[Bug 709180] Review Request: jackctlmmc - control JACK transport via MIDI
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=709180 Martin Gieseking martin.giesek...@uos.de changed: What|Removed |Added CC||martin.giesek...@uos.de --- Comment #5 from Martin Gieseking martin.giesek...@uos.de 2011-07-28 02:39:44 EDT --- Hi Brendan, I would keep the programs packaged separately because some users who are interested in jackctlmmc possibly don't like the whole Qt stuff to be installed by default. As long as the license isn't updated, just change the License field of the base package to GPLv2 and that of the subpackage to GPLv2+. Also add the license file qt/COPYING to the subpackage. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 711848] Review Request: kmetronome - KDE MIDI Metronome using ALSA Sequencer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=711848 Martin Gieseking martin.giesek...@uos.de changed: What|Removed |Added CC||martin.giesek...@uos.de --- Comment #3 from Martin Gieseking martin.giesek...@uos.de 2011-07-28 03:46:35 EDT --- Just some more comments: - The package doesn't build in mock because of missing BR gettext. - Remove folder drumstick/ in %prep to ensure that the bundled library is not linked. - The .desktop file must be properly installed/validated as described here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Desktop_files I'm not sure if there's an exception for KDE applications now. - Drop %doc from the manpage. It's automatically tagged as doc file. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 #10 from Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com 2011-07-28 04:36:38 EDT --- Fixed! Spec URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/jboss-parent/3/jboss-parent.spec SRPM URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/jboss-parent/3/jboss-parent-6-2.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 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 mgold...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE Last Closed||2011-07-28 05:00:48 --- Comment #15 from Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com 2011-07-28 05:00:48 EDT --- Thank you, closing. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 mgold...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE Last Closed||2011-07-28 05:02:52 --- Comment #8 from Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com 2011-07-28 05:02:52 EDT --- Thank you, closing. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 t...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NOTABUG Last Closed||2011-07-28 05:21:44 --- Comment #6 from Ngo Than t...@redhat.com 2011-07-28 05:21:44 EDT --- imported and built http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=255970 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 725906] Review Request: php53-extras - Additional PHP modules from the standard PHP distribution
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725906 manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|wo...@nobugconsulting.ro -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 725885] Review Request: phpMyAdmin3 - Handle the administration of MySQL over the World Wide Web
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725885 manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|wo...@nobugconsulting.ro -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 573917] Review Request: perl-NetPacket-SpanningTree - Assemble and disassemble IEEE 802.1D Spanning Tree protocol packets
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=573917 Jan Klepek jan.kle...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #16 from Jan Klepek jan.kle...@gmail.com 2011-07-28 06:35:14 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: perl-NetPacket-SpanningTree Short Description: Assemble and disassemble IEEE 802.1D Spanning Tree protocol packets Owners: hpejakle Branches: f14 f15 el5 el6 InitialCC: perl-sig -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 mgold...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||726351 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 726351] Review Request: jboss-logging - JBoss Logging Framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=726351 Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||652183(FE-JAVASIG) Depends on||711350, 723523 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 mgold...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||726351 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 726351] New: Review Request: jboss-logging - JBoss Logging Framework
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-logging - JBoss Logging Framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=726351 Summary: Review Request: jboss-logging - JBoss Logging Framework 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-logging/1/jboss-logging.spec SRPM URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/jboss-logging/1/jboss-logging-3.0.0-1.fc15.src.rpm Description: This package contains the JBoss Logging Framework. $ rpmlint ./jboss-logging.spec ./jboss-logging.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: jboss-logging-3.0.0.GA.tar.xz 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. $ rpmlint jboss-logging-3.0.0-1.fc15.src.rpm jboss-logging.src: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US jboss-logging.src: W: invalid-url Source0: jboss-logging-3.0.0.GA.tar.xz 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 725897] Review Request: pacemaker-cloud - Cloud High Availability 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=725897 --- Comment #7 from Steven Dake sd...@redhat.com 2011-07-28 07:26:24 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: pacemaker-cloud Short Description: Cloud High Availability System Owners: sdake Branches: f15 f16 InitialCC: sdake asalkeld -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 725897] Review Request: pacemaker-cloud - Cloud High Availability 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=725897 Steven Dake sd...@redhat.com 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 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 #11 from Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com 2011-07-28 07:31:30 EDT --- Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3235374 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 #15 from Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com 2011-07-28 07:45:44 EDT --- (In reply to comment #14) It compiled for me fine, as well. I can't speak for the other issues, though. It does not build for Rawhide: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=323537 And it is due to the YARD documentation, which is generated in wrong section of spec file anyway. (In reply to comment #13) Well, as I mentioned, this RPM is needed for OpenNebula 3.0 so it is required for Fedora you already have it in EPEL. The point is that the credits should be preserved as well as the changelog. Is this still FTBFS with .15? it compiled fine for me. Has to build against Rawhide, since you have to import it into Rawhide first anyway. I was told since it was dropped in Fedora this is considered a brand new package and followed process. That is correct. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 720857] Review Request: datalog - A Lightweight Deductive Database using Datalog
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=720857 --- Comment #3 from John D. Ramsdell ramsd...@mitre.org 2011-07-28 07:49:20 EDT --- Everything is good to go. Spec URL: http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ramsdell/tools/datalog/datalog.spec SRPM URL: http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ramsdell/tools/datalog/datalog-1.6-1.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 708836] Review Request: jansi-native - Jansi Native implements the JNI Libraries used by the Jansi project.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=708836 --- Comment #4 from Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com 2011-07-28 07:56:36 EDT --- - Upstream release 1.2 - Using new jnidir Spec URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/jansi-native/3/jansi-native.spec SRPM URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/jansi-native/3/jansi-native-1.2-1.fc15.src.rpm Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3235376 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 573917] Review Request: perl-NetPacket-SpanningTree - Assemble and disassemble IEEE 802.1D Spanning Tree protocol packets
