[Bug 714457] Review Request: perl-Test-ConsistentVersion - Ensures a CPAN distribution has consistent versioning
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=714457 Mathieu Bridon boche...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||boche...@fedoraproject.org AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|boche...@fedoraproject.org --- Comment #1 from Mathieu Bridon boche...@fedoraproject.org 2011-07-05 02:19:33 EDT --- Taking. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 706846] Review Request: hibernate-jpa-2.0-api - Java Persistence 2.0 (JSR 317) API
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=706846 --- Comment #6 from Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com 2011-07-05 03:15:33 EDT --- Spec URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/hibernate-jpa-2.0-api/2/hibernate-jpa-2.0-api.spec SRPM URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/hibernate-jpa-2.0-api/2/hibernate-jpa-2.0-api-1.0.1-1.fc15.src.rpm Changes: updated to upstream release 1.0.1, fixed license tag. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 718681] Review Request: luajit - Just-In-Time Compiler for Lua
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=718681 --- Comment #4 from Andrei Lapshin alaps...@gmx.com 2011-07-05 03:17:51 EDT --- Apply upstream hotfix #1 SPEC URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/11270386/luajit.spec SRPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/11270386/luajit-2.0.0-0.2.beta8.fc16.src.rpm rpmlint -i SPECS/luajit.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint -i SRPMS/luajit-2.0.0-0.2.beta8.fc16.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 718165] Review Request: ibus-gucharmap - Unicode input engine (using gucharmap) for IBus platform
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=718165 --- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2011-07-05 03:32:35 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 714408] Review Request: tlomt-league-gothic-fonts - a sans serif gothic typeface
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=714408 --- Comment #8 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2011-07-05 03:32:02 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 714457] Review Request: perl-Test-ConsistentVersion - Ensures a CPAN distribution has consistent versioning
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=714457
Mathieu Bridon boche...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Mathieu Bridon boche...@fedoraproject.org 2011-07-05
03:33:38 EDT ---
[x] package passes
[-] not applicable
[!] package fails
== MUST ==
[x] rpmlint output
$ rpmlint perl-Test-ConsistentVersion-0.2.3-1.fc14.src.rpm
perl-Test-ConsistentVersion.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US)
versioning - version, versifying, versification
perl-Test-ConsistentVersion.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
readme - reamed, remade, read me
perl-Test-ConsistentVersion.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
changelog - change log, change-log, changeling
mock -r fedora-r1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
$ rpmlint perl-Test-ConsistentVersion.spec
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
$ rpmlint perl-Test-ConsistentVersion-0.2.3-1.fc16.noarch.rpm
perl-Test-ConsistentVersion.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US)
versioning - version, versifying, versification
perl-Test-ConsistentVersion.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
readme - reamed, remade, read me
perl-Test-ConsistentVersion.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
changelog - change log, change-log, changeling
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
= Those warnings can be safely ignored
[x] The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
[x] The spec file name must match the base package %{name}
[x] The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines
[x] The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license
[x] The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
= GPL+ or Artistic
[-] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file must be included in %doc
[x] The spec file must be written in American English
[x] The spec file for the package MUST be legible
[x] The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL
$ sha1sum Test-ConsistentVersion-v0.2.3.tar.gz
7b317131f5fbbecdd32d92ba6c7885fe0d58cbd2
Test-ConsistentVersion-v0.2.3.tar.gz
[x] The package '''MUST''' successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture
= http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3180123
[-] The spec file MUST handle locales properly
[-] Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files
(not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call
ldconfig in %post and %postun
[x] Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries
[-] If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this
fact in the request for review
[x] A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a
directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that
directory.
[x] A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings
[x] Permissions on files must be set properly
[x] Each package must consistently use macros
[x] The package must contain code, or permissable content
[-] Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage
[-] If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of
the application
[-] Header files must be in a -devel package
[-] Static libraries must be in a -static package
[-] If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1),
then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package
[-] Subpackages requiring the base package
[-] Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed
in the spec if they are built
[-] Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file,
and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the
%install section
[x] Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages
[x] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8
== SHOULD ==
[-] If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane
[-] Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using
a fully versioned dependency
[-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and this is
usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg
[-] If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin,
/usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file
instead of the file itself
[x] %check is present and the tests pass
[?] Package functions as described.
==
[Bug 714457] Review Request: perl-Test-ConsistentVersion - Ensures a CPAN distribution has consistent versioning
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=714457 Emmanuel Seyman emmanuel.sey...@club-internet.fr changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Emmanuel Seyman emmanuel.sey...@club-internet.fr 2011-07-05 03:44:06 EDT --- Thanks, Mathieu. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: perl-Test-ConsistentVersion Short Description: Ensures a CPAN distribution has consistent versioning Owners: eseyman Branches: f15 InitialCC: perl-sig -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 718931] Review Request: perl-Net-Server-SS-PreFork - Hot-deployable variant of Net::Server::PreFork
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=718931 Emmanuel Seyman emmanuel.sey...@club-internet.fr changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||718932(perl-Starman) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 718932] Review Request: perl-Starman - High-performance preforking PSGI/Plack web server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=718932 Emmanuel Seyman emmanuel.sey...@club-internet.fr changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||718931 Alias||perl-Starman -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 718932] New: Review Request: perl-Starman - High-performance preforking PSGI/Plack web server
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-Starman - High-performance preforking PSGI/Plack web server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=718932 Summary: Review Request: perl-Starman - High-performance preforking PSGI/Plack web server Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: emmanuel.sey...@club-internet.fr QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Spec URL: http://people.parinux.org/~seyman/fedora/perl-Starman/perl-Starman.spec SRPM URL: http://people.parinux.org/~seyman/fedora/perl-Starman/perl-Starman-0.2013-1.fc15.src.rpm Description: Starman is a PSGI perl web server that has unique features such as high performance, preforking, use of signals and a small memory footprint. It is PSGI compatible and offers HTTP/1.1 support. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 718931] New: Review Request: perl-Net-Server-SS-PreFork - Hot-deployable variant of Net::Server::PreFork
