[Bug 561484] Review Request: jruby - Pure Java implementation of the Ruby interpreter
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561484 Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #20 from Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com 2011-07-07 02:24:19 EDT --- Thanks, This package 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 561484] Review Request: jruby - Pure Java implementation of the Ruby interpreter
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561484 --- Comment #21 from Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com 2011-07-07 03:24:01 EDT --- Is JRuby really ready to use system gems, such as rubygem-rake? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 561484] Review Request: jruby - Pure Java implementation of the Ruby interpreter
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561484 --- Comment #22 from Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com 2011-07-07 03:34:42 EDT --- I have never checked this at runtime. But it surely uses them at build/install time. I think that this is enough for the review because there are a lot of use cases for jruby even without using system gems but it will surely rock if it can use them. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 561484] Review Request: jruby - Pure Java implementation of the Ruby interpreter
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561484 --- Comment #23 from Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com 2011-07-07 04:00:36 EDT --- I am afraid that installing single system gem will fetch also MRI onto the system and I don't think this is desirable. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 679401] Review Request: qtsoap - The Simple Object Access Protocol Qt-based client side 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=679401 --- Comment #8 from Jaroslav Reznik jrez...@redhat.com 2011-07-07 04:31:03 EDT --- (In reply to comment #7) ping? Rex, I'd like to implement suggested enhancements but I was busy... So probably I should just import it in the current state... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 668820] Review Request: rubygem-rdoc - RDoc produces HTML and command-line documentation for Ruby projects
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=668820 --- Comment #6 from Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com 2011-07-07 04:51:08 EDT --- Hi guys, It seems that RDoc gem is now Rails 3.0.9 requirement due to updated Rake [1]. I need to reopen and finish this review in order to fix Rails in Rawhide (it is hopefully the last missing piece). Mo, could you please finish the spec? Or is somebody willing to do review, if I am going to finish the .spec? [1] https://github.com/rails/rails/issues/1598 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 679401] Review Request: qtsoap - The Simple Object Access Protocol Qt-based client side 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=679401 Jaroslav Reznik jrez...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #9 from Jaroslav Reznik jrez...@redhat.com 2011-07-07 05:22:10 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: qtsoap Short Description: The Simple Object Access Protocol Qt-based client side library Owners: jreznik rdieter kkofler than Branches: f14 f15 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 621416] Review Request: libgeotiff -- GeoTIFF format 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=621416 Balint Cristian cristian.bal...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||review? --- Comment #33 from Balint Cristian cristian.bal...@gmail.com 2011-07-07 05:44:51 EDT --- Created attachment 511657 -- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=511657 Original EPSG tarball license document. Original EPSG license document from their tarball distribution. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 621416] Review Request: libgeotiff -- GeoTIFF format 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=621416 Balint Cristian cristian.bal...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #34 from Balint Cristian cristian.bal...@gmail.com 2011-07-07 05:49:05 EDT --- Any news ? Summing and proposal for a solution: - Discrepancy between web site and original license from their tarball. - We can include PDF doc into the rpm, reflecting the corect license. - We could include to all packages that are related to EPSG dataset. * Attached the PDF out of their tarball to this ticket. * See a summary Comment#32 for a light over the issue. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 679401] Review Request: qtsoap - The Simple Object Access Protocol Qt-based client side 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=679401 --- Comment #10 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2011-07-07 06:09:47 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 #20 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2011-07-07 06:10:27 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 717680] Review Request: python-cloudservers - Client library for Rackspace's Cloud Servers 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=717680 --- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2011-07-07 06:12:40 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests). imcleod not added, not in Packagers group. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 714231] Review Request: mediawiki116-semantic - The semantic extension to mediawiki
