[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 #3 from Ankur Sinha sanjay.an...@gmail.com 2011-07-31 02:08:31
EDT ---
(In reply to comment #1)
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.
I'm pretty sure they're the only users.. :D
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}
Ah. Okay. I'm not up to date on the %{?_isa} macro. I'll go read up on it.
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 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 #4 from Ankur Sinha sanjay.an...@gmail.com 2011-07-31 02:11:08 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2) 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 I've picked it entirely :P 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? I'm shooting off a mail to upstream. However, I'm pretty sure this stuff is not maintained any more so the chances of anything happening are meek. Thanks for the corrections, I'm just rebuilding and posting the new packages. 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 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 #5 from Ankur Sinha sanjay.an...@gmail.com 2011-07-31 02:51:12 EDT --- http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/libtpcmisc/libtpcmisc-1.4.8-2.fc15.src.rpm http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/libtpcmisc/libtpcmisc.spec 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 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 --- Comment #2 from Ankur Sinha sanjay.an...@gmail.com 2011-07-31 03:18:32 EDT --- http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/libtpcimgio/libtpcimgio.spec http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/libtpcimgio/libtpcimgio-1.5.10-2.fc15.src.rpm 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 702987] Review Request: stdair - C++ Standard Airline IT 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=702987
Martin Gieseking martin.giesek...@uos.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|martin.giesek...@uos.de
--- Comment #10 from Martin Gieseking martin.giesek...@uos.de 2011-07-31
03:35:33 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #9)
Does it sound reasonable?
Yes, absolutely. From the Fedora point of view, it's clear that the package is
licensed under LGPLv2+ and no further action is required. However, it's good
practice to add the license header to every source file as denoted in the GPL
license text. If a potential third-party project takes some code files from
stdair, it's always clear how the single files are licensed and who's the
copyright owner even if the developer of the third-party program forgets to add
a notice about stdair to his README.
Here are some more notes:
- The latest package doesn't build because of missing BR: python-devel
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3240849
There are possibly some more dependencies missing. Try to build the package
with mock/koji to find all deps.
- As far as I can see, you can drop Requires: cmake since
%{_datadir}/cmake/ is not used (unlike mentioned in the comment).
- Please prefer plain shell commands (rm, install, chmod, etc. ) over macros
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines#Macros
- Move the find command and the following mydocs lines from the %check
to the %install section.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 725914] Review Request: php-channel-pearplex - Adds the PearPlex channel to PEAR
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725914
Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fed...@famillecollet.com
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|fed...@famillecollet.com
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com 2011-07-31 05:01:21
EDT ---
%{channelname} is not defined, so %postun doesn't work.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 721043] Review Request: pragha - Lightweight GTK+ music manager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=721043 Christoph Wickert cwick...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2011-07-31 05:52:31 --- Comment #6 from Christoph Wickert cwick...@fedoraproject.org 2011-07-31 05:52:31 EDT --- Built for F16 and rawhide: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3240964 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3240925 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 721043] Review Request: pragha - Lightweight GTK+ music manager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=721043 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-07-31 05:54:51 EDT --- pragha-0.97.0-2.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/pragha-0.97.0-2.fc16 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 722781] Review Request: wmcube - Dockapp with a rotating 3d-object and the current CPU load
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=722781
--- Comment #3 from Mario Blättermann mari...@freenet.de 2011-07-31 07:05:08
EDT ---
Koji scratch build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3241035
I've changed all occurences of $RPM_BUILD_ROOT to %{buildroot}.
The %defattr macro has been removed.
Extra doc files for 3dObjects now reside in %doc.
The original COPYING with the old FSF address has been replaced by a new one.
Manpage is now plain text, unpacked.