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=573917 --- Comment #17 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2011-07-28 08:01:54 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 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 akurt...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #12 from Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com 2011-07-28 08:01:53 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 725897] Review Request: pacemaker-cloud - Cloud High Availability 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=725897 --- Comment #8 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2011-07-28 08:02:56 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 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 #16 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@fedoraproject.org 2011-07-28 08:05:30 EDT --- (In reply to comment #15) (In reply to comment #14) It compiled for me fine, as well. I can't speak for the other issues, though. It does not build for Rawhide: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=323537 Please point to the correct URL. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3235379 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 mgold...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|652183(FE-JAVASIG) | Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #13 from Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com 2011-07-28 08:04:40 EDT --- Thank you for review! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: jboss-parent Short Description: JBoss Parent POM Owners:goldmann Branches: 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 725888] Review Request: drupal6-strongarm - Strongarm gives a way to override the default variable values
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725888 Paul W. Frields sticks...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||sticks...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|sticks...@gmail.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 709180] Review Request: jackctlmmc - control JACK transport via MIDI
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=709180 --- Comment #6 from Orcan Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com 2011-07-28 08:33:34 EDT --- Just as Martin summarized; it is not really a blocker, but we need, at the very least, to match the license the tarball tells us. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 705363] Review Request: spacewalk-web - Spacewalk Web site packages
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=705363 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 705363] Review Request: spacewalk-web - Spacewalk Web site packages
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=705363 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||ppi...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ppi...@redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 #9 from Stef Walter st...@collabora.co.uk 2011-07-28 08:36:47 EDT --- Good plan. Done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 #14 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2011-07-28 08:37:49 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 711848] Review Request: kmetronome - KDE MIDI Metronome using ALSA Sequencer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=711848 --- Comment #4 from Kevin Kofler ke...@tigcc.ticalc.org 2011-07-28 08:57:52 EDT --- I'm not sure if there's an exception for KDE applications now. There isn't any. .desktop files in /usr/share/applications or its subdirectories are interpreted by all desktops, so they must be validated. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 708836] Review Request: jansi-native - Jansi Native implements the JNI Libraries used by the Jansi project.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=708836 --- Comment #5 from Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com 2011-07-28 08:56:53 EDT --- Another scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3235481 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 Kevin Kofler ke...@tigcc.ticalc.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ke...@tigcc.ticalc.org Resolution|NOTABUG |RAWHIDE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 725888] Review Request: drupal6-strongarm - Strongarm gives a way to override the default variable values
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725888 Paul W. Frields sticks...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||662103(InsightReviews) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 723356] Review Request: drupal6-features_extra - Features Extra provides faux exportables
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=723356 Paul W. Frields sticks...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||662103(InsightReviews) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 725888] Review Request: drupal6-strongarm - Strongarm gives a way to override the default variable values
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725888
Paul W. Frields sticks...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Paul W. Frields sticks...@gmail.com 2011-07-28 09:01:39
EDT ---
[ O K ] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted
in the review.
[ O K ] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming
Guidelines.
[ O K ] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the
format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
[ O K ] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[ O K ] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and
meet the Licensing Guidelines.
[ O K ] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
** All Drupal.org modules are explicitly distributed as GPLv2+:
http://drupal.org/licensing/faq#q1
Nevertheless, it would be helpful for the module maintainers to
provide some licensing text in their actual code to make this
explicit. I would recommend filing a bug for this upstream even
though the maintainer intent is clear. This is not a blocker.
[ O K ] MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package must be included in %doc.
[ O K ] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[ O K ] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[ O K ] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream
source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task.
If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL
Guidelines for how to deal with this.
$ md5sum rpmbuild/SOURCES/drupal6-strongarm-2.0/strongarm-6.x-2.0.tar.gz ; curl
-s -o - http://ftp.drupal.org/files/projects/strongarm-6.x-2.0.tar.gz | md5sum
-
da6615c892dbe939a9b62bd2d40d132c
rpmbuild/SOURCES/drupal6-strongarm-2.0/strongarm-6.x-2.0.tar.gz
da6615c892dbe939a9b62bd2d40d132c -
[ O K ] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms
on at least one primary architecture.
[ O K ] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line.
[ O K ] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except
for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
[ O K ] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using
the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
[ O K ] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared
library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths,
must call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[ O K ] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[ O K ] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must
state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker.
[ O K ] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does
not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which
does create that directory.
[ O K ] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific
situations)
[ O K ] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be
set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include
a %defattr(...) line.
[ O K ] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[ O K ] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[ N/A ] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The
definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not
restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity).
[ O K ] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must
run properly if it is not present.
[ N/A ] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[ N/A ] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[ O K ] MUST: If a
[Bug 714326] Review Request: libtpcmisc - Miscellaneous PET functions
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=714326
--- Comment #1 from Richard Shaw hobbes1...@gmail.com 2011-07-28 09:17:18 EDT
---
I'm guessing that your current/future review requests will be the only users of
this (and the other related) packages but I figured I'd see what I could do
about the no-documentation.
Both packages have a few documentation files (Readme, History, one of them has
TODO) so that takes care of the main package.
I also noticed the a doxygen configuration file in both packages and I haven't
messed with them before so I decided to see if I could figure it out. The only
wrinkle is you have to use a trick to get it to install the documentation to
the right directory because the default in Doxyfile was stupid.
