[Bug 724936] Review Request: python-mock - A Python Mocking and Patching Library for Testing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=724936 --- Comment #3 from Satya Komaragiri 2011-07-25 03:06:27 EDT --- [X] Package name - ok. [X] Package license - ok [X] package group - ok. [X] Build successful - ok. [X] Install/Un-install - ok. [X] rpmlint output: -ok. SRPM: $ rpmlint python-mock-0.7.2-1.fc15.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. SPEC: $ rpmlint python-mock.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. RPM: $ rpmlint python-mock-0.7.2-1.fc14.noarch.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Overall - 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 724936] Review Request: python-mock - A Python Mocking and Patching Library for Testing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=724936 Satya Komaragiri changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Satya Komaragiri 2011-07-25 03:08:28 EDT --- 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 725228] Review Request: qcodeedit - Qt-Framework for code editing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725228
Martin Gieseking changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|martin.giesek...@uos.de
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Comment #4 from Martin Gieseking 2011-07-25
03:59:38 EDT ---
I had a deeper look at the package and it looks almost fine. There are yet a
few small things to be fixed:
- The URL given in Source0 is invalid. Change it to
http://downloads.sourceforge.net/edyuk/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
- Fix the file permissions that rpmlint complains about (see below)
* add chmod 644 README.txt to %prep
* add chmod 755 %{buildroot}%{_libdir} to %install
- Add qt-devel to the devel package (see comment #2).
- Drop Requires: pkgconfig as there's no .pc file in -devel.
- Replace $RPM_BUILD_ROOT with %{buildroot} to use macros consistently.
- If you don't plan to build the package for EPEL < 6 too, you can drop
rm -rf %{buildroot} from install. Otherwise, add a BuildRoot field and a
%clean section. These are still required for EPEL 4 and 5.
- You can drop option -p from "cp" as option -a already includes -p
implicitly.
- rpmlint doesn't like non-devel packages requiring a devel package. If the
designer subpackage is considered a devel package as well, this is probably
OK.
$ rpmlint *.rpm
qcodeedit.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
http://downloads.sourceforge.net/qcodeedit/2.2.3/qcodeedit-2.2.3.tar.gz HTTP
Error 404: Not Found
qcodeedit.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm
/usr/lib64/libqcodeedit.so.1.0.0 0775L
qcodeedit.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/share/doc/qcodeedit-2.2.3/README.txt
qcodeedit-debuginfo.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/src/debug/qcodeedit-2.2.3/lib/.build
qcodeedit-debuginfo.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/src/debug/qcodeedit-2.2.3/lib/.build
qcodeedit-designer.x86_64: E: devel-dependency qt-devel
qcodeedit-designer.x86_64: W: no-documentation
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 5 warnings.
The hidden files warnings can be ignored.
-
key:
[+] OK
[.] OK, not applicable
[X] needs work
-
[+] 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.
- GPLv3 according to source headers
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[+] MUST: The 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.
$ md5sum qcodeedit-2.2.3.tar.gz*
e2453d8e97c2592a870bbddd51876ad0 qcodeedit-2.2.3.tar.gz
e2453d8e97c2592a870bbddd51876ad0 qcodeedit-2.2.3.tar.gz.1
[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
[.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work ...
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.
[+] MUST: When compiling C, C++, or Fortran files, %{optflags} must be applied.
[.] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly.
[+] MUST: Packages storing shared library files (not just symlinks) must call
ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[+] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[.] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, ...
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates.
[+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in %files.
[X] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
- see rpmlint output
[X] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
- replace $RPM_BUILD_ROOT with %{buildroot}
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[.] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
[+] MUST: Files in %doc must not affect the runtime of the application.
[+] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[.] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[+] MUST: If a package contains .so.* files, then .so files (without suffix)
must go in a -devel package.
[+] MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned
dependency.
[+] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
[.] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the
%instal
[Bug 724936] Review Request: python-mock - A Python Mocking and Patching Library for Testing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=724936 Gianluca Sforna changed: What|Removed |Added CC||gia...@gmail.com --- Comment #5 from Gianluca Sforna 2011-07-25 05:55:00 EDT --- Did anyone try to install this _and_ mock in the same machine? I think we're still clashing (i.e. you will get a conflict on installation), until we fix bug 601725 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 725228] Review Request: qcodeedit - Qt-Framework for code editing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725228 --- Comment #5 from hannes 2011-07-25 06:50:50 EDT --- Thanks for your pretty fast and comprehensive review. I think I fixed all issues now and removed the -designer subpackage as well. SPEC-URL: http://hannes.fedorapeople.org/qcodeedit.spec SRPM-URL: http://hannes.fedorapeople.org/qcodeedit-2.2.3-3.fc15.src.rpm Scratch Build in Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3227198 rpmlint output: rpmlint qcodeedit.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint ../RPMS/x86_64/qcodeedit-2.2.3-3.fc15.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint ../RPMS/x86_64/qcodeedit-devel-2.2.3-3.fc15.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint ../RPMS/x86_64/qcodeedit-debuginfo-2.2.3-3.fc15.x86_64.rpm qcodeedit-debuginfo.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/src/debug/qcodeedit-2.2.3/lib/.build qcodeedit-debuginfo.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/src/debug/qcodeedit-2.2.3/lib/.build 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 717019] Review Request: tncfhh - An open source implementation of the Trusted Network Connect (TNC) 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=717019 Jan F. Chadima changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE Last Closed||2011-07-25 07:04:35 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 722993] Review Request: kate - Advanced Text Editor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=722993 Jaroslav Reznik changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Jaroslav Reznik 2011-07-25 07:36:12 EDT --- Name: ok Summary: ok License: ok Url: ok but what about using http://kate-editor.org/ (not a blocker) Source: ok (md5sum 6e2c9738995fa1da32aa34c593998d97) BRs: ok Requires: ok Description: ok (more detailed in subpackages) Conflicts for all subpackages: ok Macros consistency: ok Find lang: ok Desktop file validation: ok Icons cache: ok Ldconfig: ok docs: ok Devel/lib subpackages: ok rpmlint kate-4.6.95-1.fc15.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. 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 676608] Review Request: rubygem-delayed_job - Database-backed asynchronous priority queue system -- Extracted from Shopify
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=676608
--- Comment #2 from Vít Ondruch 2011-07-25 07:45:27 EDT
---
I have uploaded updated version of delayed_job:
Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/vondruch/rubygem-delayed_job.spec
SRPM URL:
http://people.redhat.com/vondruch/rubygem-delayed_job-2.1.4-1.fc16.src.rpm
Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3227264
(In reply to comment #1)
> Taking this one. Overall looks good
>
> - the latest upstream release is 2.1.4, please consider updating
done
> - could you remove references in the summary / description to 'shopify'
done
> - the rspec2 components are now in fedora, can we drop the patch to the spec
> suite?
