[Bug 725905] Review Request: p11-kit - Library for loading and sharing PKCS#11 modules
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725905 --- Comment #3 from Stef Walter 2011-07-27 03:28:47 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2) > Stef, by what name are applications supposed to look up the library if they > want to use it as a PKCS11 proxy module? Should we be installing the > libp11-kit.so symlink in the main package so that applications could dlopen() > it using that name? That sounds like a good plan. I look at putting this into p11-kit upstream. > Also, are you aware that using Apache License 2.0 code makes the whole library > incompatible with GPLv2-only code? Hmmm, that's true. I'll rewrite the bits that came from apr, and then we can get rid of this issue. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 721179] Review Request: rubygem-extlib - Support library for DataMapper and Merb
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=721179 Vít Ondruch changed: What|Removed |Added CC||vondr...@redhat.com --- Comment #11 from Vít Ondruch 2011-07-27 03:42:47 EDT --- (In reply to comment #10) > Looks good. APPROVED. Hi Ryan, the package is FTBFS. Could you please revoke the APPROVED? 1) The test suite is not executed at all. I would suggest to execute the test suite using spec instead of rake. That would allow to remove the patch. 2) The YARD documentation is generated in %check section. That is not correct place. 3) I would suggest to not provide the ruby subpackage unless there is real need for it. 4) If that is .spec file recycled from EPEL, I would expect to see there the original changelog. 5) The BuildRoot is not necessary unless the spec is used to build EPEL5. In that case I would suggest to put there some condition to be clear. 6) defattr in files section is not necessary anymore 7) %clean section is not required -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 723875] Review Request: byteman - Java agent-based bytecode injection tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=723875 --- Comment #1 from Marek Goldmann 2011-07-27 03:58:53 EDT --- Bumped to version 1.5.2. Spec URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/byteman/2/byteman.spec SRPM URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/byteman/2/byteman-1.5.2-1.fc15.src.rpm Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3233107 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 721043] Review Request: pragha - Lightweight GTK+ music 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=721043
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?
--- Comment #1 from Martin Gieseking 2011-07-27
04:21:37 EDT ---
The package is in pretty good shape. Just remove the additional compiler flag
-O3 from configure.ac.
$ rpmlint *.rpm
pragha.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
http://dissonance.googlecode.com/files/pragha-0.97.0.tar.bz2 HTTP Error 404:
Not Found
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
The above warning is false positive.
-
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 file 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 pragha-0.97.0.tar.bz2*
f3146b9f05305682e9465cbcbcc3fd33 pragha-0.97.0.tar.bz2
f3146b9f05305682e9465cbcbcc3fd33 pragha-0.97.0.tar.bz2.1
[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
koji scratch build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3233138
[.] 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: 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: 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: .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.
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: 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 -devel pkg.
[.] SHOULD: If the package
[Bug 725844] Review Request: python-dateutil15 - Powerful extensions to the standard datetime module
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725844 Rahul Sundaram changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||ERRATA Last Closed||2011-07-27 04:28:14 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 721179] Review Request: rubygem-extlib - Support library for DataMapper and Merb
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=721179 --- Comment #12 from Vít Ondruch 2011-07-27 04:42:26 EDT --- Created attachment 515442 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=515442 RSpec 2.x support Please also consider execution of test suite using RSpec 2.x -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 Chris Lalancette changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2011-07-27 05:32:27 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 683591] Review Request: tclap - Templatized Command Line Argument Parser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=683591 Denis Arnaud changed: What|Removed |Added CC||denis.arnaud_fed...@m4x.org --- Comment #3 from Denis Arnaud 2011-07-27 05:30:58 EDT --- I would rather put all the header files (.hpp) into the -devel package, and leave the main one almost empty (except the basic documentation: README, COPYING, AUTHORS, NEWS, etc). An example of such packaging is with Boost, where most of the components are header-only. For instance, Boost.Accumulator has no associated boost-accumulator, and the its headers are only in the boost-devel package. Note that the (main) boost package is empty (because it's an umbrella on the other library-based Boost packages, such as for instance boost-date-time). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 725905] Review Request: p11-kit - Library for loading and sharing PKCS#11 modules
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725905 --- Comment #4 from Stef Walter 2011-07-27 05:33:10 EDT --- Fixed apache license issue in p11-kit master. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 717966] Review Request: python-psphere - vSphere SDK for Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=717966 Chris Lalancette changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2011-07-27 05:34:46 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 721144] Review Request: imagefactory - System image generation tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=721144 Bug 721144 depends on bug 717966, which changed state. Bug 717966 Summary: Review Request: python-psphere - vSphere SDK for Python https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=717966 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 721062] Review Request: rubygem-sunspot_rails - Rails integration for the Sunspot Solr search library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=721062 Chris Lalancette changed: What|Removed |Added CC||clala...@redhat.com Flag||needinfo?(mmo...@redhat.com ||) --- Comment #1 from Chris Lalancette 2011-07-27 05:33:48 EDT --- We no longer need this gem for Aeolus, and thus it doesn't have a user. Mo, should we just close this out? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 721061] Review Request: rubygem-sunspot - Library for expressive, powerful interaction with the Solr search engine