Also, when you have a -devel package that's architecture specific the Requires:
should also be architecture specific, i.e.:
Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
More to come.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on 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 Bug 726044 depends on bug 711350, which changed state. Bug 711350 Summary: Review Request: jboss-parent - JBoss Parent POM https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=711350 What|Old Value |New Value Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 726351] Review Request: jboss-logging - JBoss Logging Framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=726351 Bug 726351 depends on bug 711350, which changed state. Bug 711350 Summary: Review Request: jboss-parent - JBoss Parent POM https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=711350 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||RAWHIDE 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 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 mgold...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE Last Closed||2011-07-28 09:32:58 --- Comment #15 from Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com 2011-07-28 09:32:58 EDT --- Thank you, closing. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 708836] Review Request: jansi-native - Jansi Native implements the JNI Libraries used by the Jansi project.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=708836 Stanislav Ochotnicky socho...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Stanislav Ochotnicky socho...@redhat.com 2011-07-28 09:38:29 EDT --- Yup, all good now. Approved. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 708836] Review Request: jansi-native - Jansi Native implements the JNI Libraries used by the Jansi project.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=708836 Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|652183(FE-JAVASIG) | Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com 2011-07-28 09:45:50 EDT --- Thank you for review! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: jansi-native Short Description: Jansi Native implements the JNI Libraries used by the Jansi project Owners:goldmann Branches: 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 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 #17 from Shawn Starr shawn.st...@rogers.com 2011-07-28 09:54:14 EDT --- I can copy the previous %changelog info sure. So what changes otherwise do I need to make? Take the rspec 2.x patch and we're good? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 708836] Review Request: jansi-native - Jansi Native implements the JNI Libraries used by the Jansi project.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=708836 --- Comment #8 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2011-07-28 09:57:49 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 714326] Review Request: libtpcmisc - Miscellaneous PET functions
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=714326 --- Comment #2 from Richard Shaw hobbes1...@gmail.com 2011-07-28 09:57:05 EDT --- Ok, after adding the documentation rpmlint complained about line endings and encodings so I fixed that as well. Here's the updated spec, feel free to alter as you see fit! http://hobbes1069.fedorapeople.org/libtpcmisc.spec The only other oddity (which we really can't fix) is that the binary name libtpcmisc is, well, a binary, and not a library and it doesn't have a man page. In this particular case I think we can live with that since this package has a VERY small target audience. Of course if would be good to get upstream to update the FSF address, but I'm assuming upstream is dead? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 714326] Review Request: libtpcmisc - Miscellaneous PET functions
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=714326 Richard Shaw hobbes1...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||714327(libtpcimgio) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 714327] Review Request: libtpcimgio - Turku PET Centre for image file input and output procedures
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=714327 Richard Shaw hobbes1...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW Depends on||714326(libtpcmisc) --- Comment #1 from Richard Shaw hobbes1...@gmail.com 2011-07-28 09:59:53 EDT --- Ok, pretty much the same here as: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=714326#c2 So I wont repeat myself. SPEC: http://hobbes1069.fedorapeople.org/libtpcimgio.spec Go ahead a make a new SRPM for both packages and I'll start going through the guideline checklist. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 #18 from Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com 2011-07-28 10:09:11 EDT --- Please consider fixing all 7 points I made or provide reasoning for them. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 Mo Morsi mmo...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|NOTABUG |DEFERRED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 Bug 721062 depends on bug 721061, which changed state. Bug 721061 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-sunspot - Library for expressive, powerful interaction with the Solr search engine https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=721061 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||NOTABUG Status|NEW |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 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 Mo Morsi mmo...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||NOTABUG Flag|needinfo?(mmo...@redhat.com | |) | Last Closed||2011-07-28 10:10:08 --- Comment #3 from Mo Morsi mmo...@redhat.com 2011-07-28 10:10:08 EDT --- Yes, deferring this for now -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 Mo Morsi mmo...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||DEFERRED Flag|needinfo?(mmo...@redhat.com | |) | Last Closed||2011-07-28 10:09:45 --- Comment #2 from Mo Morsi mmo...@redhat.com 2011-07-28 10:09:45 EDT --- Yes, deferring this for now -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 705363] Review Request: spacewalk-web - Spacewalk Web site packages
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=705363
--- Comment #1 from Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com 2011-07-28 10:15:48 EDT ---
Source tar ball is original. Ok.
Summary verified from README. Ok.
TODO: I think `Spacewalk web site' or `Spacewalk web interface' would be
enough. The word (Spacewalk) `packages' interfere with RPM packages.
Package license (GPLv2 only) verified from License. Ok.
TODO: spacewalk-html subpackage contains MIT licensed code
(html/javascript/controls.js,
http://madrobby.github.com/scriptaculous/license/). Add proper value to License
tag for this subpackage.
TODO: spacewalk-base-minimal summary is too cryptic. Replace .pm's with `Perl
modules' or make it more human-friendly in other way.
TODO: spacewalk-web package summary contains lower-case `rpm' abbreviation. Use
upper case.
TODO: Some package descriptions do not end with full stop.
TODO: Remove BuildRoot definition and it's cleaning as it's default behavior of
rpmbuild.
FIX: Add Requires: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_%(eval `%{__perl} -V:version`; echo
$version)) too all subpackages with Perl modules
(https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Perl#Versioned_MODULE_COMPAT_Requires).
TODO: Add %{?_smp_mflags} to make arguments to utilize all CPU's while
`compiling'.
TODO: Remove %defattr macro from %files sections as this is implicit.
FIX: spacewalk-html does not content LICENSE file and does not require
spacewalk-base-minimal delivering the file. Distribute LICENSE file with
spacewalk-html.
$ rpmlint spacewalk-web.spec ../SRPMS/spacewalk-web-1.5.11-1.fc15.src.rpm
../RPMS/noarch/spacewalk-*
spacewalk-web.spec:261: W: macro-in-%changelog %description
spacewalk-web.src:261: W: macro-in-%changelog %description
spacewalk-base-minimal.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) pm's - Pm's,
om's, em's
spacewalk-base-minimal.noarch: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag
/etc/rhn/default/rhn_web.conf
spacewalk-base-minimal.noarch: E: non-readable /etc/rhn/default/rhn_web.conf
0640L
spacewalk-dobby.noarch: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag
/etc/rhn/default/rhn_dobby.conf
spacewalk-dobby.noarch: E: non-readable /etc/rhn/default/rhn_dobby.conf 0640L
spacewalk-grail.noarch: W: no-documentation
spacewalk-html.noarch: W: no-documentation
spacewalk-pxt.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) templating -
contemplating, tempting, template
spacewalk-pxt.noarch: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag
/etc/rhn/default/rhn_web.conf
spacewalk-pxt.noarch: E: non-readable /etc/rhn/default/rhn_web.conf 0640L
spacewalk-sniglets.noarch: W: no-documentation
8 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 10 warnings.
FIX: Escape percentage symbol in changelog, otherwise it's subject of
SPEC-macro expansion.
/etc/rhn/default/* configuration files are replaceable as this is default
configuration not intended for modification in place. Ok.
Some configuration files are not world-readable because they save credentials.
Ok.
Notice: Is /var/www/html/network/software/channels/keys/BETA-RPM-GPG-KEY a GPG
key stored along web pages? Should it be a %config file? I don't like it.
Otherwise file permisssions and layout are Ok.