Spec URL: http://mariobl.fedorapeople.org/Review/SPECS/wmcube.spec
SRPM URL:
http://mariobl.fedorapeople.org/Review/SRPMS/wmcube-0.98-2.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 726245] Review Request: perl-Eval-LineNumbers - Add line numbers to hereis blocks that contain perl source code
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=726245 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 #1 from Mario Blättermann mari...@freenet.de 2011-07-31 07:26:44 EDT --- Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3241045 $ rpmlint -i -v *perl-Eval-LineNumbers.noarch: I: checking perl-Eval-LineNumbers.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) hereis - herein, here's, here is The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. perl-Eval-LineNumbers.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hereis - herein, here's, here is The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. perl-Eval-LineNumbers.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US eval'ed - evaluated The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. perl-Eval-LineNumbers.noarch: I: checking-url http://search.cpan.org/dist/Eval-LineNumbers/ (timeout 10 seconds) perl-Eval-LineNumbers.src: I: checking perl-Eval-LineNumbers.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) hereis - herein, here's, here is The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. perl-Eval-LineNumbers.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hereis - herein, here's, here is The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. perl-Eval-LineNumbers.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US eval'ed - evaluated The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. perl-Eval-LineNumbers.src: I: checking-url http://search.cpan.org/dist/Eval-LineNumbers/ (timeout 10 seconds) perl-Eval-LineNumbers.src: I: checking-url http://www.cpan.org/authors/id/M/MU/MUIR/modules/Eval-LineNumbers-0.31.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds) perl-Eval-LineNumbers.spec: I: checking-url http://www.cpan.org/authors/id/M/MU/MUIR/modules/Eval-LineNumbers-0.31.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds) 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. No real issues so far. The spelling error which points to hereis is ignoreable. 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 726245] Review Request: perl-Eval-LineNumbers - Add line numbers to hereis blocks that contain perl source code
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=726245
--- Comment #2 from Mario Blättermann mari...@freenet.de 2011-07-31 07:37:04
EDT ---
-
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.
[X] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license.
Artistic 2.0 or LGPLv2+
The website of this Perl module says License: unknown. According
to the packaging guidelines, such modules should get GPL+ or Artistic.
Why are you using a different license here?
[X] 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 *
69b20fbf576942a1ef7cffef456b0081 Eval-LineNumbers-0.31.tar.gz
69b20fbf576942a1ef7cffef456b0081 Eval-LineNumbers-0.31.tar.gz.packaged
[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
- Succesful Koji build available.
[.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, ...
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.
[.] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly.
[.] MUST: If a package installs files below %{_datadir}/icons, the icon cache
must be updated.
[.] MUST: Packages storing shared library files (not just symlinks) must call
ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[.] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[.] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, ...
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates.
[+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in %files.
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
[+] MUST: Packages must not provide RPM dependency information when that
information is not global in nature, or are otherwise handled.
[.] MUST: When filtering automatically generated RPM dependency information,
the filtering system implemented by Fedora must be used.
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[.] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
[+] MUST: Files in %doc must not affect the runtime of the application.
[.] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[.] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[.] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g.
libfoo.so.1.1), ...
[.] MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned
dependency.
[.] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
[.] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file
[.] MUST: .desktop files must be properly installed with desktop-file-install
in the %install section.
[+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
[+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
[.] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream...
[+] SHOULD: Timestamps of files should be preserved.
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
See Koji build above (which uses mock anyway)
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described.
I assume the packager has tested it. Don't know how to test it on my
system.
[+] 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.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 725914] Review Request: php-channel-pearplex - Adds the PearPlex channel to PEAR
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725914 --- Comment #2 from Robert Scheck redhat-bugzi...@linuxnetz.de 2011-07-31 07:38:57 EDT --- Thanks for pointing out this, should be corrected now: Spec URL: http://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/php-channel-pearplex.spec SRPM URL: http://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/php-channel-pearplex-1.3-2.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 697492] Review Request: django-keyedcache - Utilities for simplified development of cache aware objects
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=697492 Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #11 from Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com 2011-07-31 07:45:52 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: django-keyedcache Short Description: Utilities for simplified development of cache aware objects Owners: sundaram Branches: f15 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 726245] Review Request: perl-Eval-LineNumbers - Add line numbers to hereis blocks that contain perl source code