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=721061 Chris Lalancette changed: What|Removed |Added CC||clala...@redhat.com Flag||needinfo?(mmo...@redhat.com ||) --- Comment #2 from Chris Lalancette 2011-07-27 05:33:39 EDT --- We no longer need this gem for Aeolus, and thus it doesn't have a user. Mo, should we just close this out? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 669911] Review Request: guestfs-browser - Guest filesystem browser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=669911 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 669911] Review Request: guestfs-browser - Guest filesystem browser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=669911 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System 2011-07-27 05:41:37 EDT --- guestfs-browser-0.1.6-3.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/guestfs-browser-0.1.6-3.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 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 #9 from Jon Ciesla 2011-07-27 06:02:44 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 705043] Review Request: paco - a source code package organizer for Unix
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=705043 --- Comment #20 from Jon Ciesla 2011-07-27 06:01:38 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 716779] Review Request: perl-HTML-FormatText-WithLinks-AndTables - Converts HTML to Text with tables intact
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=716779 --- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla 2011-07-27 06:05:26 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 723053] Review Request: curlpp - a C++ wrapper for libcURL
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=723053 --- Comment #12 from Jon Ciesla 2011-07-27 06:08:33 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests). Added f16 as we just branched. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 725905] Review Request: p11-kit - Library for loading and sharing PKCS#11 modules
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725905 --- Comment #5 from Stef Walter 2011-07-27 06:15:42 EDT --- Added the symlink. Kalev, could you please verify that this fixes the problems? Once you let me know, I'll package a new release. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 724991] Review Request: smokegen - Smoke Generator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=724991 Jaroslav Reznik changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Jaroslav Reznik 2011-07-27 06:46:42 EDT --- Thanks Than. rpmlint smokegen-4.7.0-1.fc15.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Seems clean, just fix formatting a little bit, not a blocker for review. 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 725006] Review Request: smokeqt - Bindings for Qt libraries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725006 Jaroslav Reznik changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||656997(kde-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 725776] Review Request: perl-IRC-Utils - Common utilities for IRC-related tasks
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725776 Petr Sabata changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||726022 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 725006] Review Request: smokeqt - Bindings for Qt libraries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725006 --- Comment #1 from Jaroslav Reznik 2011-07-27 07:16:16 EDT --- (smokeqt-4.7.0 review) Name: ok Summary: ok Group: ok License: not, there's also COPYING.LIB with LGPLv2 (not plus?) license Url: not ok, http://techbase.kde.org/Development/Languages/Smoke could be used (for all smoke related packages) Source: ok (md5sum 504dd92fc50f7ccb9cc21ecf31e92da6) BRs: ok Conflicts: ?, does it makes sense to conflict with kdebindings in both main spec and -devel? shouldn't devel conflict with kdebindings-devel (but as main package is always needed...)? Description: ok Macros used consistently: ok ldconfig: ok Devel subpackage: ok rpmlint smokeqt-4.7.0-1.fc15.src.rpm smokeqt.src: W: invalid-url URL: http://developer.kde.org/language-bindings/ HTTP Error 404: Not Found -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 #21 from Martin Gieseking 2011-07-27 07:23:09 EDT --- Hi Damian, the package looks good now. I'll approve it as soon as you're sponsored into the packager group. If you need any help with your informal reviews or if you have further questions, let me know. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 706846] Review Request: hibernate-jpa-2.0-api - Java Persistence 2.0 (JSR 317) API
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=706846
--- Comment #8 from Alexander Kurtakov 2011-07-27
08:00:49 EDT ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[!] Rpmlint output:
hibernate-jpa-2.0-api-javadoc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Javadocs
-> Java docs, Java-docs, Avocados
hibernate-jpa-2.0-api-javadoc.noarch: W: invalid-url URL:
http://www.hibernate.org/ HTTP Error 403: Forbidden
False positives.
hibernate-jpa-2.0-api-javadoc.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/javadoc/hibernate-jpa-2.0-api/apidocs/jdstyle.css
Please fix.
[x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines[1].
[x] Spec file name must match the base package name, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines[2].
[x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms.
[x] Buildroot definition is not present
[x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines[3,4].
[!] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type: EPL and BSD
[x] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package is included in %doc.
[!] All independent sub-packages have license of their own
[x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines[5].
[x] Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x] File sections do not contain %defattr(-,root,root,-) unless changed with
good reason
[x] Permissions on files are set properly.