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=714231 --- Comment #8 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2011-07-07 06:11:15 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 717741] Review Request: VMDKstream - Python tool to convert raw disk images to stream-optimized VMDK 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=717741 --- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2011-07-07 06:13:35 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests). imcleod not added, not in Packagers group. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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
Flag||fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #2 from Emmanuel Seyman emmanuel.sey...@club-internet.fr
2011-07-07 06:28:47 EDT ---
I've uploaded a new release. The only change is the %files bloc which is now:
%doc Changes README
%{perl_vendorlib}/HTTP
%{perl_vendorlib}/Plack
%{perl_vendorlib}/Starman
%{perl_vendorlib}/Starman.pm
%{_bindir}/starman
%{_mandir}/man1/*
%{_mandir}/man3/*
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-0.2013-2.fc15.src.rpm
New Package SCM Request
===
Package Name: perl-Starman
Short Description: High-performance preforking PSGI/Plack web server
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 716695] Review Request: fusioninventory-agent - FusionInventory agent
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=716695 Emmanuel Seyman emmanuel.sey...@club-internet.fr changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||emmanuel.seyman@club-intern ||et.fr AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|emmanuel.seyman@club-intern ||et.fr Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Emmanuel Seyman emmanuel.sey...@club-internet.fr 2011-07-07 06:29:38 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 718188] Review Request: jpathwatch - Java library for monitoring directories for changes
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=718188 --- Comment #2 from Jaromír Cápík jca...@redhat.com 2011-07-07 06:49:29 EDT --- Altered to place jar in the jnidir ... Spec URL: http://jcapik.fedorapeople.org/files/jpathwatch/2/jpathwatch.spec SRPM URL: http://jcapik.fedorapeople.org/files/jpathwatch/2/jpathwatch-0.94-2.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 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 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 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 #21 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-07-07 07:24:18 EDT --- oz-0.5.0-2.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/oz-0.5.0-2.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 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 #22 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-07-07 07:44:10 EDT --- oz-0.5.0-2.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/oz-0.5.0-2.el6 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 Kaleb KEITHLEY kkeit...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|kkeit...@redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 #23 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-07-07 07:51:31 EDT --- oz-0.5.0-2.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/oz-0.5.0-2.fc14 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 718188] Review Request: jpathwatch - Java library for monitoring directories for changes
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=718188
Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||akurt...@redhat.com
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com 2011-07-07
07:58:17 EDT ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x] Rpmlint output:
jpathwatch.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US jpatchwatch -
deathwatch
jpathwatch.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US subdirectories - sub
directories, sub-directories, directories
OK.
jpathwatch.i686: E: no-binary
jpathwatch.i686: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
False positives because there is a jar with so file in it.
[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: GPLv2
[x] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package is included in %doc.
[x] 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.
[x] Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
subpackage
[x] Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlinks)
[x] Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
[x] Javadoc subpackages have Require: jpackage-utils
[x] Package uses %global not %define
[x] If package uses tarball from VCS include comment how to re-create that
tarball (svn export URL, git clone URL, ...)
[-] If source tarball includes bundled jar/class files these need to be
removed prior to building
[x] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
[x] Jar files are installed to %{_javadir}/%{name}.jar (see [6] for details)
[-] 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 ===
[X] If possible use upstream build method (maven/ant/javac)
[X] Avoid having BuildRequires on exact NVR unless necessary
[-] Package has BuildArch: noarch (if possible)
[X] Latest version is packaged.
[X] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
Good package.
