usual suggestions apply:
1) buildroot
2) BuildRequires separated for each dependency.
3) the license file marked as %doc
4) the patch could have a small comment above explaining the reason
Again I trust you to fix this after importing it.
The package is APPROVED.
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 - Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[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 : ff27e5482b3b4025d13b3bbf23b8c7d9
MD5SUM upstream package : ff27e5482b3b4025d13b3bbf23b8c7d9
[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 - 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-symbolic-1.0.9-1.fc16.src.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
rpmlint octave-symbolic-debuginfo-1.0.9-1.fc16.i686.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
rpmlint octave-symbolic-1.0.9-1.fc16.i686.rpm
octave-symbolic.i686: W: obsolete-not-provided octave-forge
octave-symbolic.i686: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/share/octave/packages/symbolic-1.0.9/packinfo/.autoload
octave-symbolic.i686: E: zero-length
/usr/share/octave/packages/symbolic-1.0.9/packinfo/.autoload
octave-symbolic.i686: W: dangerous-command-in-%preun rm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings.
Known issues not related with this package (octave specific).
[ ] : MUST - Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and
meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x] : 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.
[x] : 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.
[!] : 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 direct
[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 changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from José Matos 2011-06-14 11:10:34 EDT ---
Same as before:
1) The description is very short (in this case I think that the Summary says
more). :-)
2) The buildroot
3) the license file not marked as %doc
Other than that nothing to remark. Just as in the previous cases I trust you to
take care of this after importing them.
The package is APPROVED.
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 - Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[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 : 643dac1ecf0f31c870b4bd9ce7bbd98c
MD5SUM upstream package : 643dac1ecf0f31c870b4bd9ce7bbd98c
[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 - 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-audio-1.1.4-1.fc16.i686.rpm
octave-audio.i686: W: obsolete-not-provided octave-forge
octave-audio.i686: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/share/octave/packages/audio-1.1.4/packinfo/.autoload
octave-audio.i686: E: zero-length
/usr/share/octave/packages/audio-1.1.4/packinfo/.autoload
octave-audio.i686: W: dangerous-command-in-%preun rm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings.
rpmlint octave-audio-debuginfo-1.1.4-1.fc16.i686.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
rpmlint octave-audio-1.1.4-1.fc16.src.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Known issues not related with this package (octave specific).
[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.
[x] : 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.
[x] : 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.
[!] : 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-cod
[Bug 713122] Review Request: flyback - Aplle's Timemachine for Linux
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=713122 --- Comment #2 from Kevin Kofler 2011-06-14 11:08:36 EDT --- Please don't put trademarks into the Summary like that (even if you misspell them ;-) ). Try to describe what the package objectively DOES instead. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 673661] Review Request: R-ALL - Data of T- and B-cell Acute Lymphocytic Leukemia
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=673661 --- Comment #5 from Pierre-YvesChibon 2011-06-14 10:57:39 EDT --- I pinged upstream 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 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 Kevin Kofler changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ke...@tigcc.ticalc.org --- Comment #32 from Kevin Kofler 2011-06-14 10:54:52 EDT --- FYI, there's now a competing implementation under development: http://progdan.cz/2011/06/akonadi-google-resource-0-2 (but it's probably not ready for production use yet). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 664140] Review Request: leksah-server - Package that provides the interface to GHC-API for leksah
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=664140 --- Comment #18 from Lakshmi Narasimhan 2011-06-14 10:50:41 EDT --- rawhide build http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=247707 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 664140] Review Request: leksah-server - Package that provides the interface to GHC-API for leksah
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=664140 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System 2011-06-14 10:49:46 EDT --- leksah-server-0.10.0.4-2.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/leksah-server-0.10.0.4-2.fc14 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 664140] Review Request: leksah-server - Package that provides the interface to GHC-API for leksah
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=664140 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 664140] Review Request: leksah-server - Package that provides the interface to GHC-API for leksah
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=664140 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System 2011-06-14 10:49:37 EDT --- leksah-server-0.10.0.4-2.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/leksah-server-0.10.0.4-2.fc15 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 711762] Review Request: osc - openSUSE Build Service Commander
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=711762
Haïkel Guémar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #9 from Haïkel Guémar 2011-06-14 10:48:42
EDT ---
package builds fine in mock (f15/devel on all primary arch)
rpmlint output is ok:
$ rpmlint -iv /var/lib/mock/fedora-15-x86_64/result/osc-0.132.1-2.fc15.src.rpm
osc.src: I: checking
osc.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) openSUSE -> opens Use, open SUSE,
open-SUSE
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
osc.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Commandline -> Command line,
Command-line, Commanding
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
osc.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US openSUSE -> opens Use, open
SUSE, open-SUSE
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
osc.src: I: checking-url http://www.gitorious.org/opensuse/osc (timeout 10
seconds)
osc.src:50: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/osc
A library path is hardcoded to one of the following paths: /lib, /usr/lib. It
should be replaced by something like /%{_lib} or %{_libdir}.
osc.src:51: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/osc/complete
A library path is hardcoded to one of the following paths: /lib, /usr/lib. It
should be replaced by something like /%{_lib} or %{_libdir}.
osc.src:62: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/osc/complete
A library path is hardcoded to one of the following paths: /lib, /usr/lib. It
should be replaced by something like /%{_lib} or %{_libdir}.
osc.src: W: invalid-url Source0: osc-0.132.1.tar.gz
The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL.