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=726245 --- Comment #3 from Emmanuel Seyman emmanuel.sey...@club-internet.fr 2011-07-31 07:55:57 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2) [X] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license. Artistic 2.0 or LGPLv2+ The website of this Perl module says License: unknown. According to the packaging guidelines, such modules should get GPL+ or Artistic. Why are you using a different license here? The pod of the module contains (at the very end of the file): This package may be used and redistributed under the terms of either the Artistic 2.0 or LGPL 2.1 license. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 722781] Review Request: wmcube - Dockapp with a rotating 3d-object and the current CPU load
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=722781 --- Comment #4 from Martin Gieseking martin.giesek...@uos.de 2011-07-31 07:59:27 EDT --- There are still two small issues (see rpmlint output below): - Change the permissions of the original manpage (the file in your ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES folder) to 644. - Convert file CONTRIBUTE to UTF8 in %prep, e.g. like this: cd 3dObjects/ iconv -f iso-8859-1 -t utf8 CONTRIBUTE CONTRIBUTE.new touch -r CONTRIBUTE CONTRIBUTE.new mv CONTRIBUTE.new CONTRIBUTE $ rpmlint *.rpm wmcube.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Dockapp - Dock app, Dock-app, Paddock wmcube.src: W: spelling-error Summary(de) Dockapp - Doppelpack wmcube.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dockapp - dock app, dock-app, paddock wmcube.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US realtime - mealtime, real time, real-time wmcube.src: W: strange-permission wmcube.1 0600L wmcube.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Dockapp - Dock app, Dock-app, Paddock wmcube.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(de) Dockapp - Doppelpack wmcube.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dockapp - dock app, dock-app, paddock wmcube.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US realtime - mealtime, real time, real-time wmcube.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/wmcube-0.98/CONTRIBUTE wmcube-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/wmcube/wmgeneral/misc.c wmcube-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/wmcube/wmgeneral/list.c wmcube-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/wmcube/wmgeneral/list.h 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 10 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 726245] Review Request: perl-Eval-LineNumbers - Add line numbers to hereis blocks that contain perl source code
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=726245 Mario Blättermann mari...@freenet.de changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Mario Blättermann mari...@freenet.de 2011-07-31 08:06:17 EDT --- (In reply to comment #3) The pod of the module contains (at the very end of the file): This package may be used and redistributed under the terms of either the Artistic 2.0 or LGPL 2.1 license. Yes, indeed... I hadn't expected to find a license declaration at that location. Ok, then all seems to be OK, that's why: --- PACKAGE APROVED --- -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 726245] Review Request: perl-Eval-LineNumbers - Add line numbers to hereis blocks that contain perl source code
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=726245 Emmanuel Seyman emmanuel.sey...@club-internet.fr changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Emmanuel Seyman emmanuel.sey...@club-internet.fr 2011-07-31 08:11:14 EDT --- (In reply to comment #4) PACKAGE APROVED Thanks for the review, Mario. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: perl-Eval-LineNumbers Short Description: Add line numbers to hereis blocks that contain perl source code Owners: eseyman Branches: f16 f15 InitialCC: perl-sig -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 705372] Review Request: perl-Unicode-LineBreak - UAX #14 Unicode Line Breaking Algorithm
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=705372 Emmanuel Seyman emmanuel.sey...@club-internet.fr changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|emmanuel.seyman@club-intern ||et.fr Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #3 from Emmanuel Seyman emmanuel.sey...@club-internet.fr 2011-07-31 08:30:26 EDT --- Taking (yes, again). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 705372] Review Request: perl-Unicode-LineBreak - UAX #14 Unicode Line Breaking Algorithm
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=705372
--- Comment #4 from Emmanuel Seyman emmanuel.sey...@club-internet.fr
2011-07-31 08:57:49 EDT ---
=== KEY ===
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines including the Perl specific items
[x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture.
Tested on: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3241211
[!] Rpmlint output:
perl-Unicode-LineBreak.x86_64: E: useless-provides perl(Unicode::LineBreak)
perl-Unicode-LineBreak.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides
/usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/auto/Unicode/LineBreak/LineBreak.so
LineBreak.so()(64bit)
perl-Unicode-LineBreak.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides
/usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/auto/Unicode/LineBreak/LineBreak.so
LineBreak.so()(64bit)
perl-Unicode-LineBreak.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/share/doc/perl-Unicode-LineBreak-2011.05/GPL
3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 2 warnings.
I'm not sure where the perl(Unicode::LineBreak) provides is being generated. On
a hunch, I'm guessing that it comes from
lib/Unicode/LineBreak/Defaults.pm.sample which contains the line package
Unicode::LineBreak;. Try filtering that.
The private-shared-object-provides can be removed by using the perl default
filter. See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Perl_default_filter for details.
The incorrect fsf address is a bug that should be filed upstream but I won't
block the review on this.