APPROVED.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 Kaleb KEITHLEY kkeit...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 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 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 Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net changed: What|Removed |Added CC||l...@jcomserv.net --- Comment #11 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2011-07-07 08:10:51 EDT --- You can rm the bundled fonts and symlink to the system fonts. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 718188] Review Request: jpathwatch - Java library for monitoring directories for changes
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=718188 Jaromír Cápík jca...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Jaromír Cápík jca...@redhat.com 2011-07-07 08:22:52 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: jpathwatch Short Description: Java library for monitoring directories for changes Owners: jcapik Branches: f15 InitialCC: java-sig -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 711764] Review Request: osc-source_validator - osc source validator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=711764 --- Comment #13 from Jerome Soyer sai...@gmail.com 2011-07-07 08:38:17 EDT --- New version : Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~saispo/osc-source_validator.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~saispo/osc-source_validator-0.1-4.fc15.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 --- Comment #3 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2011-07-07 08:54:03 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 718188] Review Request: jpathwatch - Java library for monitoring directories for changes
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=718188 --- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2011-07-07 08:53:36 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests). Alexander, in the future, please take ownership of Review bugs you're working on. Thank you! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 717680] Review Request: python-cloudservers - Client library for Rackspace's Cloud Servers 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=717680 Chris Lalancette clala...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE Last Closed||2011-07-07 09:02:30 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 683587] Review Request: gsissh - An implementation of the SSH protocol with GSI authentication
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=683587 Brian Bockelman bbock...@cse.unl.edu changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bbock...@cse.unl.edu --- Comment #4 from Brian Bockelman bbock...@cse.unl.edu 2011-07-07 09:08:18 EDT --- Hi, I just tested the posted SRPM for RHEL5. Builds fine in mock for me. However, when I try to use the service, I get: [brian@brian-test vdt-release]$ sudo /sbin/service gsisshd start Starting gsisshd: Could not load host key: /etc/gsissh/ssh_host_rsa_key Could not load host key: /etc/gsissh/ssh_host_dsa_key [ OK ] I hand-generated new keys and hand-changed the port to 23 from 22 (conflicting with normal SSH), and the server worked. Even properly invokes the Globus plugin infrastructure! However, when logging out, zombie processes were left over. Process tree looks like this: root 6807 0.0 0.0 165308 6052 ?Ssl 07:42 0:00 gsisshd: brian [priv] brian 6823 0.0 0.0 165308 3208 ?S07:42 0:00 \_ gsisshd: brian@pts/11 brian 6824 0.0 0.0 0 0 ?Zs 07:42 0:00 \_ [bash] defunct After installing debuginfo RPMs, I get see the middle process (6823) has the following stack trace: (gdb) bt #0 0x7f1123eeb212 in select () from /lib64/libc.so.6 #1 0x7f11281f1cad in wait_until_can_do_something (readsetp=0x7fffa66904a8, writesetp=0x7fffa66904a0, maxfdp=0x7fffa66904b4, nallocp=0x7fffa66904b0, max_time_milliseconds=0) at serverloop.c:338 #2 0x7f11281f2660 in server_loop2 (authctxt=value optimized out) at serverloop.c:810 #3 0x7f11281f9c7f in do_authenticated2 (authctxt=0x7f11293cbbb0) at session.c:2506 #4 do_authenticated (authctxt=0x7f11293cbbb0) at session.c:226 #5 0x7f11281ebf00 in main (ac=value optimized out, av=value optimized out) at sshd.c:1797 Maybe we should bring the gsissh devs into the loop on 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 683127] Review Request: tpm-quote-tools - TPM-based attestation using the TPM quote operation (tools)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=683127 --- Comment #13 from John D. Ramsdell ramsd...@mitre.org 2011-07-07 09:20:23 EDT --- Is this task blocked on me? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 717741] Review Request: VMDKstream - Python tool to convert raw disk images to stream-optimized VMDK 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=717741 Chris Lalancette clala...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE Last Closed||2011-07-07 09:16:16 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 718188] Review Request: jpathwatch - Java library for monitoring directories for changes
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=718188 Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC|akurt...@redhat.com | AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|akurt...@redhat.com --- Comment #6 from Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com 2011-07-07 09:20:15 EDT --- Sorry about that. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 --- Comment #5 from Kaleb KEITHLEY kkeit...@redhat.com 2011-07-07 09:30:10 EDT --- Flags: fedora-review, changing to a '+' (as per clalance) is not an option. ??? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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
--- Comment #4 from Kaleb KEITHLEY kkeit...@redhat.com 2011-07-07 09:27:40
EDT ---
[ 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} [...]
[ ?? ] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines
Possible fail, use of %define, guidelines say use of %global is preferred. (Did
gem2rpm do this?) Ruby packaging guidelines seem to be not applicable to gems;
is that correct?