All binary requires:
spacewalk-base-minimal-1.5.11-1.fc15.noarch.rpm
1 config(spacewalk-base-minimal) = 1.5.11-1.fc15
1 httpd
1 perl(Carp)
1 perl(DBI)
1 perl(Digest::HMAC_SHA1)
1 perl(Digest::MD5)
1 perl(Exporter)
1 perl(overload)
1 perl(Params::Validate)
1 perl(PXT::Config)
1 perl(RHN::Exception)
1 perl(Scalar::Util)
1 perl(strict)
1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) = 3.0.4-1
1 rpmlib(FileDigests) = 4.6.0-1
1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) = 4.0-1
1 rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) = 5.2-1
1 tomcat6
spacewalk-base-1.5.11-1.fc15.noarch.rpm
1 perl(Apache2::RequestUtil)
1 perl(Archive::Tar)
1 perl(Authen::PAM)
1 perl(base)
1 perl(Carp)
1 perl(constant)
1 perl(Data::Dumper)
1 perl(Date::Parse)
1 perl(DateTime)
1 perl(Digest::MD5)
1 perl(English)
1 perl(File::Spec)
1 perl(File::Temp)
1 perl(Frontier::Client)
1 perl(IO::File)
1 perl(IO::Socket::INET)
1 perl(IPC::Open3)
1 perl(lib)
1 perl(LWP::UserAgent)
1 perl(Mail::RFC822::Address)
1 perl(MIME::Base64)
1 perl(ModPerl::Util)
1 perl(NOCpulse::Config)
1 perl(overload)
1 perl(Params::Validate)
1 perl(POSIX)
1 perl(PXT::ACL)
1 perl(PXT::Config)
1 perl(PXT::Debug)
1 perl(PXT::HTML)
1 perl(PXT::Parser)
1 perl(PXT::Utils)
1 perl(RHN::Access)
1 perl(RHN::Action)
1 perl(RHN::AppInstall::ACL)
1 perl(RHN::AppInstall::ActionHandler)
1 perl(RHN::AppInstall::ActionHandler::ActionRunner)
1
[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 --- Comment #4 from Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com 2011-07-28 10:20:46 EDT --- Fixed! Spec URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/cookxml/2/cookxml.spec SRPM URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/cookxml/2/cookxml-3.0.2-2.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 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 akurt...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com 2011-07-28
10:55:21 EDT ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x] Rpmlint output:
cookxml-javadoc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Javadocs - Java docs,
Java-docs, Avocados
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: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.
[x] 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.
MD5SUM this package:cc7c8d2667beedfecf8b610a708c27f4
MD5SUM upstream package:cc7c8d2667beedfecf8b610a708c27f4
[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.
[x] 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
[x] Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun
[x] 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.
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 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 Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|652183(FE-JAVASIG) | Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com 2011-07-28 10:58:59 EDT --- Thank you for review! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: cookxml Short Description: Dynamic XML data binding tool Owners:goldmann Branches: 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 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 #19 from Shawn Starr shawn.st...@rogers.com 2011-07-28 11:12:41 EDT --- for #3, do we still need ruby subpackages from rubygems anymore? What is the policy on this? We can ditch it if not needed, I certainly don't. For the rest, I will fix accordingly, for the BuildRoot can be dropped, but if this .spec wants to be shared with EPEL we'll still need it then? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 --- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2011-07-28 11:28:56 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 720121] Review Request: GoFigure2 - a software for visualizing, processing and analysing of bioimages
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=720121 --- Comment #3 from Arnaud Gelas arnaud_ge...@hms.harvard.edu 2011-07-28 11:36:04 EDT --- Hi Ankur, We have just uploaded a new version of GoFigure2 on sourceforge. Let me know how it goes for this version and what I can do to help. Thanks, Arnaud -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 --- Comment #5 from Denis Arnaud denis.arnaud_fed...@m4x.org 2011-07-28 11:36:13 EDT --- Hi Bruno, I've played a little bit with the packaging of that project. In either case (the header files go either into the main package or into the -devel sub-package), rpmlint (in its own right) complains about something. I have asked for advice on the Fedora-packaging mailing list. Some referential material: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DevelPackages -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 --- Comment #6 from Denis Arnaud denis.arnaud_fed...@m4x.org 2011-07-28 11:40:08 EDT --- By the way, a more standard, and portable, alternative to tclap is Boost.Program Options (http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_46_1/doc/html/program_options.html). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 226383] Merge Review: rwall
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226383
Peter Schiffer pschi...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||hho...@redhat.com,
||pschi...@redhat.com
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|pschi...@redhat.com
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Peter Schiffer pschi...@redhat.com 2011-07-28 11:39:15
EDT ---
Checked srpm:
$ sha256sum rwall-0.17-31.fc16.src.rpm
e576f3c65b9e55d349b75c818bd0be80fdeeaa3c9c75230cca366f2c46009d63
rwall-0.17-31.fc16.src.rpm
N/A source files match upstream - I was not able to download upstream tarball.
YES package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
YES specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros
consistently.
YES dist tag is present.
INFO clean section and buildroot present - clean section
is not necessary any more and buildroot is ignored - they should be removed.
YES license field matches the actual license.
YES license is open source-compatible.
YES License text included in package.
N/A latest version is being packaged - upstream looks dead.
N/A BuildRequires are proper.
YES compiler flags are appropriate.
YES package builds in mock (Rawhide/x86_64).
YES debuginfo package looks complete.
NO rpmlint is silent.
$ rpmlint rwall.spec
rwall.spec:26: E: prereq-use /sbin/chkconfig /etc/init.d
- PreReq has to be replaced by Requires.
rwall.spec:77: E: use-of-RPM_SOURCE_DIR
- $RPM_SOURCE_DIR has to be replaced by $RPM_BUILD_ROOT.
rwall.spec:216: W: macro-in-%changelog %postun
- macro in changelog has to be escaped, e.g.: %%postun
rwall.spec:216: W: macro-in-%changelog %preun
- same as above.
rwall.spec:249: W: macro-in-%changelog %attr
- same as above.
rwall.spec: E: specfile-error warning: line 26: prereq is deprecated: Prereq:
/sbin/chkconfig /etc/init.d
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 3 warnings.
$ rpmlint rwall-0.17-31.fc16.src.rpm
rwall.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot C Client for sending messages to a host's
logged in users.