done
> - there is one rpmlint warning to note:
> rubygem-delayed_job.noarch: E: non-executable-script
> /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/delayed_job-2.1.3/lib/generators/delayed_job/templates/script
> 0644L /usr/bin/env
Actually this is Rails generator template, therefore it contains shebang, while
it is not intended to be executed from current location, so the error is false
positive.
> - defaultattr is no longer necessary in files section an should be removed
done
> - the package should own the %dir %{geminstdir} should it not
done
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 725228] Review Request: qcodeedit - Qt-Framework for code editing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725228 --- Comment #6 from Rex Dieter 2011-07-25 07:55:47 EDT --- The designer plugin ought to go in the main pkg, not -devel, as it can be loaded at runtime. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 725228] Review Request: qcodeedit - Qt-Framework for code editing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725228 --- Comment #7 from hannes 2011-07-25 08:07:37 EDT --- Fixed. Should be fine now, or? SPEC-URL: http://hannes.fedorapeople.org/qcodeedit.spec SRPM-URL: http://hannes.fedorapeople.org/qcodeedit-2.2.3-4.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 722204] Review Request: calligra - An integrated office suite
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=722204 Jaroslav Reznik changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||jrez...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jrez...@redhat.com Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 724810] aeolus-all - A meta-package to pull in all components for Aeolus
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=724810 Mo Morsi changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Mo Morsi 2011-07-25 08:20:06 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: rubygem-aeolus-all Short Description: A meta-package to pull in all aeolus components Owners: mmorsi 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 721066] Review Request: rubygem-imagefactory-console - QMF Console for Aeolus Image Factory
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=721066 Mo Morsi changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #15 from Mo Morsi 2011-07-25 08:18:15 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: rubygem-imagefactory-console Short Description: QMF Console for Aeolus Image Factory Owners: mmorsi 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 721069] Review Request: rubygem-aeolus-image - Commandline interface for working with the Aeolus cloud suite
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=721069 Mo Morsi changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE Last Closed||2011-07-25 08:20:22 --- Comment #17 from Mo Morsi 2011-07-25 08:20:22 EDT --- Pushed to rawhide and built. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 723581] aeolus-configure - Aeolus Configure Puppet Recipe
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=723581 --- Comment #3 from Mo Morsi 2011-07-25 08:43:54 EDT --- Spec: http://mo.morsi.org/files/aeolus/aeolus-configure.spec SRPM: http://mo.morsi.org/files/aeolus/aeolus-configure-2.0.1-4.src.rpm (In reply to comment #2) > Well, we actually have tarballs now, so we should update this to use the > tarballs: > > http://repos.fedorapeople.org/repos/aeolus/aeolus-configure/2.0.1/tarball/ > Done > rpmlint complains a bit: > > [clalance@localhost SPECS]$ rpmlint > aeolus-configure.noarch: E: non-executable-script > /usr/share/aeolus-configure/modules/aeolus/templates/deltacloud-core 0644L > /bin/bash > aeolus-configure.noarch: E: zero-length > /usr/share/aeolus-configure/modules/ntp/README > > To shut rpmlint up, I would suggest just doing chmod +x on that > deltacloud-core > file, and removing the ntp/README file. Done. templates/deltacloud-core is now marked as executable Removed the empty ntp/README file > [ OK ] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines > The Source of the package must be the full URL to the released Gem archive > See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Ruby#Ruby_Gems > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL Done > [ 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 - clalance: there is no license specified in the > upstream sources anywhere. We should push a patch to upstream to make the > license clear, and also include it in the package. Seems to be the case w/ a few of the aeolus components. We should go through and add the license file to them all. We can address this for the next release. Since the license field is correct in the spec file, leaving this as is for now. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 722993] Review Request: kate - Advanced Text Editor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=722993 Rex Dieter changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Rex Dieter 2011-07-25 08:48:04 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: kate Short Description: Advanced Text Editor Owners: than rdieter jreznik kkofler ltinkl rnovacek rrix Branches: f15 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 721066] Review Request: rubygem-imagefactory-console - QMF Console for Aeolus Image Factory
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=721066 --- Comment #16 from Jon Ciesla 2011-07-25 08:49:05 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 724810] aeolus-all - A meta-package to pull in all components for Aeolus
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=724810 --- Comment #3 from Jon Ciesla 2011-07-25 08:50:56 EDT --- Review subject and SCM request disagree on package name, please rectify. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 722993] Review Request: kate - Advanced Text Editor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=722993 --- Comment #3 from Jon Ciesla 2011-07-25 08:54:20 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 723991] Review Request: libvirt-qmf - matahari agent for libvirt (replaces libvirt-qpid)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=723991 Zane Bitter changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2011-07-25 09:06:02 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE Last Closed||2011-07-25 09:11:24 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 721066] Review Request: rubygem-imagefactory-console - QMF Console for Aeolus Image Factory
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=721066 Mo Morsi changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE Last Closed||2011-07-25 09:23:28 --- Comment #17 from Mo Morsi 2011-07-25 09:23:28 EDT --- Pushed to rawhide and built. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 725228] Review Request: qcodeedit - Qt-Framework for code editing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725228
--- Comment #8 from Martin Gieseking 2011-07-25
09:26:12 EDT ---
I just checked the dependencies again, and noticed that you can drop Require:
qt-devel from the base package. Package qt-x11 provides the plugin directory
and libQtDesigner.so.4. Since the base package depends on libQtDesigner.so.4,
there's no need for qt-devel here.