[ 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 says GPLV2+ or Ruby. README.rdoc in the gem-data.tar.gz says MIT.
N.B. file timestamps in the gem (tar file) and the embedded data.tar.gz are
1969-12-31. Tar on my f14 box is silent, tar on my f15 box whines.
[ 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.
[ OK ] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream
source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for
this task. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package,
please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this.
[ OK ] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary
rpms on at least one primary architecture
[ 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.
[ FAIL ] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
use %{_mkdir}, %{_cp}, and %{_rm} instead of mkdir, cp, and rm respectively.
(Is this another gem2rpm bug?)
[ 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
[Bug 683587] Review Request: gsissh - An implementation of the SSH protocol with GSI authentication
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=683587 --- Comment #5 from Jim Basney jbas...@ncsa.uiuc.edu 2011-07-07 09:52:30 EDT --- The zombie process issue is caused by the Globus pthr libraries blocking SIGCHLD: https://bugzilla.mcs.anl.gov/globus/show_bug.cgi?id=7105 It is fixed in the Globus Toolkit v5.1.0 libraries. The problem does not occur with earlier non-pthr Globus libraries. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 719047] 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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=719047 --- Comment #3 from Chris Lalancette clala...@redhat.com 2011-07-07 10:28:55 EDT --- Thanks again Ryan! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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] 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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=719047 Chris Lalancette clala...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Chris Lalancette clala...@redhat.com 2011-07-07 10:29:55 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: rubygem-vcr Short Description: Record test suite HTTP interactions and replay during future test runs 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 719047] 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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=719047 --- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2011-07-07 10:32:02 EDT --- Please set the review flag to +. Thank you! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 Kaleb KEITHLEY kkeit...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||kkeit...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|kkeit...@redhat.com Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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
--- Comment #6 from Chris Lalancette clala...@redhat.com 2011-07-07 10:49:21
EDT ---
(In reply to comment #4)
[ 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} [...]
[ ?? ] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines
Possible fail, use of %define, guidelines say use of %global is preferred.
(Did
gem2rpm do this?) Ruby packaging guidelines seem to be not applicable to gems;
is that correct?
Right, I didn't know about that guideline. I'll update it. And yes, gem2rpm
did do the %define. I think we really need to update gem2rpm to conform to
some of these new requirements, but -ENOTIME.
[ 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 says GPLV2+ or Ruby. README.rdoc in the gem-data.tar.gz says MIT.
Yep, good catch. Fixed.
N.B. file timestamps in the gem (tar file) and the embedded data.tar.gz are
1969-12-31. Tar on my f14 box is silent, tar on my f15 box whines.
Hm, odd. On my system, both the SRPM and the gem file both have valid
timestamps. I wonder what the deal there is.
[ 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.
[ OK ] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream
source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for
this task. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package,
please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this.
[ OK ] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary
rpms on at least one primary architecture
[ 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.
[ FAIL ] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
use %{_mkdir}, %{_cp}, and %{_rm} instead of mkdir, cp, and rm respectively.
(Is this another gem2rpm bug?)
Hm. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Macros says:
Macro forms of system executables SHOULD NOT be used except when there is a
need to allow the location of those executables to be configurable. For
example, rm should be used in preference to %{__rm}, but %{__python} is
acceptable.
I left the rm, mkdir, and cp as-is based on that.
[ 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
[Bug 711764] Review Request: osc-source_validator - osc source validator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=711764 Haïkel Guémar karlthe...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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
--- Comment #7 from Kaleb KEITHLEY kkeit...@redhat.com 2011-07-07 11:36:29
EDT ---
N.B. file timestamps in the gem (tar file) and the embedded data.tar.gz are
1969-12-31. Tar on my f14 box is silent, tar on my f15 box whines.
Hm, odd. On my system, both the SRPM and the gem file both have valid
timestamps. I wonder what the deal there is.