[x] Package does NOT have a %clean section which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}
(or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). (not needed anymore)
[x] Package consistently uses macros (no %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
mixing)
[x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[x] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
[x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x] Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
subpackage
[x] Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlinks)
[x] Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
[x] Javadoc subpackages have Require: jpackage-utils
[x] Package uses %global not %define
[x] If package uses tarball from VCS include comment how to re-create that
tarball (svn export URL, git clone URL, ...)
[x] If source tarball includes bundled jar/class files these need to be
removed prior to building
[x] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
[x] Jar files are installed to %{_javadir}/%{name}.jar (see [6] for details)
[x] If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even when
building with ant
[!] pom files has correct add_maven_depmap
=== Maven ===
[x] Use %{_mavenpomdir} macro for placing pom files instead of
%{_datadir}/maven2/poms
[-] If package uses "-Dmaven.test.skip=true" explain why it was needed in a
comment
[-] If package uses custom depmap "-Dmaven.local.depmap.file=*" explain why
it's needed in a comment
[!] Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun
[!] Packages DOES NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on
jpackage-utils for %update_maven_depmap macro
=== Other suggestions ===
[x] If possible use upstream build method (maven/ant/javac)
[x] Avoid having BuildRequires on exact NVR unless necessary
[x] Package has BuildArch: noarch (if possible)
[x] Latest version is packaged.
=== Issues ===
1. Fix wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
2. Fix license field to be EPL and BSD because all the sources are duallicensed
3. Add license file to javadoc subpackage
4. Use add_maven_depmap
5. Remove update_maven_depmap and Requires(post|postun) on jpackage-utils
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 725614] Review Request: libcryptui - Library for prompting for GPG keys
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725614 --- Comment #5 from Matthias Clasen 2011-07-27 08:02:25 EDT --- I think we probably still need the patch from that bug I pointed to, to avoid file conflicts with seahorse ? Can you double-check that this package does not conflict with seahorse ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 723523] Review Request: apiviz - APIviz is a JavaDoc doclet to generate class and package diagrams
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=723523 Alexander Kurtakov changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||akurt...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|akurt...@redhat.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Alexander Kurtakov 2011-07-27 08:10:45 EDT --- I would do 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 726044] Review Request: jboss-logmanager - JBoss Log 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=726044 Marek Goldmann changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||652183(FE-JAVASIG), 711350 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 713122] Review Request: flyback - Git based backup 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=713122 --- Comment #8 from Heiko Adams 2011-07-27 08:12:17 EDT --- I'm very busy atm but as soon as I've got more free time I'll try to apply your suggestions. But in the Meantime you could tell me what's the best way to create a symlink in a specfile ;-) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 711350] Review Request: jboss-parent - JBoss Parent POM
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=711350 Marek Goldmann changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||726044 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 726044] New: Review Request: jboss-logmanager - JBoss Log Manager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: jboss-logmanager - JBoss Log Manager https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=726044 Summary: Review Request: jboss-logmanager - JBoss Log Manager Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: mgold...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Spec URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/jboss-logmanager/1/jboss-logmanager.spec SRPM URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/jboss-logmanager/1/jboss-logmanager-1.2.0-1.fc15.src.rpm Description: This package contains the JBoss Log Manager $ rpmlint jboss-logmanager-1.2.0-1.fc15.src.rpm jboss-logmanager.src: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US jboss-logmanager.src: W: invalid-url Source0: jboss-logmanager-1.2.0.GA.tar.xz 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. $ rpmlint ./jboss-logmanager.spec ./jboss-logmanager.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: jboss-logmanager-1.2.0.GA.tar.xz 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 726044] Review Request: jboss-logmanager - JBoss Log 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=726044 Marek Goldmann changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|711350 | Depends on||711350 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 711350] Review Request: jboss-parent - JBoss Parent POM
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=711350 Marek Goldmann changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||726044 Depends on|726044 | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 677297] Review Request: php-pear-Net-IDNA2 - PHP library for punycode encoding and decoding
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=677297 Jon Ciesla changed: What|Removed |Added CC||l...@jcomserv.net Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #9 from Jon Ciesla 2011-07-27 08:19:39 EDT --- Package Change Request == Package Name: php-pear-Net-IDNA2 New Branches: el6 Owners: limb terjeros Terje, I need this in EL-6 for Roundcubemail, I'll maintain, I made you a comaintainer. If you'd rather own it, let me know and I'll orphan for you. Thanks! -J -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 677297] Review Request: php-pear-Net-IDNA2 - PHP library for punycode encoding and decoding
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=677297 --- Comment #10 from Jon Ciesla 2011-07-27 08:21:18 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 713122] Review Request: flyback - Git based backup 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=713122
--- Comment #9 from Martin Gieseking 2011-07-27
08:22:13 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> But in the Meantime you could tell me what's the best way to
> create a symlink in a specfile ;-)
Sure. Something like this in %install should do the job:
ln -s %{_datadir}/%{name}/flyback.py %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/flyback