I also forgot to add the filenames in comment #4. The chmod statement in
%install should look like this:
chmod 755 %{buildroot}%{_libdir}/lib%{name}.so.*
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 724810] aeolus-all - A meta-package to pull in all components for Aeolus
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=724810 Mo Morsi changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Mo Morsi 2011-07-25 09:29:56 EDT --- (In reply to comment #3) > Review subject and SCM request disagree on package name, please rectify. Err srry bout that, copy-n-paste error New Package SCM Request === Package Name: aeolus-all Short Description: A meta-package to pull in all aeolus components Owners: mmorsi 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 722249] Review Request: python-hl7 - Python library parsing HL7 v2.x and v3.x messages
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=722249 --- Comment #10 from Ankur Sinha 2011-07-25 09:33:16 EDT --- Thank you for the review Brandon :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 722249] Review Request: python-hl7 - Python library parsing HL7 v2.x messages
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=722249 Ankur Sinha changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Summary|Review Request: python-hl7 |Review Request: python-hl7 |- Python library parsing |- Python library parsing |HL7 v2.x and v3.x messages |HL7 v2.x messages Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #11 from Ankur Sinha 2011-07-25 09:34:42 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-hl7 Short Description: Python library parsing HL7 v2.x messages Owners: ankursinha Branches: f14 f15 InitialCC: susmit mrceresa -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 722249] Review Request: python-hl7 - Python library parsing HL7 v2.x messages
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=722249 --- Comment #12 from Jon Ciesla 2011-07-25 09:40:46 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 724810] aeolus-all - A meta-package to pull in all components for Aeolus
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=724810 --- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla 2011-07-25 09:42:11 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 644711] Review Request: diaser - disk based backup volume accumulator, replication and management system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=644711
--- Comment #13 from Damian L Brasher 2011-07-25
09:47:47 EDT ---
Hello Martin
packaged tarball now matches upstream:
$ md5sum diaser-1.1.0.tar.gz*
fa29fdf1b78d55127a4070f3f6497943 diaser-1.1.0.tar.gz
fa29fdf1b78d55127a4070f3f6497943 diaser-1.1.0.tar.gz.1
- diaser is a plain sysadmin tool and files located in these directories
(diaser is a script/binary):
$ rpm -ql diaser
/usr/sbin/diaser
/usr/share/doc/diaser-1.1.0
/usr/share/doc/diaser-1.1.0/COPYING
/usr/share/doc/diaser-1.1.0/CREDITS
/usr/share/doc/diaser-1.1.0/README
/usr/share/doc/diaser-1.1.0/WARNING
/usr/share/doc/diaser-1.1.0/diaser.conf.sample
/usr/share/doc/diaser-1.1.0/manual.html
/usr/share/doc/diaser-1.1.0/manual.txt
/usr/share/man/man1/diaser.1.gz
- the diaser config file (diaser.conf) has been renamed to diaser.conf.sample,
this change is reflected upstream.
- the macro %{name} is used consistently within %install and %files instead of
diaser.
- %changelog now only lists downstream package/spec changes.
- the revision number has been added to each change log entry as specified.
$ rpmlint SRPMS/diaser-1.1.0-1.fc15.src.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
$ rpmlint RPMS/noarch/diaser-1.1.0-1.fc15.noarch.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
$ rpmlint SPECS/diaser.spec
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[makerpm@fedora15 rpmbuild]$
I do need a sponsor and your offer will be appreciated:)
In addition to previous informal reviews, I will let you know which packages I
have reviewed - I am making a start now.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 722993] Review Request: kate - Advanced Text Editor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=722993 Rex Dieter changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE Last Closed||2011-07-25 09:58:27 --- Comment #4 from Rex Dieter 2011-07-25 09:58:27 EDT --- imported -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 725228] Review Request: qcodeedit - Qt-Framework for code editing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725228 --- Comment #9 from hannes 2011-07-25 09:59:08 EDT --- SPEC-URL: http://hannes.fedorapeople.org/qcodeedit.spec SRPM-URL: http://hannes.fedorapeople.org/qcodeedit-2.2.3-5.fc15.src.rpm Alright fixed this! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 724859] NewLisp - Package Review - Lisp-like general scripting language
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=724859 Nathan Owe 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 724859] NewLisp - Package Review - Lisp-like general scripting language
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=724859 --- Comment #10 from Nathan Owe 2011-07-25 10:04:19 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: newlisp Short Description: Lisp-like general scripting language Owners: ndowens Branches: f15 f16 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 724810] aeolus-all - A meta-package to pull in all components for Aeolus
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=724810 Mo Morsi changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE Last Closed||2011-07-25 10:03:44 --- Comment #6 from Mo Morsi 2011-07-25 10:03:44 EDT --- Pushed to rawhide and built -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 725128] Review Request: phat - GTK library for audio software
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725128
Martin Gieseking changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|martin.giesek...@uos.de
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Comment #6 from Martin Gieseking 2011-07-25
10:06:03 EDT ---
The package looks fine now. If you want to build it for EPEL < 6 too, you have
to add Requires: pkgconfig to the devel package. Otherwise, you can drop all
the buildroot stuff, but that's not a blocker.
$ rpmlint *.rpm
phat.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary phatsliderbutton
phat.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary phatkeyboard
phat.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary phatknob
phat.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary phatfanslider
phat.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary phatpad
phat-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/phat-0.4.1/phat/phatknob.c
phat-devel.i686: W: no-documentation
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 6 warnings.
-
key:
[+] OK
[.] OK, not applicable
[X] needs work
-
[+] 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.
- GPLv2+
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[+] MUST: The 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.
$ md5sum phat-0.4.1.tar.gz*
b8d1d3ae0d7094d705a33753fe821ebc phat-0.4.1.tar.gz
b8d1d3ae0d7094d705a33753fe821ebc phat-0.4.1.tar.gz.1
[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
[.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, ...
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.
[+] MUST: When compiling C, C++, or Fortran files, %{optflags} must be applied.
[.] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly.
[+] MUST: Packages storing shared library files (not just symlinks) must call
ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[+] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[.] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, ...
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates.
[+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in %files.
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[+] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
[+] MUST: Files in %doc must not affect the runtime of the application.