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-Net-Server-SS-PreFork - Hot-deployable variant of Net::Server::PreFork https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=718931 Summary: Review Request: perl-Net-Server-SS-PreFork - Hot-deployable variant of Net::Server::PreFork Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: emmanuel.sey...@club-internet.fr QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Spec URL: http://people.parinux.org/~seyman/fedora/perl-Net-Server-SS-PreFork/perl-Net-Server-SS-PreFork.spec SRPM URL: http://people.parinux.org/~seyman/fedora/perl-Net-Server-SS-PreFork/perl-Net-Server-SS-PreFork-0.05-1.fc15.src.rpm Description: Net::Server::SS::PreFork is a Net::Server personality, extending Net::Server::PreFork. It can be run by the start_server script of Server::Starter. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 718165] Review Request: ibus-gucharmap - Unicode input engine (using gucharmap) for IBus platform
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=718165 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 718165] Review Request: ibus-gucharmap - Unicode input engine (using gucharmap) for IBus platform
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=718165 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-07-05 04:35:53 EDT --- ibus-gucharmap-1.3.99.20110704-0.1.gitc94104372.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ibus-gucharmap-1.3.99.20110704-0.1.gitc94104372.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 718165] Review Request: ibus-gucharmap - Unicode input engine (using gucharmap) for IBus platform
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=718165 Daiki Ueno du...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2011-07-05 04:37:22 --- Comment #7 from Daiki Ueno du...@redhat.com 2011-07-05 04:37:22 EDT --- Thanks. Closing. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 716777] Review Request: perl-Crypt-RC4 - Perl implementation of the RC4 encryption algorithm
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=716777 Mathieu Bridon boche...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2011-07-05 04:53:55 --- Comment #5 from Mathieu Bridon boche...@fedoraproject.org 2011-07-05 04:53:55 EDT --- Package built and update submitted in all requested branches (plus rawhide). Thanks everyone! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 712923] Review Request: gnome-contacts - Contacts manager for GNOME
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=712923 --- Comment #17 from Bastien Nocera bnoc...@redhat.com 2011-07-05 05:20:12 EDT --- (In reply to comment #14) There is no use in updating the srpm until we have vala 0.13 in rawhide - it won't build without it. It will build without it, as there's pre-parsed C files in the tarball. You just need to game the configure script: sed -i 's,0.13.0,0.12.0,g' configure -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 712923] Review Request: gnome-contacts - Contacts manager for GNOME
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=712923 --- Comment #18 from Elad Alfassa el...@doom.co.il 2011-07-05 06:18:33 EDT --- Updated to 0.1.1 SRPM: http://elad.fedorapeople.org/reviews/gnome-contacts-0.1.1-1.fc16.src.rpm SPEC: http://elad.fedorapeople.org/reviews/gnome-contacts.spec -- Fedora Bugzappers volunteer triage team https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 675050] Review Request: cloudfs - Cloud Filesystem
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=675050 --- Comment #12 from Kaleb KEITHLEY kkeit...@redhat.com 2011-07-05 07:21:53 EDT --- http://kkeithle.fedorapeople.org/cloudfs-0.7-1.fc15.src.rpm http://kkeithle.fedorapeople.org/cloudfs.spec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 714457] Review Request: perl-Test-ConsistentVersion - Ensures a CPAN distribution has consistent versioning
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=714457 --- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2011-07-05 07:54:31 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 718999] New: Review Request: eclipse-packagekit - PackageKit integration tools for Eclipse (Incubation)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: eclipse-packagekit - PackageKit integration tools for Eclipse (Incubation) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=718999 Summary: Review Request: eclipse-packagekit - PackageKit integration tools for Eclipse (Incubation) Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: akurt...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Spec URL: http://akurtakov.fedorapeople.org/eclipse-packagekit.spec SRPM URL: http://akurtakov.fedorapeople.org/eclipse-packagekit-0.0.1-1.fc15.src.rpm Description: PackageKit integration plugin. It also contains autotools and rpm plugins integration code. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 675050] Review Request: cloudfs - Cloud Filesystem
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=675050 --- Comment #13 from Kaleb KEITHLEY kkeit...@redhat.com 2011-07-05 09:03:24 EDT --- Spec URL: http://kkeithle.fedorapeople.org/cloudfs.spec SRPM URL: http://kkeithle.fedorapeople.org/cloudfs-0.7-1.fc15.src.rpm Description: CloudFS is a cloud-capable filesystem based on GlusterFS (http://gluster.org) with additional authentication/encryption/multi-tenancy features. N.B. Name change pending selection of a new name due to trademark issue(s) with 'CloudFS' -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 714457] Review Request: perl-Test-ConsistentVersion - Ensures a CPAN distribution has consistent versioning
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=714457 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-07-05 09:08:07 EDT --- perl-Test-ConsistentVersion-0.2.3-1.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Test-ConsistentVersion-0.2.3-1.fc15 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 714457] Review Request: perl-Test-ConsistentVersion - Ensures a CPAN distribution has consistent versioning
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=714457 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 718999] Review Request: eclipse-packagekit - PackageKit integration tools for Eclipse (Incubation)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=718999 Andrew Overholt overh...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||overh...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|overh...@redhat.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Andrew Overholt overh...@redhat.com 2011-07-05 09:14:27 EDT --- I'll take this one. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 577951] Review Request: mingw-wine-gecko - MinGW Gecko library required for Wine
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=577951 Andreas Bierfert andreas.bierf...@lowlatency.de changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |mingw32-wine-gecko - MinGW |mingw-wine-gecko - MinGW |Gecko library required for |Gecko library required for |Wine|Wine -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 717768] Review Request: iwhd - image warehouse daemon
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=717768 Jim Meyering meyer...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Jim Meyering meyer...@redhat.com 2011-07-05 09:28:40 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: iwhd Short Description: image warehouse daemon Owners: meyering zaitcev clalance 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 717768] Review Request: iwhd - image warehouse daemon
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=717768 --- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2011-07-05 09:34:39 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 718999] Review Request: eclipse-packagekit - PackageKit integration tools for Eclipse (Incubation)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=718999
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Overholt overh...@redhat.com 2011-07-05 09:37:33
EDT ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[!] Rpmlint output:
$ rpmlint eclipse-packagekit-0.0.1-1.fc15.src.rpm
eclipse-packagekit.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US autotools -
auto tools, auto-tools, autopilots
eclipse-packagekit.src: E: description-line-too-long C PackageKit integration
plugin. It also contains autotools and rpm plugins integration code.
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings.
I can't run it on the binary RPM because I can't build it (see below).
[x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines[1].
[x] Spec file name must match the base package name, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[!] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines[2].
Line 21 is 80 characters.
[!] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms.
I can't build it locally because I'm on 3.6 and it apparently requires 3.7:
Processing inclusion from feature org.eclipse.linuxtools.packagekit: Bundle
org.eclipse.linuxtools.packagekit.autotools_0.0.1.201107050919 failed to
resolve.:
Missing required plug-in org.eclipse.core.runtime_3.7.0.
Please update the BRs and Rs to reflect the 3.7 requirement.
[x] Buildroot definition is not present
[x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines[3,4].
[x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type: EPL
[x] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package is included in %doc.
[-] All independent sub-packages have license of their own
[x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
d8620388acc46c9627c91ae55e257d94
eclipse-pkgkit.git;a=snapshot;h=998d35e1eb4e995c4732e0c20e3725760d8be8ad;sf=tgz
a6dbb70c08b033170f805b6d71994e91
/home/overholt/Downloads/eclipse-pkgkit-998d35e.tar.gz
These are different (and the filenames are different but that's gitweb playing
tricks on us), but the exploded contents give no differences.