- easy to fix.
rwall.src: W: no-url-tag
- is there any live upstream ULR?
rwall.src: W: strange-permission rwalld.init 0755L
rwall.src:26: E: prereq-use /sbin/chkconfig /etc/init.d
rwall.src:77: E: use-of-RPM_SOURCE_DIR
rwall.src:216: W: macro-in-%changelog %postun
rwall.src:216: W: macro-in-%changelog %preun
rwall.src:249: W: macro-in-%changelog %attr
rwall.src: E: specfile-error warning: line 26: prereq is deprecated: Prereq:
/sbin/chkconfig /etc/init.d
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 6 warnings.
$ rpmlint rwall-0.17-31.fc16.x86_64.rpm
rwall.x86_64: W: summary-ended-with-dot C Client for sending messages to a
host's logged in users.
rwall.x86_64: W: no-url-tag
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
$ rpmlint rwall-server-0.17-31.fc16.x86_64.rpm
rwall-server.x86_64: W: summary-ended-with-dot C Server for sending messages to
a host's logged in users.
rwall-server.x86_64: W: no-url-tag
rwall-server.x86_64: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/rc.d/init.d/rwalld
rwall-server.x86_64: E: executable-marked-as-config-file
/etc/rc.d/init.d/rwalld
- binary cannot be marked as config file even in /etc dir
rwall-server.x86_64: W: incoherent-init-script-name rwalld ('rwall-server',
'rwall-serverd')
- this can be ignored
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings.
$ rpmlint rwall-debuginfo-0.17-31.fc16.x86_64.rpm
rwall-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-url-tag
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
YES final provides and requires look sane.
N/A %check is present and all tests pass.
YES no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths.
YES owns the directories it creates.
YES doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
YES no duplicates in %files.
YES scriptlets must be sane.
YES code, not content.
N/A large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
YES %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
YES no headers.
YES no pkgconfig files.
YES no libtool .la droppings.
YES not a GUI app.
Additional comments:
* URL in source tag is not working. It has to be commented out with note
and added like this - Source: netkit-rwall-%{version}.tar.gz
* %build section could be simplified by removing perl
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 720121] Review Request: GoFigure2 - a software for visualizing, processing and analysing of bioimages
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=720121 --- Comment #4 from Ankur Sinha sanjay.an...@gmail.com 2011-07-28 11:43:37 EDT --- (In reply to comment #3) Hi Ankur, We have just uploaded a new version of GoFigure2 on sourceforge. Let me know how it goes for this version and what I can do to help. Thanks, Arnaud I'll go check it out! Thanks! Ankur -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 arobi...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Robinson arobi...@redhat.com 2011-07-28 11:55:06
EDT ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[X] Rpmlint output:
[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:
[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.
MD5SUM this package:35a9b7f73874a5b64408f970ae82f9b9
MD5SUM upstream package:4399a60eb5915dab8bc3287f990d24b3
However, recursive diff of extracted tarballs produce no diffs, so not a
blocker.
[X] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines[5].
[X] Package must own all directories that it creates.
[X] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[X] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[X] File sections do not contain %defattr(-,root,root,-) unless changed with
good reason
[X] Permissions on files are set properly.
[X] Package does NOT have a %clean section which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}
(or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). (not needed anymore)
[X] Package consistently uses macros (no %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
mixing)
[X] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
[X] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[-] Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
subpackage
[-] Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlinks)
[X] Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
[-] Javadoc subpackages have Require: jpackage-utils
[X] Package uses %global not %define
[X] If package uses tarball from VCS include comment how to re-create that
tarball (svn export URL, git clone URL, ...)
[X] If source tarball includes bundled jar/class files these need to be
removed prior to building
[X] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
[-] Jar files are installed to %{_javadir}/%{name}.jar (see [6] for details)
[-] If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even when
building with ant
[-] pom files has correct add_maven_depmap
=== Other suggestions ===
[-] If possible use upstream build method (maven/ant/javac)
[X] Avoid having BuildRequires on exact NVR unless necessary
[X] Package has BuildArch: noarch (if possible)
[X] Latest version is packaged.
[X] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
No issues with the package. APPROVED.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 #22 from Richard Shaw hobbes1...@gmail.com 2011-07-28 11:56:44 EDT --- Luke will have to do the full guideline checklist but I'd say you're in pretty good shape. Make sure you're good on everything at: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers Paying specific attention to: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers#Get_Sponsored It wouldn't hurt to do some informal reviews on other open (unassigned) review requests. 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 711848] Review Request: kmetronome - KDE MIDI Metronome using ALSA Sequencer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=711848 --- Comment #5 from Martin Gieseking martin.giesek...@uos.de 2011-07-28 12:04:28 EDT --- (In reply to comment #4) There isn't any. .desktop files in /usr/share/applications or its subdirectories are interpreted by all desktops, so they must be validated. OK, thanks for the info. In this case, some KDE packages (like kdbg, kst and krusader) are missing this validation by mistake. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 Jeff Johnston jjohn...@redhat.com 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 225299] Merge Review: automake15
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225299 Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED CC||akurt...@redhat.com Resolution||DEFERRED Flag|needinfo? | Last Closed||2011-07-28 12:21:50 --- Comment #13 from Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com 2011-07-28 12:21:50 EDT --- Package has been deprecated. Closing. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact 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 --- Comment #8 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2011-07-28 12:24:35 EDT --- Please include a SCM request. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 675009] Review Request: c3p0 - JDBC DataSources/Resource Pools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=675009 --- Comment #13 from Mat Booth fed...@matbooth.co.uk 2011-07-28 12:56:12 EDT --- Upstream is quite unresponsive so getting them to fix the licence would be hard :-( -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 Jeff Johnston jjohn...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #9 from Jeff Johnston jjohn...@redhat.com 2011-07-28 13:03:05 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: eclipse-gcov Short Description: Eclipse gcov support Owners: jjohnstn Branches: InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 724878] Review Request: TexStudio - A feature-rich editor for LaTeX documents