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 725008] Review Request: smokekde, Bindings for KDE libraries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725008 --- Comment #1 from Jaroslav Reznik 2011-07-27 08:21:38 EDT --- Name: ok Summary: ok Group: ok License: same as for smokeqt Url: same as for smokeqt (see review) Source: ok (md5sum 95f53edd3e2995457b04a18b69952f59) BRs: ok Conflicts: ok (looks like smokeqt is just an error, but still comment it there) Description: ok Macros used cons.: ok ldconfig: ok -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 725006] Review Request: smokeqt - Bindings for Qt libraries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725006 --- Comment #2 from Ngo Than 2011-07-27 08:31:54 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1) > (smokeqt-4.7.0 review) > > Name: ok > Summary: ok > Group: ok > License: not, there's also COPYING.LIB with LGPLv2 (not plus?) license fixed, license now includes LGPLv2+ > Url: not ok, http://techbase.kde.org/Development/Languages/Smoke could be used > (for all smoke related packages) fixed > Conflicts: ?, does it makes sense to conflict with kdebindings in both main > spec and -devel? shouldn't devel conflict with kdebindings-devel (but as main > package is always needed...)? fixed could you please take a look at the new package smokeqt-4.7.0-1.fc15.src.rpm and specfile smokeqt.spec ? thanks -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 706846] Review Request: hibernate-jpa-2.0-api - Java Persistence 2.0 (JSR 317) API
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=706846 --- Comment #9 from Marek Goldmann 2011-07-27 08:35:08 EDT --- Issues fixed! Spec URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/hibernate-jpa-2.0-api/3/hibernate-jpa-2.0-api.spec SRPM URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/hibernate-jpa-2.0-api/3/hibernate-jpa-2.0-api-1.0.1-2.fc15.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 705043] Review Request: paco - a source code package organizer for Unix
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=705043 Veeti Paananen changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #21 from Veeti Paananen 2011-07-27 08:44:20 EDT --- Package Change Request == Package Name: paco New Branches: f16 Owners: vpaan -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 724991] Review Request: smokegen - Smoke Generator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=724991 Ngo Than changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Ngo Than 2011-07-27 08:46:24 EDT --- Thanks! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: smokegen Short Description: Smoke Generator Owners: than rdieter jreznik kkofler ltinkl rnovacek rrix Branches: f15 f16 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 705043] Review Request: paco - a source code package organizer for Unix
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=705043 --- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System 2011-07-27 08:57:29 EDT --- paco-2.0.9-6.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/paco-2.0.9-6.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 725905] Review Request: p11-kit - Library for loading and sharing PKCS#11 modules
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725905 --- Comment #6 from Kalev Lember 2011-07-27 08:56:03 EDT --- +# Proxy module is actually same as library, so install a link +install-exec-hook: + $(LN_S) libp11-kit.so $(DESTDIR)$(libdir)/p11-kit-proxy.so I think it would be better to create the symlink to libp11-kit.so.0 (note the .0), so that we could put the .so in -devel subpackage: p11-kit rpm: p11-kit-proxy.so libp11-kit.so.0 libp11-kit.so.0.0.0 p11-kit-devel rpm: libp11-kit.so Otherwise looks very nice. Thanks for doing this, Stef! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 705043] Review Request: paco - a source code package organizer for Unix
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=705043 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 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 #18 from Richard Shaw 2011-07-27 08:59:14 EDT --- (In reply to comment #17) > in regards to your question 3. please read: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=711547#c6 > > I am not sure what the compile issue is with the documentation, I asked the > maintainer and they are now using OS X, but again, the information provided > there is no different than what is on the web, so once I do get the docs > compiling I can break out a sketch-docs sub package. That's fine, I would handle this by leaving the % on the front of doc so it doesn't look like a mistake (sure rpmlint will complain but we know why it's there) and put a comment above it with a brief description on why it's currently commented out. Really, it's a best practice to put in comments any time you're doing something non-standard so Proven Packagers, co-maintainers, or possible future owners of the package will know why you did something. 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 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 #19 from Richard Shaw 2011-07-27 09:00:43 EDT --- Forgot to say, now we just need to find you a sponsor (if you don't already have one). If you haven't done so recently it wouldn't hurt to email the devel list with a polite request for sponsorship. 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 706846] Review Request: hibernate-jpa-2.0-api - Java Persistence 2.0 (JSR 317) API
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=706846 Alexander Kurtakov changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #10 from Alexander Kurtakov 2011-07-27 09:03:39 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 705043] Review Request: paco - a source code package organizer for Unix
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=705043 --- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System 2011-07-27 09:12:37 EDT --- paco-2.0.9-6.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/paco-2.0.9-6.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 706846] Review Request: hibernate-jpa-2.0-api - Java Persistence 2.0 (JSR 317) API
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=706846 Marek Goldmann changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|652183(FE-JAVASIG) | Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #11 from Marek Goldmann 2011-07-27 09:13:26 EDT --- Thank you for review! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: hibernate-jpa-2.0-api Short Description: Java Persistence 2.0 (JSR 317) API Owners:goldmann 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 723523] Review Request: apiviz - APIviz is a JavaDoc doclet to generate class and package diagrams
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=723523
--- Comment #2 from Alexander Kurtakov 2011-07-27
09:17:07 EDT ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[!] Rpmlint output:
apiviz.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) doclet -> docket, doc let,
doc-let
apiviz.noarch: W: name-repeated-in-summary C APIviz
apiviz.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US doclet -> docket, doc
let, doc-let
Not a problem.