[!] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines[5].
See above.
[x] Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x] File sections do not contain %defattr(-,root,root,-) unless changed with
good reason
[x] Permissions on files are set properly.
[x] Package does NOT have a %clean section which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}
(or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). (not needed anymore)
[x] Package consistently uses macros (no %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
mixing)
[x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
[x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[-] Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
subpackage
[-] Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlinks)
[-] Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
[-] Javadoc subpackages have Require: jpackage-utils
[-] Package uses %global not %define
[-] If package uses tarball from VCS include comment how to re-create that
tarball (svn export URL, git clone URL, ...)
[-] If source tarball includes bundled jar/class files these need to be
removed prior to building
[x] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
[-] Jar files are installed to %{_javadir}/%{name}.jar (see [6] for details)
[-] If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even when
building with ant
[-] pom files has correct add_to_maven_depmap call which resolves to the pom
file (use JPP. and JPP- correctly)
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines
[2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines
[3] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines
[4] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main
[5] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2
[6] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Filenames
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 718430] Review Request: unknown-horizons - a 2D RTS game written in python which uses the fife engine
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=718430 Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 718430] Review Request: unknown-horizons - a 2D RTS game written in python which uses the fife engine
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=718430 Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tcall...@redhat.com Blocks|177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |182235(FE-Legal) --- Comment #2 from Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com 2011-07-05 09:43:02 EDT --- I have not done any sort of actual licensing audit, but just looking at the tag in the spec file, I would point out that CC Sampling+ is Non-Free, and not acceptable for Fedora, even under Content definitions, because of commercial restrictions on distribution. So, if that part is accurate, then this may not proceed. :/ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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] 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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=713320
Kaleb KEITHLEY kkeit...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kkeit...@redhat.com
--- Comment #13 from Kaleb KEITHLEY kkeit...@redhat.com 2011-07-05 09:59:03
EDT ---
(new) fedora guidelines say:
+ BuildRoot is unnecessary, just get rid of it
+ %defattr, ditto
+ %clean, ditto
[ OK ] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package
[ OK ] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming
Guidelines
[ OK ] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name} [...]
[ OK ] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines
[ OK ] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license
and meet the Licensing Guidelines
[ FAIL ] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the
actual license
spec still says LGPL2, COPYING says LGPL2.1
[ OK ] MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of
the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc
[ OK ] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[ OK ] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[ ] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream
source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for
this task. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package,
please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this.
[ OK ] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary
rpms on at least one primary architecture
[ N/A ] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on
an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the
spec in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST
have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package
does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST
be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line
[ OK ] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except
for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging
Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply
common sense.
[ N/A ] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by
using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly
forbidden
[ N/A ] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared
library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's
default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[ N/A ] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must
state this fact in the request for review, along with the
rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without
this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker.
[ OK ] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does
not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package
which does create that directory.
[ OK ] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files
listing.
[ OK ] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should
be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section
must include a %defattr(...) line.
[ OK ] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
[ FAIL ] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. - clalance: minor,
but Source0 can be changed to use %{name}-%{version}.
[ OK ] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[ OK ] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The
definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but
is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or
quantity).
[ OK ] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the
program must run properly if it is not present.
[ N/A ] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[ N/A ] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[ N/A ] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires:
pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability).
[ N/A ] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g.
libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in
[Bug 706846] Review Request: hibernate-jpa-2.0-api - Java Persistence 2.0 (JSR 317) API
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=706846 Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|182235(FE-Legal)| --- Comment #7 from Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com 2011-07-05 10:09:28 EDT --- Thanks Marek. Lifting FE-Legal. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 711547] Review Request: sketch - Free Graphics Software for the TeX, LaTeX, and PSTricks Community
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=711547 Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ke...@scrye.com --- Comment #14 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com 2011-07-05 10:13:07 EDT --- Hey Ryan. Was there another version of the package with the fixes from comment 12? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 483663] Review Request: tetgen - A tetrahedral mesh generator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483663 --- Comment #7 from Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com 2011-07-05 10:19:17 EDT --- I would note that Jörg Schilling is the BerliOS admin, so it is possible that his licensing interpretations differ from the rest of the universe. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 708532] Review Request: perl-Term-Animation - ASCII sprite animation framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=708532 --- Comment #13 from Luis Bazan lba...@bakertillypanama.com 2011-07-05 10:19:03 EDT --- SRPMS: http://lbazan.fedorapeople.org/perl-Term-Animation-2.6-6.fc15.src.rpm SPEC: http://lbazan.fedorapeople.org/perl-Term-Animation.spec rpmlint perl-Term-Animation.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 711547] Review Request: sketch - Free Graphics Software for the TeX, LaTeX, and PSTricks Community
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=711547 --- Comment #15 from Ryan H. Lewis (rhl) m...@ryanlewis.net 2011-07-05 10:27:02 EDT --- Yes: http://rhl.fedorapeople.org Updated: http://rhl.fedorapeople.org/sketch.spec Corresponding SRPM: http://rhl.fedorapeople.org/sketch-0.3.2-1.fc15.src.rpm the links aren't changing at all, just the content. I'm making sure to update the srpm whenever I modify the spec file... (see timestamps). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 559552] Review Request: qca-pkcs11 - Smartcard integration for QCA
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=559552 --- Comment #19 from Juha Tuomala t...@iki.fi 2011-07-05 10:27:04 EDT --- Off-band comments in #fedora-devel yielded --no-separate-debug-info option that prevents that debug-stuff. http://tuju.fi/fedora/14/qca-pkcs11.spec http://tuju.fi/fedora/14/qca-pkcs11-2.0.0-1.fc14.beta2.src.rpm f14: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3180864 f15: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3180860 raw: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3180852 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 718999] Review Request: eclipse-packagekit - PackageKit integration tools for Eclipse (Incubation)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=718999
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Overholt overh...@redhat.com 2011-07-05 10:28:12
EDT ---
Trying with this tarball:
http://fedorapeople.org/gitweb?p=akurtakov/public_git/eclipse-pkgkit.git;a=snapshot;h=4da4a97539ab2397abe0f745fa7eb8536d22d832;sf=tgz
(and gunzip eclipse-pkgkit-4da4a97.tar.gz; mv
eclipse-pkgkit-4da4a97.tar{,.gz}), I can build with 3.6 just fine. rpmlint
isn't happy, though:
$ rpmlint eclipse-packagekit-0.0.1-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm
eclipse-packagekit.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US autotools -
auto tools, auto-tools, autopilots
eclipse-packagekit.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C PackageKit
integration plugin. It also contains autotools and rpm plugins integration
code.