[+] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[.] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[+] MUST: If a package contains .so files with a suffix, then .so (without
suffix) must go in a -devel package.
[+] MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned
dependency.
[+] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
[.] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file,...
- the sample (GUI) applications don't need .desktop files as they are
plain demos without any useful functionality to the user.
[+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
[+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
EPEL <= 5 only:
[+] MUST: The spec file must contain a valid BuildRoot field.
[+] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf
%{buildroot}.
[+] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot}.
[X] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'
[.] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[+] 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.
[+] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane.
[+] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency.
[+] SHOULD: pkgconfig(.pc) files should be placed in a -dev
[Bug 723581] aeolus-configure - Aeolus Configure Puppet Recipe
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=723581 Chris Lalancette changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Chris Lalancette 2011-07-25 10:09:53 EDT --- Looks OK to me. 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 720864] Review Request: gadmin-httpd - Apache GUI tool - First package
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=720864 Nathan Owe 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 722812] Review Request: worker - X11 File manager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=722812 Nathan Owe 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 723581] aeolus-configure - Aeolus Configure Puppet Recipe
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=723581 --- Comment #6 from Mo Morsi 2011-07-25 10:14:47 EDT --- Err, mistake in description New Package SCM Request === Package Name: aeolus-configure Short Description: Aeolus Configure Puppet Recipe Owners: mmorsi 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 723581] aeolus-configure - Aeolus Configure Puppet Recipe
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=723581 Mo Morsi changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Mo Morsi 2011-07-25 10:14:07 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: aeolus-configure Short Description: Aeolus Configure Puppet Review Owners: mmorsi 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 699843] Review Request: dsi - Invading aliens type game
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=699843 Martin Gieseking changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||martin.giesek...@uos.de AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|martin.giesek...@uos.de 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 644711] Review Request: diaser - disk based backup volume accumulator, replication and management system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=644711 Martin Gieseking changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|martin.giesek...@uos.de Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #14 from Martin Gieseking 2011-07-25 10:19:31 EDT --- OK, fine. Please always provide URLs to the updated spec and srpm files if you changed anything during a review. This way it's easier for the reviewers the pick the correct files. I'll sponsor you once you've finished a few informal reviews. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 723581] aeolus-configure - Aeolus Configure Puppet Recipe
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=723581 --- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla 2011-07-25 10:31:06 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 725228] Review Request: qcodeedit - Qt-Framework for code editing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725228 --- Comment #10 from Martin Gieseking 2011-07-25 10:31:53 EDT --- Not quite, sorry. You should drop Requires: qt-devel from the base package but keep it for -devel. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 722249] Review Request: python-hl7 - Python library parsing HL7 v2.x messages
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=722249 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System 2011-07-25 10:37:54 EDT --- python-hl7-0.2.0-2.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-hl7-0.2.0-2.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 725228] Review Request: qcodeedit - Qt-Framework for code editing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725228 --- Comment #11 from Rex Dieter 2011-07-25 10:38:07 EDT --- And (with my qt maintainer hat on), deps of the form: Requires: qt4-devel or Requires: pkgconfig(QtGui) are preferable to Requires: qt-devel -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 722249] Review Request: python-hl7 - Python library parsing HL7 v2.x messages
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=722249 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 722249] Review Request: python-hl7 - Python library parsing HL7 v2.x messages
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=722249 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System 2011-07-25 10:39:11 EDT --- python-hl7-0.2.0-2.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-hl7-0.2.0-2.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 725200] Review Request: raptor2 - RDF Parser Toolkit for Redland
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725200 Rex Dieter changed: What|Removed |Added Alias||raptor2 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 725200] Review Request: raptor2 - RDF Parser Toolkit for Redland
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725200 --- Comment #5 from Rex Dieter 2011-07-25 10:51:56 EDT --- After taking a closer look, newer rasqal's (and soprano) require raptor2 anyway, so not using it isn't an option anyway. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 722249] Review Request: python-hl7 - Python library parsing HL7 v2.x messages
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=722249 Ankur Sinha changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Resolution||CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed||2011-07-25 10:55:34 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 573917] Review Request: perl-NetPacket-SpanningTree - Assemble and disassemble IEEE 802.1D Spanning Tree protocol packets
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=573917 Tom "spot" Callaway changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|182235(FE-Legal)| --- Comment #14 from Tom "spot" Callaway 2011-07-25 11:05:38 EDT --- 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 723756] Review Request: bliss - Compute automorphism groups and canonical labelings of graphs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=723756 Jon Ciesla changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||l...@jcomserv.net AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|l...@jcomserv.net Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Jon Ciesla 2011-07-25 11:05:11 EDT --- Good: - rpmlint checks return: A few trivial and/or erroneous spelling issues and: bliss-libs.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libbliss.so.0.72 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 This library package calls exit() or _exit(), probably in a non-fork() context. Doing so from a library is strongly discouraged - when a library function calls exit(), it prevents the calling program from handling the error, reporting it to the user, closing files properly, and cleaning up any state that the program has. It is preferred for the library to return an actual error code and let the calling program decide how to handle the situation. This would be relly good to fix, or at least nag upstream about. - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - license ( GPLv3 ) OK, text in %doc, matches source - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream - package compiles on devel (x86_64) - no missing BR - no unnecessary BR - no locales - not relocatable - owns all directories that it creates - no duplicate files - permissions ok - %clean ok - macro use consistent - code, not content - no need for -docs - nothing in %doc affects runtime - no need for .desktop file EXTRA STUFF FOR PACKAGES WITH DEVEL == - devel package ok - no .la files - post/postun ldconfig ok - devel requires base package n-v-r So, looks good, generally. I'm running a mock build to double-check BRs, and I'm curious on your views vis-a-vis exit(). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 725200] Review Request: raptor2 - RDF Parser Toolkit for Redland