./apiviz.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: apiviz-1.3.1.GA.tar.xz
Please use the official download.
[x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines[1].
[x] Spec file name must match the base package name, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines[2].
[x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms.
[x] Buildroot definition is not present
[x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines[3,4].
[x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type: LGPSLv2+
[x] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package is included in %doc.
[x] All independent sub-packages have license of their own
[x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[!] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines[5].
[x] Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x] File sections do not contain %defattr(-,root,root,-) unless changed with
good reason
[x] Permissions on files are set properly.
[x] Package does NOT have a %clean section which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}
(or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). (not needed anymore)
[x] Package consistently uses macros (no %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
mixing)
[x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[x] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
[x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x] Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
subpackage
[x] Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlinks)
[x] Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
[x] Javadoc subpackages have Require: jpackage-utils
[x] Package uses %global not %define
[!] If package uses tarball from VCS include comment how to re-create that
tarball (svn export URL, git clone URL, ...)
[!] If source tarball includes bundled jar/class files these need to be
removed prior to building
[x] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
[x] Jar files are installed to %{_javadir}/%{name}.jar (see [6] for details)
[x] If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even when
building with ant
[x] pom files has correct add_maven_depmap
=== Maven ===
[x] Use %{_mavenpomdir} macro for placing pom files instead of
%{_datadir}/maven2/poms
[-] If package uses "-Dmaven.test.skip=true" explain why it was needed in a
comment
[-] If package uses custom depmap "-Dmaven.local.depmap.file=*" explain why
it's needed in a comment
[!] Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun
[!] Packages DOES NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on
jpackage-utils for %update_maven_depmap macro
=== Other suggestions ===
[x] If possible use upstream build method (maven/ant/javac)
[x] Avoid having BuildRequires on exact NVR unless necessary
[x] Package has BuildArch: noarch (if possible)
[x] Latest version is packaged.
=== Issues ===
1. Use upstream tarball and remove jars folder in prep
2. Drop update_maven_depmap and Requires(post|postun) on jpackage utils
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 723523] Review Request: apiviz - APIviz is a JavaDoc doclet to generate class and package diagrams
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=723523 --- Comment #3 from Marek Goldmann 2011-07-27 09:28:08 EDT --- Fixed! Spec URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/apiviz/2/apiviz.spec SRPM URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/apiviz/2/apiviz-1.3.1-2.fc15.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 705043] Review Request: paco - a source code package organizer for Unix
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=705043 --- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System 2011-07-27 09:30:15 EDT --- paco-2.0.9-6.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/paco-2.0.9-6.el6 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 723523] Review Request: apiviz - APIviz is a JavaDoc doclet to generate class and package diagrams
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=723523 Alexander Kurtakov changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Alexander Kurtakov 2011-07-27 09:29:16 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 723523] Review Request: apiviz - APIviz is a JavaDoc doclet to generate class and package diagrams
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=723523 Marek Goldmann changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|652183(FE-JAVASIG) | Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Marek Goldmann 2011-07-27 09:31:13 EDT --- Thank you for review! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: apiviz Short Description: APIviz is a JavaDoc doclet to generate class and package diagrams Owners:goldmann 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 705043] Review Request: paco - a source code package organizer for Unix
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=705043 --- Comment #25 from Jon Ciesla 2011-07-27 09:35:18 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 725006] Review Request: smokeqt - Bindings for Qt libraries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725006 Jaroslav Reznik changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Jaroslav Reznik 2011-07-27 09:35:46 EDT --- Ok, thanks. APPROVED based on http://than.fedorapeople.org/rawhide/smokeqt.spec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 706846] Review Request: hibernate-jpa-2.0-api - Java Persistence 2.0 (JSR 317) API
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=706846 --- Comment #12 from Jon Ciesla 2011-07-27 09:36:07 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests). Added f16 as we just branched. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 724991] Review Request: smokegen - Smoke Generator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=724991 --- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla 2011-07-27 09:37:52 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 706846] Review Request: hibernate-jpa-2.0-api - Java Persistence 2.0 (JSR 317) API
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=706846 Marek Goldmann changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #13 from Marek Goldmann 2011-07-27 09:40:27 EDT --- Thank you very much! I was just going to fix it as I noticed it a few minutes ago. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 711350] Review Request: jboss-parent - JBoss Parent POM
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=711350 Alexander Kurtakov changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||akurt...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|akurt...@redhat.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #8 from Alexander Kurtakov 2011-07-27 09:40:45 EDT --- I would do 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 706846] Review Request: hibernate-jpa-2.0-api - Java Persistence 2.0 (JSR 317) API