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=724878 --- Comment #5 from hannes johannes.l...@googlemail.com 2011-07-28 13:02:09 EDT --- Alright I asked for help on the -devel list and found someone who helped me out with the patches. SPEC-URL: http://hannes.fedorapeople.org/texstudio.spec SRPM-URL: http://hannes.fedorapeople.org/texstudio-2.2-2.fc15.src.rpm I will file a ticket for the exception as far as I find some time to provide the needed information. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 675009] Review Request: c3p0 - JDBC DataSources/Resource Pools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=675009 --- Comment #14 from Mat Booth fed...@matbooth.co.uk 2011-07-28 13:06:04 EDT --- Also, I could be wrong but I don't think the new java macros are in F15? I'd like this package to be in 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 675009] Review Request: c3p0 - JDBC DataSources/Resource Pools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=675009 --- Comment #15 from Mat Booth fed...@matbooth.co.uk 2011-07-28 13:11:21 EDT --- (In reply to comment #14) Also, I could be wrong but I don't think the new java macros are in F15? I'd like this package to be in F15. Oh wait, ignore that. It was in updates-testing. :-) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 --- Comment #10 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2011-07-28 13:16:40 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 675009] Review Request: c3p0 - JDBC DataSources/Resource Pools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=675009 --- Comment #16 from Mat Booth fed...@matbooth.co.uk 2011-07-28 13:19:40 EDT --- New SRPM with all the changes suggested so far: Spec URL: http://mbooth.fedorapeople.org/reviews/c3p0.spec SRPM URL: http://mbooth.fedorapeople.org/reviews/c3p0-0.9.2-0.5.pre1.fc14.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 711848] Review Request: kmetronome - KDE MIDI Metronome using ALSA Sequencer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=711848 --- Comment #6 from Kevin Kofler ke...@tigcc.ticalc.org 2011-07-28 13:26:18 EDT --- I fixed Krusader (which I comaintain) in Rawhide. The others are not my packages, please file bugs. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 724878] Review Request: TexStudio - A feature-rich editor for LaTeX documents
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=724878 --- Comment #6 from Martin Gieseking martin.giesek...@uos.de 2011-07-28 13:51:21 EDT --- OK, great. To ensure that the bundled libraries are not built and linked, please remove the folders containing the corresponding sources (in %prep). http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Treatment_Of_Bundled_Libraries#Packages_with_Bundled_Libraries Some additional minor notes: - Add a short comment above the License field documenting the multiple licensing scenario: texstudio binary: GPLv3 due to static linkage of bundled qcodeedit texstudio data and image files: GPLv2+ - Instead of requiring texlive-latex, I recommend to use the virtual provides tex(latex). - Drop the following sentence from the %description: You can run it on Windows, Unix/Linux, BSD and MacOSX systems and modify it if you want, since it is licensed under the GPL. - Prefer removing the dictionary files in %install over excluding them in %files. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 683974] Review Request: xvst - Download tool for video clips
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=683974 Christoph Korn christoph.k...@web.de changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||DEFERRED Last Closed||2011-07-28 14:13:50 --- Comment #8 from Christoph Korn christoph.k...@web.de 2011-07-28 14:13:50 EDT --- Currently, I do not use Fedora and cannot work on this bug. I leave the files on my server so someone else can take them and work with them. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 723703] Review Request: eclipse-gprof - Eclipse plug-ins for gprof 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=723703 --- Comment #1 from Jeff Johnston jjohn...@redhat.com 2011-07-28 14:22:07 EDT --- Updated. http://jjohnstn.fedorapeople.org/eclipse-gprof.spec http://jjohnstn.fedorapeople.org/eclipse-gprof-0.7.0-0.1.20110718gitc011a2c7a0.fc17.src.rpm -bash-4.1$ rpmlint eclipse-gprof-0.7.0-0.1.20110718gitc011a2c7a0.fc17.noarch.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. -bash-4.1$ rpmlint eclipse-gprof-0.7.0-0.1.20110718gitc011a2c7a0.fc17.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 608319] Review Request: memaker - An avatar creator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=608319 Mario Blättermann mari...@freenet.de changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mari...@freenet.de Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 723703] Review Request: eclipse-gprof - Eclipse plug-ins for gprof 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=723703 Andrew Robinson arobi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||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 723703] Review Request: eclipse-gprof - Eclipse plug-ins for gprof 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=723703 Andrew Robinson arobi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|arobi...@redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 608319] Review Request: memaker - An avatar creator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=608319
Mario Blättermann mari...@freenet.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #12 from Mario Blättermann mari...@freenet.de 2011-07-28 15:05:31
EDT ---
Koji scratch build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3236193
$ rpmlint -i -v *
memaker.noarch: I: checking
memaker.noarch: I: checking-url https://launchpad.net/memaker (timeout 10
seconds)
memaker.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/share/memaker/themes/glyphFace/Nose/..svg
The file or directory is hidden. You should see if this is normal, and delete
it from the package if not.
memaker.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary memaker
Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page.
memaker.src: I: checking
memaker.src: I: checking-url https://launchpad.net/memaker (timeout 10 seconds)
memaker.src: W: invalid-url Source0: memaker-20100110-bzr.tar.gz
The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL.
memaker.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: memaker-20100110-bzr.tar.gz
The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL.
/home/mariobl/Arbeitsfläche/memaker/memaker-20100110-1.fc16.src/memaker.spec:
W: invalid-url Source0: memaker-20100110-bzr.tar.gz
The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL.
2 packages and 2 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
For the »hidden« file, see comment #7.
Of course, the source package cannot be named as an URL. That's why, no real
issues.
-
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+
[+] 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 *
c64b256c500f9eae6f78a03332087553 memaker-20100110-bzr.tar.gz
a432d5d0f771ccd2edf48f860249b25a memaker-20100110-bzr.tar.gz.packaged
The checksums doesn't match. I assume it is due to differing algorithms
in gzip, which is a common problem with other packages which are based
on a VCS checkout, too.
[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
- See Koji build above.
[.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, ...
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.
[.] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly.
[+] MUST: If a package installs files below %{_datadir}/icons, the icon cache
must be updated.
[.] MUST: Packages storing shared library files (not just symlinks) must call
ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[.] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[.] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, ...
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates.
[+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in %files.
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
[+] MUST: Packages must not provide RPM dependency information when that
information is not global in nature, or are otherwise handled.
[.] MUST: When filtering automatically generated RPM dependency information,
the filtering system implemented by Fedora must be used.