[x] Package is not relocatable.
[x] Buildroot is correct
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
Ignored on Fedora, used in EPEL
[x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type: GPL+ or Artistic
[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] 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.
87a22cce46d57d75601f64e8ab03ae66 Unicode-LineBreak-2011.05.tar.gz
[x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch
[x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[-] The spec file handles locales properly.
[-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x] Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x] Permissions on files are set properly.
[x] Package consistently uses macros.
[x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[-] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present.
[-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[-] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
[-] 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.
=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
[x] Latest version is packaged.
[x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
Tested on: rawhide.x86_64
[x] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
Tested on: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3241211
[?] Package functions as described.
[-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct.
[-] File based requires are sane.
[x] %check is present and the tests pass
All tests successful.
Files=18, Tests=134, 1 wallclock secs ( 0.07 usr 0.01 sys + 0.96 cusr 0.10
csys = 1.14 CPU)
Result: PASS
Please fix the filtering.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
[Bug 725914] Review Request: php-channel-pearplex - Adds the PearPlex channel to PEAR
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725914
Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com 2011-07-31 09:05:03
EDT ---
=== FORMAL REVIEW ===
-=N/A x=Check !=Problem, ?=Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x] Rpmlint output:
W: unversioned-explicit-provides php-channel(pear.pearplex.net)
W: no-documentation
[x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines including the PHP specific items
[x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type: Public Domain seems ok as not a real package (no source)
[-] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package is included in %doc.
[x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
md5sum : a8b5b68aafe983fceef0eb342ce66fbb channel.xml
[x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture.
Tested on: f15.x86_64
[x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch
[x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[-] The spec file handles locales properly.
[-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[-] Packages don't bundle copies of system librarie
[-] Package is not relocatable.
[-] Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x] Permissions on files are set properly.
[x] Package consistently uses macros.
[x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[-] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Static libraries in -static subpackage, if present.
[-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages with %{?_isa}, if present.
[-] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
[-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
[-] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8
[-] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
[x] Final requires
/usr/bin/pear
php-pear(PEAR)
[x] Final provides
php-channel(pear.pearplex.net)
php-channel-pearplex = 1.3-2.fc15.remi
[-] Latest version is packaged.
[-] If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[-] The description and summary sections in the package spec file should
contain
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[-] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
Tested on: Koji
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3241223
[-] The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
Tested on:
[x] Package functions as described.
[x] If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane.
[x] If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin,
/usr/bin, or /usr/sbin
consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file
itself.
[-] your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts.
If it doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense.
[-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct.
[-] %check is present and the tests pass
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 717863] Review Request: perl-Locale-Codes - Distribution of modules to handle locale codes
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=717863 Emmanuel Seyman emmanuel.sey...@club-internet.fr changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||emmanuel.seyman@club-intern ||et.fr AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|emmanuel.seyman@club-intern ||et.fr Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Emmanuel Seyman emmanuel.sey...@club-internet.fr 2011-07-31 09:03:25 EDT --- Taking. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 725914] Review Request: php-channel-pearplex - Adds the PearPlex channel to PEAR
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725914 Robert Scheck red...@linuxnetz.de changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Robert Scheck red...@linuxnetz.de 2011-07-31 09:11:10 EDT --- Remi, thank you very much for the review. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: php-channel-pearplex Short Description: Adds the PearPlex channel to PEAR Owners: robert Branches: el5 el6 f14 f15 f16 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 717863] Review Request: perl-Locale-Codes - Distribution of modules to handle locale codes
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=717863
Emmanuel Seyman emmanuel.sey...@club-internet.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Emmanuel Seyman emmanuel.sey...@club-internet.fr
2011-07-31 09:14:35 EDT ---
=== KEY ===
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines including the Perl specific items
[x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture.
Tested on: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3241228
[x] Rpmlint output: 1 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[x] Package is not relocatable.
[x] Buildroot is correct
[x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type: GPL+ or Artistic
[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] 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.
f0181dd8bf625db584fddbd3f5e2143b Locale-Codes-3.17.tar.gz
[x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch
[x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[-] The spec file handles locales properly.
[-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x] Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x] Permissions on files are set properly.
[x] Package consistently uses macros.
[x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[-] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present.
[-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[-] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
[-] 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.
=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
[x] Latest version is packaged.