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=706846 --- Comment #14 from Jon Ciesla 2011-07-27 09:43:04 EDT --- I unset the cvs flag. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 723523] Review Request: apiviz - APIviz is a JavaDoc doclet to generate class and package diagrams
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=723523 --- Comment #6 from Marek Goldmann 2011-07-27 09:38:50 EDT --- Adding new f16 branch. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: apiviz Short Description: APIviz is a JavaDoc doclet to generate class and package diagrams Owners:goldmann Branches: f15 f16 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 725008] Review Request: smokekde, Bindings for KDE libraries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725008 Jaroslav Reznik changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Jaroslav Reznik 2011-07-27 09:40:21 EDT --- Based on latest SPEC from http://than.fedorapeople.org/rawhide/smokekde.spec and comments on https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725006 and IRC session with Than. Two same reviews, all comments could be found in smokeqt review. 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 723523] Review Request: apiviz - APIviz is a JavaDoc doclet to generate class and package diagrams
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=723523 --- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla 2011-07-27 09:43:36 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 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 AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|arobi...@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 725905] Review Request: p11-kit - Library for loading and sharing PKCS#11 modules
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725905 --- Comment #7 from Stef Walter 2011-07-27 09:43:39 EDT --- Could you provide a patch to do this reliably even when the libtool versioning gets updated? As far as I can tell libtool versioning is calculated within libtool, and I'm not sure how to access it from the makefile. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 726080] New: Review Request: Xnee - X11 environment recorder
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: Xnee - X11 environment recorder https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=726080 Summary: Review Request: Xnee - X11 environment recorder Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: unspecified Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: casper.le.fan...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Spec URL:http://ambre.pingoured.fr/casper/xnee.spec SRPM URL: http://ambre.pingoured.fr/casper/xnee-3.09-0.1.rc1.fc15.src.rpm Description: A suite of programs that can record, replay and distribute user actions under the X11 environment. Think of it as a robot that can imitate the job you just did. This is my first package and i need a sponsor. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 716475] Review Request: game-music-emu - A collection of video game music file emulators
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=716475 --- Comment #2 from Karel Volný 2011-07-27 09:46:31 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1) > * > Summary: A collection of video game music file emulators > > Since summaries starting with "A ..." still make a bad reading when displayed > in package installers and Anaconda, I suggest using the summary from the > project's web site: > > Summary: Video game music file emulation/playback library ah, I've missed that line - I've used what's on "Project Home" below > * I agree with the comments on the rpmlint warnings. :) > > * The demo player and WAV writer source code use a different license, an "MIT" > variant. Please consider that when importing the package. good catch ... I'm not much into the legal stuff, I just took what's written on the project page I've e-mailed the author about this, for now I'd just silently ignore this (LGPL is more restrictive, so anyone obeying LGPL also obeys the real license of the affected files) > * gme_player (x86_64) works with a couple of test files I have here. > > APPROVED cool, thanks -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 716475] Review Request: game-music-emu - Video game music file emulation/playback library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=716475 Karel Volný changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |game-music-emu - A |game-music-emu - Video game |collection of video game|music file |music file emulators|emulation/playback library --- Comment #3 from Karel Volný 2011-07-27 09:50:43 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: game-music-emu Short Description: Video game music file emulation/playback library Owners: kvolny Branches: 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 726080] Review Request: Xnee - X11 environment recorder
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=726080 Casper 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 705043] Review Request: paco - a source code package organizer for Unix
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=705043 --- Comment #26 from Fedora Update System 2011-07-27 09:55:39 EDT --- paco-2.0.9-7.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/paco-2.0.9-7.el5 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 711350] Review Request: jboss-parent - JBoss Parent POM
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=711350
--- Comment #9 from Alexander Kurtakov 2011-07-27
09:58:04 EDT ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[!] Rpmlint output:
jboss-parent.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.jboss.org/ HTTP Error 403:
Forbidden
False positive.
./jboss-parent.spec: W: no-%build-section
Please add a build section with mvn-rpmbuild install in it. This will help not
missing newly added dependencies in future versions because the build will fail
this way.
./jboss-parent.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: jboss-parent-6.tar.xz
Generated one so it's fine.
[x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines[1].
[x] Spec file name must match the base package name, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines[2].
[x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms.
[x] Buildroot definition is not present
[x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines[3,4].
[x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type: LGPLv2+
[-] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package is included in %doc.
[-] All independent sub-packages have license of their own
[x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[!] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines[5].