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[.] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
[+] MUST: Files in %doc must not affect the runtime of the application.
[.] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[.] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[.] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g.
libfoo.so.1.1), ...
[.] MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned
dependency.
[.] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
[+] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file
[+] MUST: .desktop files must be properly installed with desktop-file-install
in the %install section.
[+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
[+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
[.] SHOULD: If the source package
[Bug 723703] Review Request: eclipse-gprof - Eclipse plug-ins for gprof 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=723703 sami swagi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||swagi...@redhat.com AssignedTo|arobi...@redhat.com |swagi...@redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 708664] Review Request: jp2a - an utility for converting JPEG images to ASCII
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=708664
Martin Gieseking martin.giesek...@uos.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||martin.giesek...@uos.de
--- Comment #10 from Martin Gieseking martin.giesek...@uos.de 2011-07-28
15:21:42 EDT ---
Some more notes:
- I agree, BR ncurses-devel is missing and should be added. It's required to
get the current terminal size. Without it, default values are used.
- Adapt Source0 according to
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Sourceforge.net
- Choose a more appropriate Group, e.g. Applications/Text
- Add file COPYING to the package.
- Be a bit more specific in %files, i.e. replace
%{_mandir}/man1/* with %{_mandir}/man1/%{name}.1*
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 675009] Review Request: c3p0 - JDBC DataSources/Resource Pools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=675009 Spike spikefed...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #17 from Spike spikefed...@gmail.com 2011-07-28 15:28:58 EDT --- Just for for the record, the SRPM link is dead. I guess it should be http://mbooth.fedorapeople.org/reviews/c3p0-0.9.2-0.5.pre1.fc15.src.rpm Apart from that, beautiful. Thanks a lot. *** 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 726486] New: Review Request: verne-backgrounds - Verne desktop backgrounds
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: verne-backgrounds - Verne desktop backgrounds https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=726486 Summary: Review Request: verne-backgrounds - Verne desktop backgrounds Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: martin.sour...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Spec URL: http://mso.fedorapeople.org/packages/SPECS/verne-backgrounds.spec SRPM URL: http://mso.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/verne-backgrounds-15.91.0-1.fc15.src.rpm Description: This package contains desktop backgrounds for the Verne theme. Additional info: reused spec from previous releases, dangling symlinks are ok. Commented-out things are preparations for expected Supplemental wallpapers. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 680666] Review Request: rssdler - A utility to automatically download enclosures and other objects linked to from various types of RSS feeds
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=680666 Mario Blättermann mari...@freenet.de changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||mari...@freenet.de AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mari...@freenet.de Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #4 from Mario Blättermann mari...@freenet.de 2011-07-28 15:32:50 EDT --- $ rpmlint -i -v *spec *rpm rssdler.spec: I: checking-url http://rssdler.googlecode.com/files/rssdler-0.4.2.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds) rssdler.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: http://rssdler.googlecode.com/files/rssdler-0.4.2.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not Found The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL. rssdler.src: I: checking rssdler.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US videocasts - video casts, video-casts, videocassette The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. rssdler.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ttl - tel, til, Tl The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. rssdler.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rTorrent - r Torrent, torrent, Torrens The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. rssdler.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US broadcatching - broad catching, broad-catching, broadcasting The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. rssdler.src: I: checking-url http://code.google.com/p/rssdler/ (timeout 10 seconds) rssdler.src: I: checking-url http://rssdler.googlecode.com/files/rssdler-0.4.2.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds) rssdler.src: W: invalid-url Source0: http://rssdler.googlecode.com/files/rssdler-0.4.2.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not Found The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL. 1 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. The unavailable URLs are a common problem with Googlecode hosted software. I've tested it, the file is downloadable. Spelling errors could be ignored. Stay tuned for a full 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 726486] Review Request: verne-backgrounds - Verne desktop backgrounds
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=726486 Ian Weller i...@ianweller.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||i...@ianweller.org AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|i...@ianweller.org 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 680666] Review Request: rssdler - A utility to automatically download enclosures and other objects linked to from various types of RSS feeds
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=680666
Mario Blättermann mari...@freenet.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Mario Blättermann mari...@freenet.de 2011-07-28 15:46:34
EDT ---
Koji scratch build for f16:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3236360
-
key:
[+] OK
[.] OK, not applicable
[X] needs work
-
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}.
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license.
GPLv2
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[+] MUST: The file containing the text of the license(s) for the package must
be included in %doc.
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source.
$ md5sum *
2f0aef5611bc1231928b861f717953eb rssdler-0.4.2.tar.gz
2f0aef5611bc1231928b861f717953eb rssdler-0.4.2.tar.gz.orig
[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
- See Koji build above.
[.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, ...
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.
[.] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly.
[.] MUST: If a package installs files below %{_datadir}/icons, the icon cache
must be updated.
[.] MUST: Packages storing shared library files (not just symlinks) must call
ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[.] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[.] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, ...
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates.
[+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in %files.
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
[+] MUST: Packages must not provide RPM dependency information when that
information is not global in nature, or are otherwise handled.
[.] MUST: When filtering automatically generated RPM dependency information,
the filtering system implemented by Fedora must be used.
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[.] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
[+] MUST: Files in %doc must not affect the runtime of the application.
[.] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[.] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[.] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g.
libfoo.so.1.1), ...
[.] MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned
dependency.
[.] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
[.] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file
[.] MUST: .desktop files must be properly installed with desktop-file-install
in the %install section.
[+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
[+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
[.] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream...
[+] SHOULD: Timestamps of files should be preserved.
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
See Koji build above (which uses mock anyway)
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described.
Works properly, given the current development state.
[+] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane.
[.] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency.
[.] SHOULD: pkgconfig(.pc) files should be placed in a -devel pkg.
[.] SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin,
/usr/bin, or /usr/sbin ...
[.] SHOULD: Your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts.
Currently no man page available.
PACKAGE APPROVED
Just some hints, no blockers:
- If you don't define BuildRoot, you also don't have to use any »rm -rf
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT« calls explicitly. This is done automatically.