Not the SRPM and gem, the files in the gem. If you untar the gem -- the
data.tar.gz and metadata.gz files have 1969-12-31 dates. And then if you untar
data.tar.gz, the files it contains have those same dates. Maybe it's not an
issue -- I noticed it when I unpacked the gem to check the license.
use %{_mkdir}, %{_cp}, and %{_rm} instead of mkdir, cp, and rm respectively.
(Is this another gem2rpm bug?)
Hm. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Macros says:
Macro forms of system executables SHOULD NOT be used except when there is a
need to allow the location of those executables to be configurable. For
example, rm should be used in preference to %{__rm}, but %{__python} is
acceptable.
I left the rm, mkdir, and cp as-is based on that.
I missed that in the guidelines. On that basis I'm fine with it. I'll recheck
the new one shortly.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on 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
--- Comment #1 from Kaleb KEITHLEY kkeit...@redhat.com 2011-07-07 11:55:39
EDT ---
[ 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} [...]
[ ?? ] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines
Possible fail, use of %define, guidelines say use of %global is preferred. (Did
gem2rpm do this?) Ruby packaging guidelines seem to be not applicable to gems;
is that correct?
[ 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.
[ OK ] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream
source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for
this task. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package,
please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this.
[ OK ] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary
rpms on at least one primary architecture
[ 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
%{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with
desktop-file-install in the %install section. If you feel that your
packaged GUI
[Bug 683587] Review Request: gsissh - An implementation of the SSH protocol with GSI authentication
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=683587 --- Comment #6 from Brian Bockelman bbock...@cse.unl.edu 2011-07-07 12:31:32 EDT --- Hi Jim, I can't quite tell from the comments on the ticket: is it possible to fix this? Or should we just hold off here until Globus 5.2. FWIW - OSG is switching to EPEL's Globus, meaning that we're going to have to make gsissh work *somehow*. It's just a matter of how dirty do our hands get? Brian -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 683587] Review Request: gsissh - An implementation of the SSH protocol with GSI authentication
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=683587 --- Comment #7 from Jim Basney jbas...@ncsa.uiuc.edu 2011-07-07 12:39:43 EDT --- I suppose it'd be possible to patch the gsissh sources to unblock the signals after the pthr Globus libraries block them, if you're forced to use pre-5.1.0 pthr Globus libraries. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 Kaleb KEITHLEY kkeit...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? | --- Comment #8 from Kaleb KEITHLEY kkeit...@redhat.com 2011-07-07 13:47:48 EDT --- New spec file looks good. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 Kaleb KEITHLEY kkeit...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 719707] New: Review Request: PyKDE4 - Python bindings for KDE4
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: PyKDE4 - Python bindings for KDE4 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=719707 Summary: Review Request: PyKDE4 - Python bindings for KDE4 Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rdie...@math.unl.edu QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Spec URL: http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/kdebindings/PyKDE4.spec SRPM URL: http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/kdebindings/PyKDE4-4.6.90-1.fc15.src.rpm Description: Python bindings for KDE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 719707] Review Request: PyKDE4 - Python bindings for KDE4
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=719707 Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||656997(kde-reviews) Alias||PyKDE4 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 Kaleb KEITHLEY kkeit...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 683127] Review Request: tpm-quote-tools - TPM-based attestation using the TPM quote operation (tools)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=683127 --- Comment #14 from Daniel Walsh dwa...@redhat.com 2011-07-07 14:26:10 EDT --- William can I sponsor John? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 Andrew Robinson arobi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review+ |fedora-review? --- Comment #6 from Andrew Robinson arobi...@redhat.com 2011-07-07 14:58:56 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: eclipse-wtp-common Short Description: Eclipse Web Tools Platform common libraries. Owners: arobinso akurtakov Branches: f15 InitialCC: akurtakov -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 700427] Review Request: jopt-simple - A Java command line parser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=700427
Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|akurt...@redhat.com
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Comment #7 from Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com 2011-07-07
14:59:36 EDT ---
I would do this one.