A lot of pacakges will need ot be added to Buildrequires but there was a
shortcut for saying that all BuildRequries are requires or smth like this
[x] Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x] File sections do not contain %defattr(-,root,root,-) unless changed with
good reason
[x] Permissions on files are set properly.
[x] Package does NOT have a %clean section which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}
(or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). (not needed anymore)
[x] Package consistently uses macros (no %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
mixing)
[x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[x] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
[x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[-] Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
subpackage
[-] Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlinks)
[x] Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
[-] Javadoc subpackages have Require: jpackage-utils
[-] Package uses %global not %define
[x] If package uses tarball from VCS include comment how to re-create that
tarball (svn export URL, git clone URL, ...)
[x] If source tarball includes bundled jar/class files these need to be
removed prior to building
[x] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
[-] Jar files are installed to %{_javadir}/%{name}.jar (see [6] for details)
[x] If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even when
building with ant
[x] pom files has correct add_maven_depmap
=== Maven ===
[x] Use %{_mavenpomdir} macro for placing pom files instead of
%{_datadir}/maven2/poms
[-] If package uses "-Dmaven.test.skip=true" explain why it was needed in a
comment
[-] If package uses custom depmap "-Dmaven.local.depmap.file=*" explain why
it's needed in a comment
[!] Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun
[!] Packages DOES NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on
jpackage-utils for %update_maven_depmap macro
=== Other suggestions ===
[x] If possible use upstream build method (maven/ant/javac)
[x] Avoid having BuildRequires on exact NVR unless necessary
[x] Package has BuildArch: noarch (if possible)
[x] Latest version is packaged.
=== Issues ===
1. Add a build section to let mvn check the dependencies.
2. Drop update_maven_depmap
3. Drop Requires(post|postun) on jpackage-utils
4. -n %{name}-%{version} can be omitted this is the default
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 725006] Review Request: smokeqt - Bindings for Qt libraries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725006 --- Comment #4 from Ngo Than 2011-07-27 09:59:21 EDT --- Thanks! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: smokeqt Short Description: Bindings for Qt libraries Owners: than rdieter jreznik kkofler ltinkl rnovacek rrix Branches: f15 f16 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 725008] Review Request: smokekde, Bindings for KDE libraries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725008 --- Comment #3 from Ngo Than 2011-07-27 10:00:31 EDT --- Thanks! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: smokekde Short Description: Bindings for KDE libraries Owners: than rdieter jreznik kkofler ltinkl rnovacek rrix Branches: f15 f16 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 705043] Review Request: paco - a source code package organizer for Unix
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=705043 --- Comment #27 from Fedora Update System 2011-07-27 10:08:07 EDT --- paco-2.0.9-6.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/paco-2.0.9-6.fc16 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 723053] Review Request: curlpp - a C++ wrapper for libcURL
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=723053 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System 2011-07-27 10:41:31 EDT --- curlpp-0.7.3-4.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/curlpp-0.7.3-4.fc16 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 723053] Review Request: curlpp - a C++ wrapper for libcURL
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=723053 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 723053] Review Request: curlpp - a C++ wrapper for libcURL
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=723053 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System 2011-07-27 10:52:22 EDT --- curlpp-0.7.3-4.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/curlpp-0.7.3-4.fc15 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 724914] Review Request: cookxml - Dynamic XML data binding tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=724914 Alexander Kurtakov changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|akurt...@redhat.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #3 from Alexander Kurtakov 2011-07-27 10:54:09 EDT --- I would do this one. In the build.xml you referenced to there is an apidoc target which do generates javadoc. Please do that before the official review. Oh and drop %update_maven_depmap and post/postun -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 723053] Review Request: curlpp - a C++ wrapper for libcURL
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=723053 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System 2011-07-27 11:00:15 EDT --- curlpp-0.7.3-4.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/curlpp-0.7.3-4.fc14 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 723053] Review Request: curlpp - a C++ wrapper for libcURL
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=723053 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System 2011-07-27 11:07:26 EDT --- curlpp-0.7.3-4.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/curlpp-0.7.3-4.el6 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 723053] Review Request: curlpp - a C++ wrapper for libcURL
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=723053 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System 2011-07-27 11:17:49 EDT --- curlpp-0.7.3-4.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/curlpp-0.7.3-4.el5 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 725008] Review Request: smokekde, Bindings for KDE libraries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725008 Ngo Than 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 725006] Review Request: smokeqt - Bindings for Qt libraries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725006 Ngo Than 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 721179] Review Request: rubygem-extlib - Support library for DataMapper and Merb
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=721179 --- Comment #13 from Shawn Starr 2011-07-27 11:21:46 EDT --- Well, as I mentioned, this RPM is needed for OpenNebula 3.0 so it is required for Fedora you already have it in EPEL. Is this still FTBFS with .15? it compiled fine for me. I was told since it was dropped in Fedora this is considered a brand new package and followed process. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 724991] Review Request: smokegen - Smoke Generator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=724991 Ngo Than changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE Last Closed||2011-07-27 11:22:08 --- Comment #7 from Ngo Than 2011-07-27 11:22:08 EDT --- imported and built http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3233996 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 725006] Review Request: smokeqt - Bindings for Qt libraries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725006 --- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla 2011-07-27 11:38:28 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 725008] Review Request: smokekde, Bindings for KDE libraries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725008 --- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla 2011-07-27 11:44:47 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 714543] Review Request: maze5 - A program for generating mazes of miscellaneous styles and sizes
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=714543
--- Comment #8 from Veeti Paananen 2011-07-27
11:47:57 EDT ---
You could take a look at how the Blender package handles (or handled, they're
using CMake now) scons:
- You can actually add %{?_smp_mflags} after the scons command since scons uses
the same syntax as make for the number of jobs.