- To match the usual behaviour, rename gpl-2.0.txt to COPYING.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug 726486] Review Request: verne-backgrounds - Verne desktop backgrounds
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=726486 Ian Weller i...@ianweller.org changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Ian Weller i...@ianweller.org 2011-07-28 15:57:12 EDT --- [ OK ] specfiles match: fbeab392a2ab1727d33d983f6f4a5cc5 verne-backgrounds.spec fbeab392a2ab1727d33d983f6f4a5cc5 verne-backgrounds.spec.1 [ OK ] source files match upstream: 76e4d55069ff014a81c3ee4b919284f2 verne-backgrounds-15.91.0.tar.xz 76e4d55069ff014a81c3ee4b919284f2 verne-backgrounds-15.91.0.tar.xz.1 [ OK ] package meets naming and versioning guidelines. [ OK ] spec is properly named, cleanly written, and uses macros consistently. [ OK ] dist tag is present. [ OK ] build root is correct. [ OK ] license field matches the actual license. [ OK ] license is open source-compatible. [ OK ] license text included in package. [ OK ] latest version is being packaged. [ OK ] BuildRequires are proper. [ N/A ] compiler flags are appropriate. [ OK ] %clean is present. [ OK ] package builds in mock. scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3236394 [ OK ] package installs properly. [ N/A ] debuginfo package looks complete. [ OK ] rpmlint is silent. (only no-documentation and dangling-relative-symlink warnings, these are fine) [ OK ] final provides and requires are sane [ N/A ] %check is present and all tests pass: [ N/A ] no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. [ OK ] owns the directories it creates. [ OK ] doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. [ OK ] no duplicates in %files. [ OK ] file permissions are appropriate. [ N/A ] scriptlets match those on ScriptletSnippets page. [ OK ] documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. [ OK ] %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. [ N/A ] no headers. [ N/A ] no pkgconfig files. [ N/A ] no libtool .la droppings. [ N/A ] desktop files valid and installed properly. --- This package (verne-backgrounds) is APPROVED by ianweller --- -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 726486] Review Request: verne-backgrounds - Verne desktop backgrounds
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=726486 Martin Sourada martin.sour...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Martin Sourada martin.sour...@gmail.com 2011-07-28 15:59:26 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: verne-backgrounds Short Description: Verne desktop backgrounds Owners: mso Branches: F-16 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 620112] Review Request: udpxy - UDP-to-HTTP multicast traffic relay daemon
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=620112 --- Comment #22 from Ivan Afonichev ivan.afonic...@gmail.com 2011-07-28 16:27:32 EDT --- If there are no other comments I think we should set + fedora‑review flag to let nucleo make an SCM admin request. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 620112] Review Request: udpxy - UDP-to-HTTP multicast traffic relay daemon
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=620112 --- Comment #23 from nucleo alekc...@googlemail.com 2011-07-28 16:36:12 EDT --- You can try to use for review one of review templates before set fedora‑review+ http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Package_Maintainers/Review_Template -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 725837] Review Request: hexglass - Block falling puzzle game based on a hexagonal grid
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725837 Mario Blättermann mari...@freenet.de changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||mari...@freenet.de AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mari...@freenet.de Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 725888] Review Request: drupal6-strongarm - Strongarm gives a way to override the default variable values
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725888 Peter Borsa peter.bo...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Peter Borsa peter.bo...@gmail.com 2011-07-28 16:49:35 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: drupal6-strongarm Short Description: Strongarm gives a way to override the default variable values. Owners: asrob pfrields Branches: f15 el5 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 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 --- Comment #7 from Bruno Postle br...@postle.net 2011-07-28 16:54:43 EDT --- Thanks Denis, I'm away for a few days so I probably won't be able to respond until I get back. The developer that added the tclap dependency for Hugin is using Windows, so I guess it made sense to them at the time. BTW for anyone considering reviewing this package, hugin-2011.2.0 is nearly released with an unbundled tclap, I won't be able to push this new version of hugin into fedora until we get tclap in. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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
--- Comment #2 from Matthieu Saulnier casper.le.fan...@gmail.com 2011-07-28
17:35:23 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #1)
Hi Casper,
Hello
first of all, please enter your full real name in the bugzilla preferences and
also use it in the spec's %changelog.
Done
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
Done
- Is this release really a pre-release (rc1)? I can't find any information
on this.
I made a mistake by reading the wiki. Corrected
- According to the source file headers, the license of xnee is GPLv3+.
Done
- The package currently doesn't build because of missing BuildRequires:
libXtst-devel
gtk+-devel
gtk2-devel
Done
- 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
Done
- 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.
Yes, my SPEC file is for xnee. I will package libxnee, cnee and gnee from the
tarball... If you agree.
- If you plan to build the package for EPEL 6 as well, add
rm -rf %{buildroot}
at the beginning of the %install section.
Done
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 620112] Review Request: udpxy - UDP-to-HTTP multicast traffic relay daemon
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=620112
--- Comment #24 from Ivan Afonichev ivan.afonic...@gmail.com 2011-07-28
17:47:35 EDT ---
Ok thanks.
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
MUST Items:
[x] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package.
[x] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}
[x] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[x] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines.
[x] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[x] MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package must be included in %doc.
[x] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[x] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[x] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL.
da0a587cfc81fb4a501b07ed84237469 udpxy.1.0-Chipmunk-BLD20.tgz
[x] MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one supported architecture.
[-] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch.
[x] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires
mock
INFO: Done(Загрузки/udpxy-1.0.20-1.fc15.src.rpm) Config(default) 1 minutes 13
seconds
[-] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro.
[-] MUST: Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files (not just
symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in
%post and %postun.
[-] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review
[x] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not
create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
create that directory.
[x] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
[x] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
%defattr(...) line.
[x] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros
section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissible content. This is
described in detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines.
[-] MUST: Large documentation files should go in a doc subpackage.
[x] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it 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: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'
(for directory ownership and usability).
[-] 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: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release}
[x] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be
removed in the spec.
[-] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the
%install section.
[x] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
[x] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
SHOULD Items:
[-] 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 description and summary sections in the package spec file
should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
INFO: Done(Загрузки/udpxy-1.0.20-1.fc15.src.rpm) Config(default) 1 minutes 13
seconds
[?] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all
supported architectures.
[x] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described.
[x] 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: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and
this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg.
A reasonable exception is that the main