eclipse-packagekit.x86_64: E: no-binary
eclipse-packagekit.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink
/usr/share/eclipse/dropins/packagekit/eclipse/plugins/unix.jar
/usr/lib64/libmatthew-java/unix.jar
eclipse-packagekit.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink
/usr/share/eclipse/dropins/packagekit/eclipse/plugins/hexdump.jar
/usr/lib64/libmatthew-java/hexdump.jar
eclipse-packagekit.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm
/usr/share/eclipse/dropins/packagekit/eclipse/features/org.eclipse.linuxtools.packagekit_0.0.1.201107051018
0775L
eclipse-packagekit.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink
/usr/share/eclipse/dropins/packagekit/eclipse/plugins/dbus.jar
/usr/share/java/dbus-java/dbus.jar
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 4 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 717502] Review Request: i4uc - IDE for developing micro-controllers firmware
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=717502 --- Comment #14 from Larry Letelier larry.letel...@gmail.com 2011-07-05 10:33:42 EDT --- SPEC url: http://lletelier.fedorapeople.org/i4uc/i4uc.spec SRPM url: http://lletelier.fedorapeople.org/i4uc/i4uc-0.5.6-5.fc15.src.rpm rpmlint: http://lletelier.fedorapeople.org/i4uc/rpmlint_f15_0.5.6-5.txt -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 559552] Review Request: qca-pkcs11 - Smartcard integration for QCA
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=559552 --- Comment #20 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu 2011-07-05 10:36:48 EDT --- Oh, and per my initial comment #3 , those items still seem to be largely un-addressed... to re-iterate: 1. fix release tag usage. 2. runtime dependancy on qt (only a SHOULD though) 3. license tag 4. documenting patches -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 712624] Review Request: aeskulap - A full open source replacement for commercially available DICOM viewer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=712624 --- Comment #11 from Richard Shaw hobbes1...@gmail.com 2011-07-05 10:34:16 EDT --- Ok, here's the formal review. Please ask questions as I still haven't done a lot of these and it's possible I got something wrong :) +: OK -: must be fixed =: should be fixed (at your discretion) ?: Question or clairification needed N: not applicable MUST: [+] rpmlint output: shown in comment: No major issues. [+] follows package naming guidelines [+] spec file base name matches package name [=] package meets the packaging guidelines [+] package uses a Fedora approved license: LGPLv2+ [-] license field matches the actual license: After more formal review the most authorative information I could find in the source was COPYING and COPYING.LIB. I think the spec should be updated to LGPLv2+ per Fedora Licensing requirements: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing. [N] license file is included in %doc [+] spec file is in American English [+] spec file is legible [+] sources match upstream: md5sum 33a0f8659909426c67bebc10bd61b1d0 for both. [+] package builds on at least one primary arch: Tested F14 x86_64 and F15 i686 [N] appropriate use of ExcludeArch [+] all build requirements in BuildRequires [+] spec file handles locales properly [N] ldconfig in %post and %postun [+] no bundled copies of system libraries [N] no relocatable packages [+] package owns all directories that it creates [+] no files listed twice in %files [+] proper permissions on files [+] consistent use of macros [+] code or permissible content [N] large documentation in -doc [+] no runtime dependencies in %doc [N] header files in -devel [N] static libraries in -static [N] .so in -devel [N] -devel requires main package [+] package contains no libtool archives [+] package contains a desktop file, uses desktop-file-install/validate [+] package does not own files/dirs owned by other packages [+] all filenames in UTF-8 SHOULD: [=] query upstream for license text [N] description and summary contains available translations [+] package builds in mock [+] package builds on all supported arches [+] package functions as described: Ran binary and help was displayed [+] sane scriptlets [N] subpackages require the main package [N] placement of pkgconfig files [N] file dependencies versus package dependencies [N] package contains man pages for binaries/scripts -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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] 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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=713320
--- Comment #14 from Pádraig Brady p...@draigbrady.com 2011-07-05 10:41:41
EDT ---
Updated srpm for review:
Spec URL: http://www.pixelbeat.org/patches/oz.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.pixelbeat.org/patches/oz-0.5.0-2.fc15.src.rpm
(In reply to comment #13)
(new) fedora guidelines say:
+ BuildRoot is unnecessary, just get rid of it
+ %defattr, ditto
+ %clean, ditto
Done
[ FAIL ] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the
actual license
spec still says LGPL2, COPYING says LGPL2.1
I responded to this previously.
It seems that these 2 are synonymous.
If I use 2.1 in the spec, rpmlint will complain.
See: http://www.redhat.com/a-packaging/2008-November/msg00047.html
and: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing
(if you search for LGPLv2 there, you see that it covers both LGPLv2 and
LGPLv2.1)
[ OK ] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
Note that conflicts with the request to remove %clean (which I've done)
[ FAIL ] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. - clalance: minor,
but Source0 can be changed to use %{name}-%{version}.
%{name}/%{version} now used.
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 680936] Review Request: libssh2-python - Python bindings for the libssh2 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=680936
Kaleb KEITHLEY kkeit...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kkeit...@redhat.com
--- Comment #6 from Kaleb KEITHLEY kkeit...@redhat.com 2011-07-05 10:54:24
EDT ---
(new) fedora guidelines say:
+ BuildRoot is unnecessary, just get rid of it
+ %defattr, ditto
+ %clean, ditto
[ OK ] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package
[ OK ] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming
Guidelines
[ OK ] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name} [...]
[ OK ] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines
[ OK ] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license
and meet the Licensing Guidelines
[ OK ] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the
actual license
[ OK ] MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of
the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc
[ OK ] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[ OK ] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[ ] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream
source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for
this task. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package,
please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this.
[ OK ] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary
rpms on at least one primary architecture
[ N/A ] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on
an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the
spec in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST
have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package
does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST
be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line
[ OK ] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except
for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging
Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply
common sense.
[ OK ] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by
using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly
forbidden
[ N/A ] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared
library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's
default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[ N/A ] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must
state this fact in the request for review, along with the
rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without
this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker.
[ OK ] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does
not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package
which does create that directory.
[ OK ] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files
listing.
[ OK ] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[ OK ] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[ OK ] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The
definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but
is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or
quantity).
[ OK ] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the
program must run properly if it is not present.
[ N/A ] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[ N/A ] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[ N/A ] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires:
pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability).
[ N/A ] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g.
libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix)
must go in a -devel package.
[ N/A ] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the
base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release}
[ N/A ] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must
be removed in the spec if they are built.