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 4 warnings.
$ rpmlint -iv
/var/lib/mock/fedora-15-x86_64/result/osc-0.132.1-2.fc15.noarch.rpm
osc.noarch: I: checking
osc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) openSUSE -> opens Use, open SUSE,
open-SUSE
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
osc.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Commandline -> Command
line, Command-line, Commanding
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
osc.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US openSUSE -> opens Use, open
SUSE, open-SUSE
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
osc.noarch: I: checking-url http://www.gitorious.org/opensuse/osc (timeout 10
seconds)
osc.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary osc-wrapper.py
Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page.
osc.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary osc_hotshot.py
Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page.
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
About helper scripts, fedora preferred location is /usr/libexec though it's not
in FHS (current proposal: http://bugs.freestandards.org/show_bug.cgi?id=718)
and upstream won't fix it until then. The moment being, /usr/{lib,share} are
**tolerated** locations (rpm, systemd, dracut, PackageKit, some system-config-*
tools are in the same case). I'll remind you to be attentive on that topic.
Except that particular issue, everything else is fine. I give you my blessing
to import this package into fedora packages collection.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 555655] Review Request: sslstrip - tool that provides a demonstration of HTTPS stripping attacks
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=555655 --- Comment #11 from Jon Ciesla 2011-06-14 10:41:47 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 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 --- Comment #4 from Andrew Robinson 2011-06-14 10:38:48 EDT --- New files uploaded: Spec URL: http://arobinso.fedorapeople.org/eclipse-wtp-common.spec SRPM URL: http://arobinso.fedorapeople.org/eclipse-wtp-common-3.2.4-1.fc15.src.rpm Fixed installation and made suggested edits. Pdebuild cannot install the sdk features, so I cannot package them. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 673658] Review Request: R-Rcompression - In-memory decompression for GNU zip and bzip2 formats.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=673658 Pierre-YvesChibon changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||673660 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 673660] Review Request: R-RCurl - General network (HTTP/FTP/...) client interface for R
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=673660 Pierre-YvesChibon changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||673658 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 670345] Review Request: cx_freeze - create executable from python scripts
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=670345 Pierre-YvesChibon changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Blocks||201449(FE-DEADREVIEW) Resolution||NOTABUG Flag|needinfo?(meta...@gmail.com | |) | Last Closed||2011-06-14 10:24:33 --- Comment #21 from Pierre-YvesChibon 2011-06-14 10:24:33 EDT --- I have not heard from you for 3 months, I am therefore closing this ticket. If you want to finish the review, feel free to re-open it! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 555655] Review Request: sslstrip - tool that provides a demonstration of HTTPS stripping attacks
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=555655 Adam Miller changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #10 from Adam Miller 2011-06-14 10:25:54 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: sslstrip Short Description: tool that provides a demonstration of HTTPS stripping attacks Owners: maxamillion Branches: f14 f15 el6 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from José Matos 2011-06-14 10:24:39 EDT ---
Some of the previous suggestion applies:
1) the build root
2) the description it ends with "on the SLICOT Fortran"... library?
There is one that I caught when reviewing this package:
[!] : 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.
Actually now that I think about this it should apply to all packages.
My suggestion is just to mark it as %doc, not to change its place.
FWIW I had this same remark at bug 693804.
Since this is minor I trust to fix this after importing.
The package is APPROVED.
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 : 3a3654a8df670beb642ed0f36f30463f
MD5SUM upstream package : 3a3654a8df670beb642ed0f36f30463f
[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-control-2.0.2-1.fc16.src.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
rpmlint octave-control-debuginfo-2.0.2-1.fc16.i686.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
rpmlint octave-control-2.0.2-1.fc16.i686.rpm
octave-control.i686: W: obsolete-not-provided octave-forge
octave-control.i686: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/share/octave/packages/control-2.0.2/packinfo/.autoload
octave-control.i686: E: zero-length
/usr/share/octave/packages/control-2.0.2/packinfo/.autoload
octave-control.i686: W: dangerous-command-in-%preun rm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings.
Known issues not related with package (octave specific). So this OK.
[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.
[x] : 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.
[x] : 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 subp
[Bug 555655] Review Request: sslstrip - tool that provides a demonstration of HTTPS stripping attacks
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=555655 --- Comment #9 from Adam Miller 2011-06-14 10:24:37 EDT --- I'm a big fan of EPEL, bonus points are on the roadmap :D -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