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725200 --- Comment #6 from Orcan Ogetbil 2011-07-25 11:09:51 EDT --- Hmm, I wonder if our raptor1 applications will mind this combination (i.e. some might need raptor1 together with the redland that is compatible with raptor1). I'll have time tonight or tomorrow to check if we can get away with it easily. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 725139] Review Request: lastuser - User management application
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725139 --- Comment #5 from Praveen Kumar 2011-07-25 11:15:09 EDT --- (In reply to comment #4) > [?] Spec file has the same ChangeLog message. Sorry, my mistake. Spec URL: http://kumarpraveen.fedorapeople.org/lastuser/lastuser.spec SRPM URL:http://kumarpraveen.fedorapeople.org/lastuser/lastuser-0.1-2.20110724gitf41a49.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 725200] Review Request: raptor2 - RDF Parser Toolkit for Redland
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725200 --- Comment #7 from Rex Dieter 2011-07-25 11:19:32 EDT --- $ repoquery --whatrequires 'libraptor.so.1()(64bit)' (pruned) ardour-0:2.8.11-7.fc15.x86_64 flickcurl-0:1.18-2.fc15.x86_64 liblicense-0:0.8.1-5.x86_64 liblrdf-0:0.4.0-17.fc15.x86_64 librawstudio-0:2.0-1.fc15.x86_64 rasqal-0:0.9.21-2.fc15.x86_64 rawstudio-0:2.0-1.fc15.x86_64 redland-0:1.0.12-3.fc15.x86_64 sonic-visualiser-0:1.8-1.fc15.x86_64 of these, rasqal,redland are part of the stack in question. of the others, I checked that sonic-visualizer, at least, only supports raptor(1) so, that leaves, ardour, flickcurl, liblicense, liblrdf, (lib)rawstudio to check. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 723756] Review Request: bliss - Compute automorphism groups and canonical labelings of graphs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=723756 --- Comment #2 from Jon Ciesla 2011-07-25 11:21:26 EDT --- Mock build was good, so the BRs are as well. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 725200] Review Request: raptor2 - RDF Parser Toolkit for Redland
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725200 --- Comment #8 from Rex Dieter 2011-07-25 11:24:49 EDT --- ardour here comes from indirect deps in liblrdf (probably overlinking) liblrdf uses raptor(1) only, should be ok flickcurl, ditto, ok rawstudio BR's flickcurl, probably the same as ardour above (harmless overlinking) So, looks like other packages that currently BR: raptor-devel should be unaffected by introducing raptor2. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 725200] Review Request: raptor2 - RDF Parser Toolkit for Redland
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725200 --- Comment #9 from Rex Dieter 2011-07-25 11:26:13 EDT --- oh, and liblicense uses raptor(1) only, similar to liblrdf, flickcurl. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 644711] Review Request: diaser - disk based backup volume accumulator, replication and management system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=644711 --- Comment #15 from Damian L Brasher 2011-07-25 11:45:06 EDT --- Upstream changes: incorporated final some minor URL/contact detail changes. Downstream changes: removed a legacy alpha WARNING and added the pdf manual. SPEC URL: http://diaser.git.sourceforge.net/git/gitweb.cgi?p=diaser/diaser;a=blob_plain;f=diaser.spec;hb=HEAD SRPM URL: http://sourceforge.net/projects/diaser/files/diaser/1.1.0-beta3-dev/diaser-1.1.0-1.fc15.src.rpm $rpmlint SPECS/diaser.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint SRPMS/diaser-1.1.0-1.fc15.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint RPMS/noarch/diaser-1.1.0-1.fc15.noarch.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ md5sum diaser-1.1.0.tar.gz* 04251752305ecc9bc6a961985dcd6867 diaser-1.1.0.tar.gz 04251752305ecc9bc6a961985dcd6867 diaser-1.1.0.tar.gz.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 723616] Review Request: eclipse-gcov - Eclipse plug-ins for gcov support
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=723616 Andrew Robinson changed: What|Removed |Added CC||arobi...@redhat.com --- Comment #1 from Andrew Robinson 2011-07-25 11:52:01 EDT --- Just some preliminary comments: Remove the Buildroot definition, it is no longer needed. Remove %defattr(-,root,root,-). Remove the entire %clean section. Install the pom.xml files using add_to_maven_depmap. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 724936] Review Request: python-mock - A Python Mocking and Patching Library for Testing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=724936 Praveen Kumar changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||601725 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 676335] Review Request: dmtcp - Checkpoint/Restart functionality for Linux processes
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=676335 --- Comment #19 from Kapil Arya 2011-07-25 12:10:45 EDT --- Thanks for the info Neal. This problem has been fixed upstream by adding dependency-tracking option to top-level configure.ac. I will put the updated links to sprm and spec file in a few hours. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 721112] Review Request: vmtk - The Vascular Modeling Toolkit
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=721112 Richard Shaw changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||705885 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 723616] Review Request: eclipse-gcov - Eclipse plug-ins for gcov support
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=723616 Alexander Kurtakov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||akurt...@redhat.com --- Comment #2 from Alexander Kurtakov 2011-07-25 12:18:42 EDT --- 2 things: * There is no point to install the pom for now - because we don't have functional tycho yet and the linuxtools parent. * add_maven_depmap is the new macro which is a lot easier to use though this might be a bit irrelevant for this review -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 705319] Review Request: sombok - Unicode Text Segmentation Package
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=705319 --- Comment #1 from Damian L Brasher 2011-07-25 12:35:21 EDT --- Initial informal review: $ rpmlint sombok-2.0.5-1.fc14.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint sombok.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Successfully compiled into binary rpms and installed. Both: sombok-2.0.5-1.fc15.i686.rpm sombok-devel-2.0.5-1.fc15.i686.rpm Damian -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 644711] Review Request: diaser - disk based backup volume accumulator, replication and management system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=644711
--- Comment #16 from Martin Gieseking 2011-07-25
12:44:48 EDT ---
OK, the package looks almost fine now. If you provide a new revision of a
package, please always increase the release number, or reset it to 1 in case of
a new upstream version, and document the changes in a new %changelog entry.
This avoids confusion about the different revisions provided.
Please drop all the explicit "Requires" because the dependencies are detected
automatically (check it with rpm -qRp FOO.rpm). If a dependency isn't resolved
automatically, use the corresponding virtual naming rather than the actual
package name as described here:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Perl#Perl_Requires_and_Provides
If you want to maintain the package for EPEL 4 as well, you must add
%defattr(-,root,root,-) at the top of the %files section.