[ N/A ] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a
[Bug 713320] 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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=713320
--- Comment #15 from Kaleb KEITHLEY kkeit...@redhat.com 2011-07-05 10:56:22
EDT ---
[ OK ] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
Note that conflicts with the request to remove %clean (which I've done)
My bad, I missed that and did not remove it. Ignore 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 559552] Review Request: qca-pkcs11 - Smartcard integration for QCA
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=559552 --- Comment #21 from Juha Tuomala t...@iki.fi 2011-07-05 10:58:07 EDT --- (In reply to comment #20) Oh, and per my initial comment #3 , those items still seem to be largely un-addressed... to re-iterate: 1. fix release tag usage. Fixed. 2. runtime dependancy on qt (only a SHOULD though) Fixed. 3. license tag Fixed. 4. documenting patches commented. http://tuju.fi/fedora/14/qca-pkcs11.spec http://tuju.fi/fedora/14/qca-pkcs11-2.0.0-1.fc14.beta2.src.rpm f14: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3180913 f15: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3180911 raw: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3180912 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 Matthias Clasen mcla...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mcla...@redhat.com --- Comment #16 from Matthias Clasen mcla...@redhat.com 2011-07-05 11:02:19 EDT --- Shaun, do you know what to do next here, or do you need help ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 718931] Review Request: perl-Net-Server-SS-PreFork - Hot-deployable variant of Net::Server::PreFork
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=718931 --- Comment #1 from Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com 2011-07-05 11:22:28 EDT --- + /usr/bin/perl Makefile.PL INSTALLDIRS=vendor *** Module::AutoInstall version 1.03 *** Checking for Perl dependencies... [Core Features] - LWP::Simple ...loaded. (5.827) - Test::TCP ...loaded. (0.16 = 0.06) - HTTP::Server::Simple::CGI ...missing. - Net::Server ...loaded. (0.97) - Server::Starter ...loaded. (0.11 = 0.02) == Auto-install the 1 mandatory module(s) from CPAN? [y] n After analyse, perl-HTTP-Server-Simple should requires perl-CGI. Please 1/ Open a bug against perl-HTTP-Server-Simple 2/ Add a temporary BR perl-CGI -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 719047] New: Review Request: rubygem-vcr - Record test suite HTTP interactions and replay during future test runs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: rubygem-vcr - Record test suite HTTP interactions and replay during future test runs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=719047 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-vcr - Record test suite HTTP interactions and replay during future test runs Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: Unspecified OS/Version: Unspecified Status: NEW Severity: unspecified Priority: unspecified Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: clala...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/clalance/rubygem-vcr/rubygem-vcr.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/clalance/rubygem-vcr/rubygem-vcr-1.10.0-1.fc14.src.rpm Description: VCR provides a simple API to record and replay your test suite's HTTP interactions. It works with a variety of HTTP client libraries, HTTP stubbing libraries and testing frameworks. [clalance@localhost SPECS]$ rpmlint ../SRPMS/rubygem-vcr-1.10.0-1.fc14.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [clalance@localhost SPECS]$ rpmlint rubygem-vcr.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 718931] Review Request: perl-Net-Server-SS-PreFork - Hot-deployable variant of Net::Server::PreFork
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=718931 Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|fed...@famillecollet.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 719049] New: Review Request: rubygem-excon - Http(s) EXtended CONnections
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: rubygem-excon - Http(s) EXtended CONnections https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=719049 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-excon - Http(s) EXtended CONnections Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: Unspecified OS/Version: Unspecified Status: NEW Severity: unspecified Priority: unspecified Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: clala...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/clalance/rubygem-excon/rubygem-excon.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/clalance/rubygem-excon/rubygem-excon-0.6.3-1.fc14.src.rpm Description: EXtended http(s) CONnections [clalance@localhost SPECS]$ rpmlint rubygem-excon.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [clalance@localhost SPECS]$ rpmlint ../SRPMS/rubygem-excon-0.6.3-1.fc14.src.rpm rubygem-excon.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Http - HTTP rubygem-excon.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US EXtended - Extended, Extender, Expended rubygem-excon.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US http - HTTP 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 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 718931] Review Request: perl-Net-Server-SS-PreFork - Hot-deployable variant of Net::Server::PreFork
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=718931
--- Comment #2 from Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com 2011-07-05 11:45:18
EDT ---
=== FORMAL REVIEW ===
-=N/A x=Check !=Problem, ?=Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x] Rpmlint output:
perl-Net-Server-SS-PreFork.src: I: checking
perl-Net-Server-SS-PreFork.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) deployable -
deplorable, deploy able, deploy-able
perl-Net-Server-SS-PreFork.src: I: checking-url
http://search.cpan.org/dist/Net-Server-SS-PreFork/ (timeout 10 seconds)
perl-Net-Server-SS-PreFork.src: I: checking-url
http://www.cpan.org/authors/id/K/KA/KAZUHO/Net-Server-SS-PreFork-0.05.tar.gz
(timeout 10 seconds)
perl-Net-Server-SS-PreFork.noarch: I: checking
perl-Net-Server-SS-PreFork.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) deployable
- deplorable, deploy able, deploy-able
perl-Net-Server-SS-PreFork.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.05-1
['0.05-1.fc15.remi', '0.05-1.remi']
perl-Net-Server-SS-PreFork.noarch: I: checking-url
http://search.cpan.org/dist/Net-Server-SS-PreFork/ (timeout 10 seconds)
perl-Net-Server-SS-PreFork.spec: I: checking-url
http://www.cpan.org/authors/id/K/KA/KAZUHO/Net-Server-SS-PreFork-0.05.tar.gz
(timeout 10 seconds)
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
[x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines including the Perl specific items
[x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type: GPL+ or Artistic
[-] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package is included in %doc.
[x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
md5sum : 4198d48d27353f60cc297178f86c216f Net-Server-SS-PreFork-0.05.tar.gz
[x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture.
Tested on: f15 x86_64
[x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch
[!] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[-] The spec file handles locales properly.
[-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x] Packages don't bundle copies of system librarie
[x] Package is not relocatable.
[x] Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x] Permissions on files are set properly.
[x] Package consistently uses macros.
[x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Static libraries in -static subpackage, if present.
[-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages with %{?_isa}, if present.
[-] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
[-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
[x] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8
[-] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. (Perl
exception)
=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
[x] Final requires
perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.12.4)
perl(Net::Server::PreFork)
perl(Net::Server::Proto::TCP)
perl(Server::Starter)
[x] Final provides
perl(Net::Server::SS::PreFork) = 0.05
perl-Net-Server-SS-PreFork = 0.05-1.fc15.remi
[x] Latest version is packaged.
[?] If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[-] The description and summary sections in the package spec file should
contain
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[-] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
Tested on: Koji
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3180974
[-] The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
Tested on:
[?] Package functions as described.
[-] If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane.
[ ] If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin,
/usr/bin, or /usr/sbin
consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file
itself.
[x] your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts.
If it doesn't, work with upstream to
[Bug 718931] Review Request: perl-Net-Server-SS-PreFork - Hot-deployable variant of Net::Server::PreFork
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=718931
--- Comment #3 from Emmanuel Seyman emmanuel.sey...@club-internet.fr
2011-07-05 11:51:55 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #2)
MUST : only the perl-CGI BR issue
(I have add it to be able to build in mock/koji)
Done.
Should : I always prefer more explicit %file (wildcard are the devil)
%{perl_vendorlib}/Net
%{_mandir}/man3/Net*
You're right. Done.