Initial issues:
* doesn't build - you use %{_mavenpomdir} in install but
%{_datadir}/maven2/poms in files and they are not equal anymore
* we do not need post/postun calls in F-15 and rawhide (pending FPC approval)
* no need for the Requires(post) postun because of the previous 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 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 Andrew Robinson arobi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+, 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 712522] Review Request: eclipse-wtp-common - Common Web Tools Platform utilities and infrastructure
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=712522 --- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2011-07-07 15:13:44 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 683127] Review Request: tpm-quote-tools - TPM-based attestation using the TPM quote operation (tools)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=683127 --- Comment #15 from William Lima wl...@primate.com.br 2011-07-07 15:42:19 EDT --- (In reply to comment #14) William can I sponsor John? He needs to read the guidelines and docs on packaging. The spec isn't OK yet. I can contact you when he's ready. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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] 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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=719047 Ryan Rix r...@n.rix.si changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Ryan Rix r...@n.rix.si 2011-07-07 15:42:56 EDT --- Woops, my bad . -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 675009] Review Request: c3p0 - JDBC DataSources/Resource Pools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=675009 Levente Farkas lfar...@lfarkas.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||lfar...@lfarkas.org Bug 675009 depends on bug 674082, which changed state. Bug 674082 Summary: Review Request: mchange-commons - A collection of general purpose utilities for c3p0 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=674082 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||ERRATA Status|ON_QA |CLOSED --- Comment #11 from Levente Farkas lfar...@lfarkas.org 2011-07-07 15:41:28 EDT --- i really like to see it in epel too:-) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 719047] 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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=719047 Chris Lalancette clala...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Chris Lalancette clala...@redhat.com 2011-07-07 15:44:01 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: rubygem-vcr Short Description: Record test suite HTTP interactions and replay during future test runs 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 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
Ryan Rix r...@n.rix.si changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||r...@n.rix.si
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|r...@n.rix.si
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Ryan Rix r...@n.rix.si 2011-07-07 15:58:18 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.
[+] 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: 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.
[+] 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).
* Please add a %clean session
[+] 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).
[+] 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.h
[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} =
[Bug 668820] Review Request: rubygem-rdoc - RDoc produces HTML and command-line documentation for Ruby projects
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=668820 Chris Lalancette clala...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||clala...@redhat.com --- Comment #7 from Chris Lalancette clala...@redhat.com 2011-07-07 16:16:43 EDT --- Vit, I took a look at this, and I have to admit I am a bit baffled by the situation. I looked at the latest rdoc sources (https://github.com/rdoc/rdoc) vs. the current upstream ruby sources (https://github.com/ruby/ruby). The sources are identical; indeed, there is a commit in the ruby source code (b7528b5edb1f9148ea00ebb6151720e5943b3f0b) that updates the ruby in-tree code to the latest rdoc git. That seems to say to me that the ruby code is tracking the rdoc, and that the code in the ruby tree is probably the canonical one we should use. That being said, then, we already have a ruby-rdoc package that is built out of the ruby SRPM. Granted, it is a much older version (since Fedora is still on ruby 1.8.7), but it seems to me that we would want to stick with that. At least, adding another gem that does the same thing as the base ruby library seems to be a recipe for confusion. Can we not just patch the railties gemspec to remove (or modify) the rdoc dependency, and then just use the ruby-rdoc package we already have? Is there something else I'm missing here? 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 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 Ryan Rix r...@n.rix.si changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #2 from Ryan Rix r...@n.rix.si 2011-07-07 16:50:56 EDT --- Or, don't worry about %clean, hehe. Guess there's no %clean section required. Thanks for pointing that out to me, Chris. All looks good. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 719757] New: Review Request: apron - Numerical abstract domain 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: apron - Numerical abstract domain library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=719757 Summary: Review Request: apron - Numerical abstract domain library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: loganje...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Spec URL: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/apron/apron.spec SRPM URL: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/apron/apron-0.9.10-1.fc15.src.rpm Description: The APRON library is dedicated to the static analysis of the numerical variables of a program by Abstract Interpretation. The aim of such an analysis is to infer invariants about these variables, like 1=x+y=z, which holds during any execution of the program. The APRON library is intended to be a common interface to various underlying libraries/abstract domains and to provide additional services that can be implemented independently from the underlying library/abstract domain. This package is needed to enable extra functionality in the why 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 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
David Nalley da...@gnsa.us changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|da...@gnsa.us
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Comment #14 from David Nalley da...@gnsa.us 2011-07-07 19:22:50 EDT ---
Kkeithley: Here's the review, there are a number of problems here, but nothing
to painful to fix.