The buildroot stuff (BuildRoot field, %clean section, and cleaning of the
buildroot in %install) is only required for EPEL < 6. You can drop them
otherwise. But that's optional.
$ rpmlint *.rpm
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
-
key:
[+] OK
[.] OK, not applicable
[X] needs work
-
[+] 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.
- GPLv3 according to script header
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[+] MUST: The 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.
$ md5sum diaser-1.1.0.tar.gz*
04251752305ecc9bc6a961985dcd6867 diaser-1.1.0.tar.gz
04251752305ecc9bc6a961985dcd6867 diaser-1.1.0.tar.gz.1
[.] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
[.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, ...
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.
[.] MUST: When compiling C, C++, or Fortran files, %{optflags} must be applied.
[.] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly.
[.] MUST: Packages storing shared library files (not just symlinks) must call
ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[+] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[.] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, ...
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates.
[+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in %files.
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
[.] MUST: Packages must not provide RPM dependency information when that
information is not global in nature, or are otherwise handled.
[.] MUST: When filtering automatically generated RPM dependency information,
the filtering system implemented by Fedora must be used.
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[.] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
[+] MUST: Files in %doc must not affect the runtime of the application.
[.] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[.] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[.] 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.
[.] MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned
dependency.
[.] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
[.] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file
[+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
[+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
EPEL <= 5 only:
[+] MUST: The spec file must contain a valid BuildRoot field.
[+] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf
%{buildroot}.
[+] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot}.
[.] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'
[.] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[+] SHOULD: Timestamps of files should be preserved.
[+] 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 d
[Bug 676608] Review Request: rubygem-delayed_job - Database-backed asynchronous priority queue system -- Extracted from Shopify
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=676608 Mo Morsi changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Mo Morsi 2011-07-25 12:59:13 EDT --- Looks good. 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 608575] Review Request: tinymce-spellchecker - TinyMCE spellchecker plugin
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=608575 --- Comment #3 from Tim Lauridsen 2011-07-25 13:07:01 EDT --- I will review this package -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 608575] Review Request: tinymce-spellchecker - TinyMCE spellchecker plugin
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=608575 Tim Lauridsen changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|t...@rasmil.dk -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 608575] Review Request: tinymce-spellchecker - TinyMCE spellchecker plugin
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=608575 Tim Lauridsen changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 608575] Review Request: tinymce-spellchecker - TinyMCE spellchecker plugin
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=608575 Tim Lauridsen 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 725504] New: Review Request: jsoup - Java library for working with real-world HTML
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: jsoup - Java library for working with real-world HTML https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725504 Summary: Review Request: jsoup - Java library for working with real-world HTML Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: jca...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Spec URL: http://jcapik.fedorapeople.org/files/jsoup/1/jsoup.spec SRPM URL: http://jcapik.fedorapeople.org/files/jsoup/1/jsoup-1.6.1-1.fc15.src.rpm Description: jsoup is a Java library for working with real-world HTML. It provides a very convenient API for extracting and manipulating data, using the best of DOM, CSS, and jquery-like methods. jsoup implements the WHATWG HTML5 specification, and parses HTML to the same DOM as modern browsers do. - scrape and parse HTML from a URL, file, or string - find and extract data, using DOM traversal or CSS selectors - manipulate the HTML elements, attributes, and text - clean user-submitted content against a safe white-list, to prevent XSS attacks - output tidy HTML jsoup is designed to deal with all varieties of HTML found in the wild; from pristine and validating, to invalid tag-soup; jsoup will create a sensible parse tree. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 725504] Review Request: jsoup - Java library for working with real-world HTML
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725504 Jaromír Cápík changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||652183(FE-JAVASIG) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 693664] Review Request: supybot-gribble - Cross-platform support bot based on supybot
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=693664 --- Comment #29 from Fedora Update System 2011-07-25 14:15:21 EDT --- supybot-gribble-0.83.4.1-8.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/supybot-gribble-0.83.4.1-8.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 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 #16 from Richard Shaw 2011-07-25 14:18:34 EDT --- I think what Kevin was referring to is that you've incremented the releases appropriately in the changelog but "Release:" in your spec file (and therefore the resulting SRPM) is still "1". Some other thoughts... 1. I would remove "%check" since it's empty. 2. This only aids readability, but I always leave two empty lines between major sections in the spec file, i.e: Between %prep, %build, %install, %files, etc. 3. The last line in your %files section has "#doc Doc/" instead of "%doc Doc/", is this intentional? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 725267] Review Request: qodem - Qodem terminal emulator and communications package
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725267 Mario Blättermann changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mari...@freenet.de AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mari...@freenet.de -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 725228] Review Request: qcodeedit - Qt-Framework for code editing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725228 --- Comment #12 from hannes 2011-07-25 14:43:54 EDT --- SPEC-URL: http://hannes.fedorapeople.org/qcodeedit.spec SRPM-URL: http://hannes.fedorapeople.org/qcodeedit-2.2.3-6.fc15.src.rpm Ok, like this? Quite confusing ;-) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 725228] Review Request: qcodeedit - Qt-Framework for code editing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725228 Martin Gieseking changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #13 from Martin Gieseking 2011-07-25 15:02:56 EDT --- Yes. The package looks good now. :) 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 725228] Review Request: qcodeedit - Qt-Framework for code editing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725228 --- Comment #14 from Rex Dieter 2011-07-25 15:08:58 EDT --- I still see 1 small problem $RPM_OPT_FLAGS aren't being used when building libqcodeedit due to it building in debug mode by default. I'd suggest removing the line CONFIG += debug from at least lib/lib.pro and perhaps from qcodeedit.pro too (the latter seems to set _DEBUG_BUILD_ or _RELEASE_BUILD_ defines, but neither of these seem to be used in code anywhere that I can tell). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 725267] Review Request: qodem - Qodem terminal emulator and communications package
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725267
Mario Blättermann changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Comment #3 from Mario Blättermann 2011-07-25 15:23:09
EDT ---
Koji scratch build for F15:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3228372
The output of rpmlint is almost OK. Spelling errors could be ignored. There's
an incorrect FSF address in some files, but if you have reported the bug
upstream (and upstream is responsible) you may leave the appropriate files
untouched for the time being.