Spec URL:
http://people.parinux.org/~seyman/fedora/perl-Net-Server-SS-PreFork/perl-Net-Server-SS-PreFork.spec
SRPM URL:
http://people.parinux.org/~seyman/fedora/perl-Net-Server-SS-PreFork/perl-Net-Server-SS-PreFork-0.05-2.fc15.src.rpm
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 718931] Review Request: perl-Net-Server-SS-PreFork - Hot-deployable variant of Net::Server::PreFork
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=718931 Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com 2011-07-05 11:56:12 EDT --- All MUST and Should fixed. == 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 713320] 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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=713320 --- Comment #16 from Steven Dake sd...@redhat.com 2011-07-05 11:55:39 EDT --- I'll validate the remaining SHOULDs by EOD today. [ ] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. - [ ] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures [ ] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. [ ] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. thanks for the re-review Kaleb of the new upstream release. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 718931] Review Request: perl-Net-Server-SS-PreFork - Hot-deployable variant of Net::Server::PreFork
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=718931 Emmanuel Seyman emmanuel.sey...@club-internet.fr changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Emmanuel Seyman emmanuel.sey...@club-internet.fr 2011-07-05 12:03:20 EDT --- Thanks, Remi. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: perl-Net-Server-SS-PreFork Short Description: Hot-deployable variant of Net::Server::PreFork Owners: eseyman Branches: f15 InitialCC: perl-sig -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 718931] Review Request: perl-Net-Server-SS-PreFork - Hot-deployable variant of Net::Server::PreFork
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=718931 --- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2011-07-05 12:11:40 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 559552] Review Request: qca-pkcs11 - Smartcard integration for QCA
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=559552 Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #22 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu 2011-07-05 12:08:14 EDT --- Thanks, looks better, 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 559552] Review Request: qca-pkcs11 - Smartcard integration for QCA
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=559552 --- Comment #24 from Juha Tuomala t...@iki.fi 2011-07-05 12:18:03 EDT --- Thanks for everyone who helped. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 559552] Review Request: qca-pkcs11 - Smartcard integration for QCA
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=559552 Juha Tuomala t...@iki.fi changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 559552] Review Request: qca-pkcs11 - Smartcard integration for QCA
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=559552 --- Comment #23 from Juha Tuomala t...@iki.fi 2011-07-05 12:17:11 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: qca-pkcs11 Short Description: Smartcard integration for QCA Owners: tuju kalev Branches: f14 f15 InitialCC: tuju -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 719064] New: Review Request: rubygem-formatador - Ruby STDOUT text formatting
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: rubygem-formatador - Ruby STDOUT text formatting https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=719064 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-formatador - Ruby STDOUT text formatting Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: Unspecified OS/Version: Unspecified Status: NEW Severity: unspecified Priority: unspecified Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: clala...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/clalance/rubygem-formatador/rubygem-formatador.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/clalance/rubygem-formatador/rubygem-formatador-0.1.4-1.fc14.src.rpm Description: Ruby STDOUT text formatting [clalance@localhost SPECS]$ rpmlint rubygem-formatador.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [clalance@localhost SPECS]$ rpmlint ../SRPMS/rubygem-formatador-0.1.4-1.fc14.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 559552] Review Request: qca-pkcs11 - Smartcard integration for QCA
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=559552 --- Comment #25 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2011-07-05 12:25:02 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 719067] New: Review Request: rubygem-hmac - This module provides common interface to HMAC functionality
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: rubygem-hmac - This module provides common interface to HMAC functionality https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=719067 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-hmac - This module provides common interface to HMAC functionality Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: Unspecified OS/Version: Unspecified Status: NEW Severity: unspecified Priority: unspecified Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: clala...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/clalance/rubygem-hmac/rubygem-hmac.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/clalance/rubygem-hmac/rubygem-hmac-0.4.0-1.fc14.src.rpm Description: This module provides common interface to HMAC functionality. HMAC is a kind of Message Authentication Code (MAC) algorithm whose standard is documented in RFC2104. Namely, a MAC provides a way to check the integrity of information transmitted over or stored in an unreliable medium, based on a secret key. Originally written by Daiki Ueno. Converted to a RubyGem by Geoffrey Grosenbach [clalance@localhost SPECS]$ rpmlint rubygem-hmac.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [clalance@localhost SPECS]$ rpmlint ../SRPMS/rubygem-hmac-0.4.0-1.fc14.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 675588] Review Request: pycmd - Tools for managing/searching Python related files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=675588 Tim Flink tfl...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tfl...@redhat.com --- Comment #1 from Tim Flink tfl...@redhat.com 2011-07-05 12:47:43 EDT --- In order to maintain feature parity with the new python-py, shouldn't this be a python2 and python3 package? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 719064] Review Request: rubygem-formatador - Ruby STDOUT text formatting
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=719064 Chris Lalancette clala...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||719073 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 719067] Review Request: rubygem-hmac - This module provides common interface to HMAC functionality
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=719067 Chris Lalancette clala...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||719073 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 719073] Review Request: rubygem-fog - The Ruby cloud services 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=719073 Chris Lalancette clala...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||719067, 719064 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 719073] New: Review Request: rubygem-fog - The Ruby cloud services library.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: rubygem-fog - The Ruby cloud services library. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=719073 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-fog - The Ruby cloud services library. Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: Unspecified OS/Version: Unspecified Status: NEW Severity: unspecified Priority: unspecified Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: clala...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/clalance/rubygem-fog/rubygem-fog.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/clalance/rubygem-fog/rubygem-fog-0.9.0-1.fc14.src.rpm Description: The Ruby cloud services library. [clalance@localhost SPECS]$ rpmlint rubygem-fog.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [clalance@localhost SPECS]$ rpmlint /home/clalance/rpmbuild/SRPMS/rubygem-fog-0.9.0-1.fc14.src.rpm^C [clalance@localhost SPECS]$ rpmlint ../SRPMS/rubygem-fog-0.9.0-1.fc14.src.rpm rubygem-fog.src: W: summary-not-capitalized C brings clouds to you 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 719049] Review Request: rubygem-excon - Http(s) EXtended CONnections
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=719049 Chris Lalancette clala...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||719073 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 718430] Review Request: unknown-horizons - a 2D RTS game written in python which uses the fife engine
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=718430 --- Comment #3 from Nelson Marques nmo.marq...@gmail.com 2011-07-05 13:03:28 EDT --- Tom, That is true, that part is correct I'm afraid. I submitted the package because users requested, but I do make another question, what would be the procedure to submit it to RPM Fusion? (I suppose this could live there and still be served to Fedora users as most users most likely use it) Thanks in advance, NM -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 718430] Review Request: unknown-horizons - a 2D RTS game written in python which uses the fife engine
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=718430 Nelson Marques nmo.marq...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||CANTFIX Last Closed||2011-07-05 13:06:16 --- Comment #4 from Nelson Marques nmo.marq...@gmail.com 2011-07-05 13:06:16 EDT --- I'm marking as invalid, once more thanks all. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 680936] Review Request: libssh2-python - Python bindings for the libssh2 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=680936 --- Comment #7 from Chris Lalancette clala...@redhat.com 2011-07-05 13:12:49 EDT --- (In reply to comment #6) (new) fedora guidelines say: + BuildRoot is unnecessary, just get rid of it + %defattr, ditto + %clean, ditto Thanks for the review. I had submitted this package before I knew about those new guidelines, so thanks for the reminder. I've now fixed those and uploaded new versions of the spec and SRPM to the same place. Kaleb, in general when reviewing packages the procedure is to assign the bug to yourself, set the state to ASSIGNED, and also set the fedora-review flag to ?. Once you are satisfied that the package meets criteria, you then switch the fedora-review flag to +, and then I'll complete the rest of the process. Thanks again, Chris Lalancette -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 559552] Review Request: qca-pkcs11 - Smartcard integration for QCA
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=559552 --- Comment #26 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-07-05 13:20:41 EDT --- qca-pkcs11-2.0.0-0.1.fc14.beta2 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/qca-pkcs11-2.0.0-0.1.fc14.beta2 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 559552] Review Request: qca-pkcs11 - Smartcard integration for QCA
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=559552 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 559552] Review Request: qca-pkcs11 - Smartcard integration for QCA
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=559552 --- Comment #27 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-07-05 13:23:08 EDT --- qca-pkcs11-2.0.0-0.1.fc15.beta2 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/qca-pkcs11-2.0.0-0.1.fc15.beta2 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 688315] Review Request: rubygem-little-plugger - gem based plugin management
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=688315 Chris Lalancette clala...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 688322] Review Request: rubygem-webby - Awesome static website creation and management!