- You'll probably have to patch the SConstruct file to read the RPM environment
variable "RPM_OPT_FLAGS" and append its contents to CCFLAGS and CXXFLAGS in the
scons "Environment" object.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 714543] Review Request: maze5 - A program for generating mazes of miscellaneous styles and sizes
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=714543
--- Comment #9 from Veeti Paananen 2011-07-27
11:49:43 EDT ---
Oh, and the require for the base package has to be in the format
"%{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}".
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 726131] New: Review Request: yourls - your own url shortening service
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: yourls - your own url shortening service https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=726131 Summary: Review Request: yourls - your own url shortening service Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: unspecified Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: mkri...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Spec URL: http://mkrizek.fedorapeople.org/yourls.spec SRPM URL: http://mkrizek.fedorapeople.org/yourls-1.5-1.fc15.src.rpm Description: Hi! This is a package for yourls (http://yourls.org) -- URL shortening service that you can run on your own server. Review would be much appreciated since this package will be used by AutoQA (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/AutoQA). Also, because this is my first package I will need a sponsor. Thank you! rpmlint output: W: invalid-url Source0: http://yourls.googlecode.com/files/yourls-1.5.zip HTTP Error 404: Not Found I find this strange since wget http://yourls.googlecode.com/files/yourls-1.5.zip works fine. Am I missing something? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #7 from Rafael Aquini 2011-07-27 13:28:57 EDT --- Howdy Douglas, I am totaly fine with this package of yours. Feel free to request a new SCM branch. 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 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 Douglas Schilling Landgraf changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #8 from Douglas Schilling Landgraf 2011-07-27 13:57:21 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-confparser Short Description: A KISS python module to parse *nix config files Owners: dougsland Branches: f14 f15 epel-5 epel-6 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 724942] Review Request: libmodbus - A Modbus library written in C
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=724942 --- Comment #9 from Stéphane Raimbault 2011-07-27 14:03:00 EDT --- Thank you, now it works fine so I've updated the links: Spec URL: http://copyleft.free.fr/data/libmodbus.spec SRPM URL: http://copyleft.free.fr/data/libmodbus-3.0.1-1.f15.src.rpm and 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 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 Xavier Bachelot changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #10 from Xavier Bachelot 2011-07-27 14:02:44 EDT --- Package Change Request == Package Name: sombok New Branches: f16 Owners: xavierb Looks like this package missed the f16 mass branching... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 726080] Review Request: Xnee - X11 environment recorder
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=726080
Martin Gieseking changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||martin.giesek...@uos.de
--- Comment #1 from Martin Gieseking 2011-07-27
14:11:55 EDT ---
Hi Casper,
first of all, please enter your full real name in the bugzilla preferences and
also use it in the spec's %changelog.
Here are a couple of quick comments on your package:
- Use the main GNU URL in Source0:
ftp://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/xnee/xnee-%{version}.tar.gz
- Is this release really a pre-release (rc1)? I can't find any information
on this.
- According to the source file headers, the license of xnee is GPLv3+.
- The package currently doesn't build because of missing BuildRequires:
libXtst-devel
gtk+-devel
gtk2-devel
- As the package provides a GUI application, you must add and install a
.desktop file as described here:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Desktop_files
- The tarball contains the sources of libxnee. I suggest to build the shared
library and package it as well. It could be useful for other packages
and/or developers.
- If you plan to build the package for EPEL < 6 as well, add
rm -rf %{buildroot}
at the beginning of the %install section.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on 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 #11 from Jon Ciesla 2011-07-27 14:42:25 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 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 #9 from Jon Ciesla 2011-07-27 14:45:57 EDT --- 1. Is the package name python-confparser or confparse? Make the summary and SCM request match. 2. Branches should be EL-5, EL-6, not epel-5 and epel-6. 3. You should also request f16, as that's now been branched. Once fixed, re-set the flag. Thanks! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 725552] Review Request: python-confparser - 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 Douglas Schilling Landgraf changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: confparse - |Review Request: |A KISS parse to *nix config |python-confparser - A KISS |files |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