Please change the summary so that it doesn't include the package name. Not a
blocker, but would be nice to make rpmlint happy again...
You was forgotten to add the documentation files. Please add AUTHORS,
ChangeLog, COPYING, CREDITS, NEWS, README and TODO to your package.
-
key:
[+] OK
[.] OK, not applicable
[X] needs work
-
[+] 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.
GPLv2+
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[X] MUST: The 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.
"Spelling errors" are ignoreable.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source.
$ md5sum *
36f0effbde999f7138eb94d773c0412d qodem-0.3.2.tar.gz
36f0effbde999f7138eb94d773c0412d qodem-0.3.2.tar.gz.packaged
[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
- See Koji build above.
[.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, ...
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.
[+] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly.
[.] MUST: If a package installs files below %{_datadir}/icons, the icon cache
must be updated.
[.] MUST: Packages storing shared library files (not just symlinks) must call
ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[.] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[.] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, ...
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates.
[+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in %files.
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
[+] MUST: Packages must not provide RPM dependency information when that
information is not global in nature, or are otherwise handled.
[.] MUST: When filtering automatically generated RPM dependency information,
the filtering system implemented by Fedora must be used.
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[.] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
[+] MUST: Files in %doc must not affect the runtime of the application.
[.] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[.] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[.] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g.
libfoo.so.1.1), ...
[.] MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned
dependency.
[.] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
[+] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file
[+] MUST: .desktop files must be properly installed with desktop-file-install
in the %install section.
[+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
[+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
[.] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream...
[+] SHOULD: Timestamps of files should be preserved.
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
See Koji build above (which uses mock anyway)
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described.
I assume the packager has tested it.
[.] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane.
[.] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency.
[.] SHOULD: pkgconfig(.pc) files should be placed in a -devel pkg.
[.] SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin,
/usr/bin, or /usr/sbin ...
[+] SHOULD: Your packa
[Bug 684938] Review Request: wmdrawer - Retractable button bar launcher dockapp
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=684938 Richard Shaw changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||hobbes1...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|hobbes1...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #3 from Richard Shaw 2011-07-25 15:28:42 EDT --- Ok, first things first! :) Looking at the spec file you're copying INSTALL with the %doc's. I've noticed several packages do this but you don't need the install directions since we're building a binary package, also, the guidelines say to leave it out. I built the package under mock for F14 x86_64 and I get the following rpmlint output: """ $ rpmlint *.rpm wmdrawer.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) dockapp -> dock app, dock-app, dockage wmdrawer.src: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found de wmdrawer.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dockapp -> dock app, dock-app, dockage wmdrawer.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US usr -> use, us, user wmdrawer.src: W: file-size-mismatch wmdrawer-0.10.5.tar.gz = 49109, http://people.easter-eggs.org/~valos/wmdrawer/wmdrawer-0.10.5.tar.gz = 49479 wmdrawer.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) dockapp -> dock app, dock-app, dockage wmdrawer.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dockapp -> dock app, dock-app, dockage wmdrawer.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/wmdrawer-0.10.5/ChangeLog wmdrawer.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/wmdrawer-0.10.5/wmdrawer-it.sgml wmdrawer.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/wmdrawer-0.10.5/wmdrawer-it.sgml wmdrawer.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/wmdrawer-0.10.5/AUTHORS wmdrawer.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/wmdrawer-0.10.5/COPYING wmdrawer-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/wmdrawer-0.10.5/graphics.c wmdrawer-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/wmdrawer-0.10.5/config.c wmdrawer-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/wmdrawer-0.10.5/utils.c wmdrawer-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/wmdrawer-0.10.5/images.c wmdrawer-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/wmdrawer-0.10.5/types_defs.h wmdrawer-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/wmdrawer-0.10.5/wmdrawer.c 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 7 errors, 10 warnings. """ 1. Problem: The file-size-mismatch. Did you alter the source archive? Or maybe upstream tweaked something without creating a new version? 2. All the wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding and file-not-utf8 errors should probably be fixed with "dos2linux -k " after "make install". 3. The incorrect-fsf-address is nothing you can fix but should be reported upstream. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 725267] Review Request: qodem - Qodem terminal emulator and communications package
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725267 --- Comment #4 from Mario Blättermann 2011-07-25 15:37:20 EDT --- ...Forget about what I wrote about the wrote about the docs. I've swapped the tabs in gedit by accidence, sorry... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 #25 from William Lima 2011-07-25 15:35:52
EDT ---
Your Source0 could be:
http://downloads.sourceforge.net/tpmquotetools/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
by the way, why are you using "tpmquotetools" instead of "tpm-quote-tools"
as project name under sf.net?
the gzip'ed tarball provided by sf.net differs from your latest srpm. why?