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=688322 Bug 688322 depends on bug 688315, which changed state. Bug 688315 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-little-plugger - gem based plugin management https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=688315 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution|WONTFIX | Status|CLOSED |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 688315] Review Request: rubygem-little-plugger - gem based plugin management
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=688315 Chris Lalancette clala...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED Resolution|WONTFIX | Keywords||Reopened --- Comment #3 from Chris Lalancette clala...@redhat.com 2011-07-05 13:26:54 EDT --- Oops, it turns out we need this for the rubygem-logging gem that was pulled in. So I'm re-opening. I've also updated the RPM to take into account some of the new Fedora guidelines; the spec and SRPM are in the same place as in comment #1. Chris Lalancette -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 559552] Review Request: qca-pkcs11 - Smartcard integration for QCA
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=559552 --- Comment #28 from Juha Tuomala t...@iki.fi 2011-07-05 13:39:44 EDT --- Alon, for some reason qcatool2 to work, i need to 'milk' the underlying system with pkcs15-tool -c couple times to make reader lights to blink. Then qcatool2 starts working too. It could be pcsc-lite or opensc issue I guess, but without 'milking' it with those tools, it's more or less dead. Have you noticed anything similar? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 672395] Review Request: eigen3 - A lightweight C++ template library for vector and matrix math
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=672395 Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|t...@niemueller.de Flag||needinfo?(t...@niemueller.de ||) --- Comment #9 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu 2011-07-05 12:49:28 EDT --- tim is currently the active reviewer... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 675588] Review Request: pycmd - Tools for managing/searching Python related files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=675588 --- Comment #2 from Thomas Moschny thomas.mosc...@gmx.de 2011-07-05 13:41:11 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1) In order to maintain feature parity with the new python-py, shouldn't this be a python2 and python3 package? Yeah, why not. Here we go: Spec URL: http://thm.fedorapeople.org/pycmd/pycmd.spec SRPM URL: http://thm.fedorapeople.org/pycmd/pycmd-1.0-2.fc15.src.rpm %changelog * Tue Jul 5 2011 Thomas Moschny .. - 1.0-2 - Python3 subpackage. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 717748] Review Request: UST - LTTng Userspace Tracer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=717748 --- Comment #3 from Yannick Brosseau yannick.bross...@gmail.com 2011-07-05 13:49:18 EDT --- Thanks, I'll look into 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 675234] Review Request: duply - Wrapper for duplicity
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=675234 --- Comment #5 from Thomas Moschny thomas.mosc...@gmx.de 2011-07-05 14:02:47 EDT --- Spec URL: http://thm.fedorapeople.org/duply/duply.spec SRPM URL: http://thm.fedorapeople.org/duply/duply-1.5.5.1-1.fc15.src.rpm %changelog * Tue Jul 5 2011 Thomas Moschny .. - 1.5.5.1-1 - Update to 1.5.5.1. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 718931] Review Request: perl-Net-Server-SS-PreFork - Hot-deployable variant of Net::Server::PreFork
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=718931 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |MODIFIED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 718931] Review Request: perl-Net-Server-SS-PreFork - Hot-deployable variant of Net::Server::PreFork
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=718931 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-07-05 14:12:26 EDT --- perl-Net-Server-SS-PreFork-0.05-2.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Net-Server-SS-PreFork-0.05-2.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 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 #17 from Mario Blättermann mari...@freenet.de 2011-07-05 14:25:25 EDT --- (In reply to comment #15) Added the changelog entry in the spec file and replaced the spec and srpm files at the above URLs. Each time you change anything in the spec file, please bump the release number and build a new package. There is no other way to track your changes really. The %changelog has always to reflect what you did, means, consecutive changelog entries may not have the same release number. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 718430] Review Request: unknown-horizons - a 2D RTS game written in python which uses the fife engine
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=718430 --- Comment #5 from Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com 2011-07-05 14:25:13 EDT --- I believe the RPM Fusion process is very similar: http://rpmfusion.org/Contributors -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 #18 from Christopher Aillon cail...@redhat.com 2011-07-05 14:46:55 EDT --- Mario, FWIW, I'm sponsoring and have already explained this to Shaun out of band. In this case, there was no %changelog entry whatsoever for the new changes, so I asked him to simply add one and replace the existing spec. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 717966] Review Request: python-psphere - vSphere SDK for Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=717966 --- Comment #1 from Chris Lalancette clala...@redhat.com 2011-07-05 14:47:26 EDT --- We are still sorting out the license a bit with upstream. The problem is that the upstream sources are GPLv3, but the program that wants to use them (imagefactory) is GPLv2. We are discussing the best path forward with upstream, and I'll update the package once we have sorted it out. Chris Lalancette -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 #19 from Mario Blättermann mari...@freenet.de 2011-07-05 14:50:51 EDT --- OK, sorry for the noise ;) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 559552] Review Request: qca-pkcs11 - Smartcard integration for QCA
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=559552 --- Comment #29 from Alon Bar-Lev alon.bar...@gmail.com 2011-07-05 14:56:13 EDT --- Can you please correlate this behavior with the success of pkcs11-tool --list-objects behavior? I guess you experience same issues with pkcs11-tool, although it has an advantage of loading/unloading the provider each cycle. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 717666] Review Request: python-prettytable - Python library to display tabular data in tables
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=717666
Ryan Rix r...@n.rix.si changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||r...@n.rix.si
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Ryan Rix r...@n.rix.si 2011-07-05 15:04:03 EDT ---
[+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming
Guidelines
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name} [...]