In the meantime, can you do some unofficial reviews, I'll send an email with
some suggestions, but you are by no means bound to those. That will give you
some good experience with the packaging process that a single package won't
achieve.
Thanks for your patience with me on this.
[ ] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package
[ke4qqq@nalleyx200 SPECS]$ rpmlint ./cloudfs.spec
../SRPMS/cloudfs-0.7-1.fc15.src.rpm ../RPMS/x86_64/cloudfs-
cloudfs-0.7-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm
cloudfs-debuginfo-0.7-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm
[ke4qqq@nalleyx200 SPECS]$ rpmlint ./cloudfs.spec
../SRPMS/cloudfs-0.7-1.fc15.src.rpm ../RPMS/x86_64/cloudfs-*
./cloudfs.spec: W: invalid-url Source0:
http://cloudfs.org/dist/0.7/cloudfs-0.7.tgz urlopen error timed out
cloudfs.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US filesystem - file system,
file-system, systemically
cloudfs.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi - mulch, mufti
cloudfs.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US filesystem - file
system, file-system, systemically
cloudfs.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi - mulch, mufti
cloudfs.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /var/run/cloudfs/.idle_ports
cloudfs.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /var/run/cloudfs/.idle_ports
cloudfs.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /var/run/cloudfs/.used_ports
cloudfs.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /var/run/cloudfs/.used_ports
cloudfs.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/glusterfs/3.2.1/xlator/features/libmaprbtree.so
cloudfs.x86_64: W: log-files-without-logrotate /var/log/cloudfs
cloudfs.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cfs_stop_volume.py
cloudfs.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cfs_add_directory.py
cloudfs.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cfs_add_volume.py
cloudfs.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cfs_list_vols.py
cloudfs.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cfs_add_tenant.py
cloudfs.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cfs_rm_volume.py
cloudfs.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cfs_mount.py
cloudfs.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cfs_start_volume.py
cloudfs.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cfs_delete_tenant.py
cloudfs.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cfs_add_node.py
cloudfs.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cfs_enable_tenant.py
cloudfs.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cfs_list_tenants.py
cloudfs.x86_64: W: incoherent-subsys /etc/init.d/cloudfsd $prog
cloudfs-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/cloudfs-0.7/uidmap/rb.h
cloudfs-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/cloudfs-0.7/uidmap/rbmap.c
3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 24 warnings.
These obvious contain lots of non-blockers (such as lack of a man page) and
some false positives. However, please try and make rpmlint shut up as much as
possible.
[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} [...]
[TBD ] 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
[FIX ] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the
actual license
So source contains at least GPLv2 and AGPLV3+, so the license tag is incorrect.
Take a look at:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios
You may also want to consider whether your GPLv2 source can be used with
AGPLv3+ source as they are not compatible.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing
[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.
[FIX ] 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.
So either the sourceurl is broken - or it's the wrong sourceurl.