- http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 723756] Review Request: bliss - Compute automorphism groups and canonical labelings of graphs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=723756 --- Comment #3 from Jerry James 2011-07-25 15:59:59 EDT --- Thanks for the review, Jon. (In reply to comment #1) > So, looks good, generally. I'm running a mock build to double-check BRs, and > I'm curious on your views vis-a-vis exit(). I agree. I hate it when library authors call exit(). I looked in the source code to see why this library does so. There is one call to exit(), in a function named fatal_error(). That function is called in the following situations: - a memory allocation failed - an internal assert()-like function failed - heap corruption was detected I'll talk to the upstream author about returning appropriate error codes instead of calling exit() in these situations. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 644711] Review Request: diaser - disk based backup volume accumulator, replication and management system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=644711 --- Comment #17 from Damian L Brasher 2011-07-25 15:43:36 EDT --- Thanks Martin. I have added a changelog entry to record today's changes. If I understand correctly, the package is not yet built, so I can reset the version release with a new entry. %changelog * Mon Jul 25 2011 Damian L Brasher 1.1.0-1 - Red Hat Bugzilla Bug 644711 Review Request, Comments #12,#14 & #16. * Mon Apr 18 2011 Damian L Brasher 1.1.0-1 - Updated to release 1.1.0. ... - %defattr(-,root,root,-) is at the top of the %files section - EPEL4 is a potential release channel. EPEL < 6 may be considered, so I'll leave the optional items in place for now. - I have commented out the now empty (to test with rpm -qRp) Requires tag. This is the result after rpmbuild: [makerpm@fedora15 noarch]$ rpm -qRp diaser-1.1.0-1.fc15.noarch.rpm /usr/bin/perl perl >= 0:5.008_008 perl(AppConfig) perl(Carp) perl(Data::Password) perl(English) perl(File::Find) perl(Getopt::Long) perl(Net::SFTP) perl(Net::SSH::Perl) perl(Term::ReadKey) perl(Time::HiRes) perl(strict) perl(warnings) rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1 How do I reform the Requires tag contents with the above? These URL's have been updated (I'll ensure they are kept update with the completed Requires tag): SPEC URL: http://diaser.git.sourceforge.net/git/gitweb.cgi?p=diaser/diaser;a=blob_plain;f=diaser.spec;hb=HEAD SRPM URL: http://sourceforge.net/projects/diaser/files/diaser/1.1.0-beta3-dev/diaser-1.1.0-1.fc15.src.rpm Review practice: I have completed an initial review of bug #705319 Understood that I will review, in detail, two more uncommented review request not blocked by FE-NEEDSPONSOR. Best Damian -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 725267] Review Request: qodem - Qodem terminal emulator and communications package
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725267 --- Comment #7 from Richard Shaw 2011-07-25 15:50:19 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: qodem Short Description: Terminal emulator and communications package Owners: hobbes1069 Branches: f14 f15 el6 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 684938] Review Request: wmdrawer - Retractable button bar launcher dockapp
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=684938
--- Comment #4 from Richard Shaw 2011-07-25 15:41:51 EDT
---
After looking into things a bit more I noticed a few other issues.
4. There are no files in the wmdrawer-debuginfo package. The reason is that the
Makefile is using "strip" to remove the debugging symbols. There's no flag to
pass to stop that behavior so I fixed it with sed as follows:
# Prevent the Makefile from stripping the binaries
# Otherwise there are no debugging symbols
sed -i '/strip/d' Makefile
5. The makefile is not honoring your "OPTS" argument to make. I tried changing
it to CFLAGS but that broke compiling because it replaced CFLAGS in the
makefile instead of adding to it. I fixed that as follows:
# Patch the Makefile so that CFLAGS are added not replaced.
sed -i 's/CFLAGS =/override CFLAGS +=/g' Makefile
Then updated your make command to:
make -L CFLAGS='%{optflags}' %{?_smp_mflags}
6. Not really a problem but you could (if you wanted to) replace the last two
arguments to %doc with:
doc/*.smgl
That's it as far as I know. I'll probably run it through the packaging
guidelines tomorrow.
Here's a link to the updated spec if you want to use it:
http://hobbes1069.fedorapeople.org/wmdrawer.spec
Richard
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 725228] Review Request: qcodeedit - Qt-Framework for code editing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725228 --- Comment #15 from hannes 2011-07-25 15:45:29 EDT --- Ok removed these two lines? Is it ok like this? SPEC-URL: http://hannes.fedorapeople.org/qcodeedit.spec SRPM-URL: http://hannes.fedorapeople.org/qcodeedit-2.2.3-7.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 725267] Review Request: qodem - Qodem terminal emulator and communications package
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725267 --- Comment #6 from Richard Shaw 2011-07-25 15:48:11 EDT --- (In reply to comment #4) > ...Forget about what I wrote about the wrote about the docs. I've swapped the > tabs in gedit by accidence, sorry... I was actually missing a couple of them, so thanks! (In reply to comment #3) > Please change the summary so that it doesn't include the package name. Not a > blocker, but would be nice to make rpmlint happy again... Fixed... I actually copied that from the old review request... Thanks! Richard -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 725267] Review Request: qodem - Qodem terminal emulator and communications package
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725267 Mario Blättermann changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Mario Blättermann 2011-07-25 15:40:07 EDT --- That's why, this package is APPROVED. Please don't forget to tweak the summary before feeding the Git. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 684938] Review Request: wmdrawer - Retractable button bar launcher dockapp
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=684938 --- Comment #5 from Mario Blättermann 2011-07-25 16:13:01 EDT --- Thanks for your hints and the updated spec file. But please wait with a full review. I found some more problems (runtime font requirements, use of gdk-pixbuf-2 instead of gdk-pixbuf). Stay tuned, I will fix it tomorrow. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 725552] New: Review Request: confparse - A KISS parse to *nix config files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: confparse - A KISS parse to *nix config files https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725552 Summary: Review Request: confparse - A KISS parse to *nix config files Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: dougsl...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Spec URL: https://raw.github.com/dougsland/confparse/master/confparse.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/dougsland/confparse/raw/master/confparse-1.0.0-1.fc13.src.rpm Description: confparse - A KISS parse to *nix config files -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 725552] Review Request: confparse - A KISS parse to *nix config 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=725552 --- Comment #1 from Rafael Aquini 2011-07-25 16:22:11 EDT --- Howdy, I'll proceed this review. I hope to finish it soon. Cheers! --aquini -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 725552] Review Request: confparse - A KISS parse to *nix config 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=725552 Rafael Aquini changed: What|Removed |Added CC||aqu...@linux.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|aqu...@linux.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 725228] Review Request: qcodeedit - Qt-Framework for code editing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725228 --- Comment #16 from Martin Gieseking 2011-07-25 16:30:02 EDT --- Yes, now the %optflags are present. Sorry for having overlooked 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 725228] Review Request: qcodeedit - Qt-Framework for code editing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725228 hannes changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #17 from hannes 2011-07-25 16:32:30 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: qcodeedit Short Description: Qt-Framework for code editing Owners: hannes 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 684938] Review Request: wmdrawer - Retractable button bar launcher dockapp
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=684938 --- Comment #6 from Richard Shaw 2011-07-25 16:40:59 EDT --- It should be a simple fix. I think I remember something in the makefile about gdk-pixbuf. I think it can use 3 different versions and you just uncomment the appropriate one. That being the case I think we should give up on the sed's and just make a patch to the makefile to take care of all 3 problems. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 725228] Review Request: qcodeedit - Qt-Framework for code editing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725228 hannes 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 725228] Review Request: qcodeedit - Qt-Framework for code editing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725228 hannes 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