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license
and meet the Licensing Guidelines
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the
actual license
[n/a] MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of
the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream
source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for
this task. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package,
please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this.
[rrix@stinkpad rpmbuild]$ md5sum /tmp/pretttytable.tar.gz
13a6930d775395f393afd86948afa4fa /tmp/pretttytable.tar.gz
[rrix@stinkpad rpmbuild]$ md5sum SOURCES/prettytable-0.5.tar.gz
13a6930d775395f393afd86948afa4fa SOURCES/prettytable-0.5.tar.gz
[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary
rpms on at least one primary architecture
[n/a] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on
an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the
spec in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST
have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package
does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST
be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except
for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging
Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply
common sense.
[n/a] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by
using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly
forbidden
[n/a] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must
state this fact in the request for review, along with the
rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without
this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker.
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does
not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package
which does create that directory.
[+] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files
listing.
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should
be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section
must include a %defattr(...) line.
[+] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[n/a] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The
definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but
is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or
quantity).
[n/a] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the
program must run properly if it is not present.
[n/a] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[n/a] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
]n/a] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires:
pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability).
[n/a] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g.
libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix)
must go in a -devel package.
[n/a] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the
base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release}
[n/a] MUST: Packages must NOT contain
[Bug 719103] New: Review Request: mex - Media centre application
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: mex - Media centre application https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=719103 Summary: Review Request: mex - Media centre application Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: bnoc...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Spec URL: http://people.fedoraproject.org/~hadess/mex/mex.spec SRPM URL: http://people.fedoraproject.org/~hadess/mex/mex-0.1.2-1.fc15.src.rpm Description: Media explorer is a media centre application for Linux, originally targeted towards MeeGo. scratch build for F15 at: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3181307 F16 build fails because of libmx bugs. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 712522] Review Request: eclipse-wtp-common - Common Web Tools Platform utilities and infrastructure
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=712522
Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com 2011-07-05
15:28:35 EDT ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x] Rpmlint output:
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines[1].
[x] Spec file name must match the base package name, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines[2].
[x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms.
[x] Buildroot definition is not present
[x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines[3,4].
[x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type: EPL
[x] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package is included in %doc.
[-] All independent sub-packages have license of their own
[x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines[5].
[x] Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x] File sections do not contain %defattr(-,root,root,-) unless changed with
good reason
[x] Permissions on files are set properly.
[x] Package does NOT have a %clean section which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}
(or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). (not needed anymore)
[x] Package consistently uses macros (no %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
mixing)
[x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
[x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[-] Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
subpackage
[-] Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlinks)
[x] Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
[x] Javadoc subpackages have Require: jpackage-utils
[x] Package uses %global not %define
[x] If package uses tarball from VCS include comment how to re-create that
tarball (svn export URL, git clone URL, ...)
[x] If source tarball includes bundled jar/class files these need to be
removed prior to building
[x] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
[-] Jar files are installed to %{_javadir}/%{name}.jar (see [6] for details)
[-] If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even when
building with ant
[-] pom files has correct add_to_maven_depmap call which resolves to the pom
file (use JPP. and JPP- correctly)
=== Other suggestions ===
[-] If possible use upstream build method (maven/ant/javac)
[x] Avoid having BuildRequires on exact NVR unless necessary
[x] Package has BuildArch: noarch (if possible)
[x] Latest version is packaged.
[x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
Really good package. No issues.
This pacakge is 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 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 Shaun McCance sha...@gnome.org changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #20 from Shaun McCance sha...@gnome.org 2011-07-05 15:40:50 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: itstool Short Description: Translate XML with PO files using rules from the W3C ITS Owners: shaunm Branches: f15 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 719108] New: Review Request: main package name here - short summary here
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: main package name here - short summary here https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=719108 Summary: Review Request: main package name here - short summary here Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: peter.bo...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Spec URL: http://asrob.fedorapeople.org/SOURCES/drupal6-mobile_tools.spec SRPM URL: http://asrob.fedorapeople.org/SOURCES/drupal6-mobile_tools-2.3-1.fc15.src.rpm Description: The Mobile Tools module provides Drupal developers with some tools to assist in making a site mobile. rpmlint output: [asrob@claire SPECS]$ rpmlint drupal6-mobile_tools.spec ../SRPMS/drupal6-mobile_tools-2.3-1.fc15.src.rpm ../RPMS/noarch/drupal6-mobile_tools-2.3-1.fc15.noarch.rpm 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. koji output: Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3181518 Watching tasks (this may be safely interrupted)... 3181518 build (dist-f15, drupal6-mobile_tools-2.3-1.fc15.src.rpm): open (x86-11.phx2.fedoraproject.org) 3181519 buildArch (drupal6-mobile_tools-2.3-1.fc15.src.rpm, noarch): open (x86-11.phx2.fedoraproject.org) 3181519 buildArch (drupal6-mobile_tools-2.3-1.fc15.src.rpm, noarch): open (x86-11.phx2.fedoraproject.org) - closed 0 free 1 open 1 done 0 failed 3181518 build (dist-f15, drupal6-mobile_tools-2.3-1.fc15.src.rpm): open (x86-11.phx2.fedoraproject.org) - closed 0 free 0 open 2 done 0 failed 3181518 build (dist-f15, drupal6-mobile_tools-2.3-1.fc15.src.rpm) completed successfully -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 719108] Review Request: drupal6-mobile_tools - The Mobile Tools module provides some tools to assist in making a site mobile
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=719108 Peter Borsa peter.bo...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: main |Review Request: |package name here - short |drupal6-mobile_tools - The |summary here |Mobile Tools module ||provides some tools to ||assist in making a site ||mobile -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 717666] Review Request: python-prettytable - Python library to display tabular data in tables
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=717666 Chris Lalancette clala...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Chris Lalancette clala...@redhat.com 2011-07-05 15:49:20 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-prettytable Short Description: Python library to display tabular data in tables Owners: clalance 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 719108] Review Request: main package name here - short summary here
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=719108 Peter Borsa peter.bo...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||662103(InsightReviews) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 717666] Review Request: python-prettytable - Python library to display tabular data in tables
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=717666 --- Comment #2 from Chris Lalancette clala...@redhat.com 2011-07-05 15:48:13 EDT --- Thanks for the review. I'll set the fedora-cvs flag and do the SCM request. Thanks again, Chris Lalancette -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