[OK
[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 David Nalley da...@gnsa.us changed: What|Removed |Added CC||da...@gnsa.us --- Comment #8 from David Nalley da...@gnsa.us 2011-07-07 19:57:28 EDT --- Chris: Please increment release in your spec/srpm when making changes even if trivial, it makes it much easier on the reviewer when installing your SRPM. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Release_Tag In your source URL is there a reason you can't use this as the source URL? https://github.com/wallunit/ssh4py/zipball/0.7.1 It would still have to be a commented troublesome source url, and it'd screw up the macros, but at least it permits upstream source to be verifiable, and less work for others. I don't see it as a blocker, but perhaps something to consider. Kaleb: Can you run rpmlint on this package (spec file, SRPM, and binary RPM(s)) and paste the content in the review. Can you also paste the result of md5sum comparing source in srpm and at Source URL? In this particular case it won't work because of the special means to get to a tarball, but that at least needs to be commented in the review. Thanks for taking this on. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 #15 from David Nalley da...@gnsa.us 2011-07-07 20:00:42 EDT --- Quick update for my own 'records'. Kaleb has performed at least one unofficial review here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=680936 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 #9 from David Nalley da...@gnsa.us 2011-07-07 20:08:54 EDT --- A quick other comment, the license field is incorrect: It's currently set as LGPLv2 when it should be LGPLv2+. The source files have the 'or (at your option) any later version.' clause in the license declaration of the actual source. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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] 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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=719047 --- Comment #8 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2011-07-07 20:55:49 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 683587] Review Request: gsissh - An implementation of the SSH protocol with GSI authentication
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=683587 --- Comment #8 from Brian Bockelman bbock...@cse.unl.edu 2011-07-07 21:20:05 EDT --- Hi Jim, I tried a few approaches: - Re-install the signal handlers after globus is initialized - Hook the OpenSSH signal handlers into the globus callback system. No dice on either. Can you take a whack at it for me? Maybe you'll see something I missed. We still very much desire it! Brian -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 719402] Review Request: OSGi-bundle-ant-task - A wrapper around Bnd to allow easy bundle creation from ant builds
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=719402 Ankur Sinha sanjay.an...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Alias||OSGi-bundle-ant-task --- Comment #1 from Ankur Sinha sanjay.an...@gmail.com 2011-07-07 21:27:22 EDT --- Updated package: http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/OSGi-bundle-ant-task/OSGi-bundle-ant-task-0.2.0-0.2svn1242.fc15.src.rpm http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/OSGi-bundle-ant-task/OSGi-bundle-ant-task.spec [ankur@ankur SRPMS]$ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/result/*.rpm ../SPECS/OSGi-bundle-ant-task.spec OSGi-bundle-ant-task-0.2.0-0.2svn1242.fc15.src.rpm OSGi-bundle-ant-task.noarch: W: no-documentation OSGi-bundle-ant-task.src: W: invalid-url Source0: OSGi-bundle-ant-task.tar.gz ../SPECS/OSGi-bundle-ant-task.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: OSGi-bundle-ant-task.tar.gz OSGi-bundle-ant-task.src: W: invalid-url Source0: OSGi-bundle-ant-task.tar.gz 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 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 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
Ryan Rix r...@n.rix.si changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||r...@n.rix.si
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|r...@n.rix.si
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Ryan Rix r...@n.rix.si 2011-07-07 22:54:24 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.
[+] 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: 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.
[+] 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).
[+] 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.h
[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:
[Bug 693950] Review Request: yagf - Graphical front-end for cuneiform
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=693950 --- Comment #2 from Dmitrij S. Kryzhevich kr...@land.ru 2011-07-08 01:12:22 EDT --- Hm, foget to check debug package. (I think, with locale files there are all OK and the problem in permisions and line-breake symbol) $ rpmlint yagf-0.8.6-2.fc15.src.rpm yagf-0.8.6-2.fc15.x86_64.rpm yagf-debuginfo-0.8.6-2.fc15.x86_64.rpm yagf.spec yagf.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US preprocessing - reprocessing, p reprocessing, teleprocessing yagf.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US preprocessing - reprocessing, p reprocessing, teleprocessing yagf.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary yagf 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. No new warnings. Spec URL: http://krege.fedorapeople.org/yagf/yagf.spec SRPM URL: http://krege.fedorapeople.org/yagf/yagf-0.8.6-2.fc15.src.rpm Changelog: - Fix permesions for debug 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