[x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
Tested on: rawhide.x86_64
[x] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
Tested on: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3241228
[?] Package functions as described.
[-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct.
[-] File based requires are sane.
[x] %check is present and the tests pass
All tests successful.
Files=26, Tests=481, 4 wallclock secs ( 0.12 usr 0.04 sys + 3.02 cusr 0.22
csys = 3.40 CPU)
Result: PASS
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 722781] Review Request: wmcube - Dockapp with a rotating 3d-object and the current CPU load
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=722781 --- Comment #5 from Mario Blättermann mari...@freenet.de 2011-07-31 09:22:49 EDT --- (In reply to comment #4) There are still two small issues (see rpmlint output below): - Change the permissions of the original manpage (the file in your ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES folder) to 644. - Convert file CONTRIBUTE to UTF8 in %prep, e.g. like this: cd 3dObjects/ iconv -f iso-8859-1 -t utf8 CONTRIBUTE CONTRIBUTE.new touch -r CONTRIBUTE CONTRIBUTE.new mv CONTRIBUTE.new CONTRIBUTE OK, done. The file links are still valid. Release number hasn't been bumped. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 726962] New: Review Request: wmWeather - Applet which shows local weather conditions
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: wmWeather - Applet which shows local weather conditions https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=726962 Summary: Review Request: wmWeather - Applet which shows local weather conditions Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: mari...@freenet.de QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Spec URL: http://mariobl.fedorapeople.org/Review/SPECS/wmWeather.spec SRPM URL: http://mariobl.fedorapeople.org/Review/SRPMS/wmWeather-1.31-1.fc15.src.rpm Description: wmWeather is a dockapp that displays the local weather conditions, using the values provided from some weather services. $ rpmlint -i -v * wmWeather.i686: I: checking wmWeather.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dockapp - dock app, dock-app, paddock The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. wmWeather.i686: I: checking-url http://www.dockapps.org/file.php/id/17 (timeout 10 seconds) wmWeather.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary GrabWeather Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page. wmWeather.src: I: checking wmWeather.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dockapp - dock app, dock-app, paddock The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. wmWeather.src: I: checking-url http://www.dockapps.org/file.php/id/17 (timeout 10 seconds) wmWeather.src: I: checking-url http://www.dockapps.org/download.php/id/24/wmWeather-1.31.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds) wmWeather-debuginfo.i686: I: checking wmWeather-debuginfo.i686: I: checking-url http://www.dockapps.org/file.php/id/17 (timeout 10 seconds) wmWeather-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/wmWeather-1.31/Src/wmWeather.c The Free Software Foundation address in this file seems to be outdated or misspelled. Ask upstream to update the address, or if this is a license file, possibly the entire file with a new copy available from the FSF. 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings. Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3241265 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 702987] Review Request: stdair - C++ Standard Airline IT 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=702987
--- Comment #11 from Denis Arnaud denis.arnaud_fed...@m4x.org 2011-07-31
10:14:27 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #10)
Thanks for those additional review elements.
- The latest package doesn't build because of missing BR: python-devel
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3240849
There are possibly some more dependencies missing. Try to build the package
with mock/koji to find all deps.
I have fixed that dependency issue (I added the requirement in CMake helpers,
but forgot to add it back to the RPM specification file). mock now begins to
build the package.
- As far as I can see, you can drop Requires: cmake since
%{_datadir}/cmake/ is not used (unlike mentioned in the comment).
You are absolutely right. Indeed, there is no need to put anything in
%{_datadir}/cmake/ (reserved for non-CMake-aware packages), as stdair provides
%{_datadir}/stdair/CMake/stdair-config*.cmake helpers (cleaner way for third
party projects to use the stdair library).
- Please prefer plain shell commands (rm, install, chmod, etc. ) over macros
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines#Macros
Ooops, I forgot that one... It has been fixed (and I will remember for other
packages: thanks!).
- Move the find command and the following mydocs lines from the %check
to the %install section.
Ooops, it was not intentional (kind of typo). It has been fixed.
(In reply to comment #4)
- Also, it's not necessary to wrap the BuildArch field with conditionals.
Just use plain BuildArch field.
I have left the macro around BuildArch because, if I remember correctly, it led
to some issue with EPEL = 5 (for which I intend to deliver stdair as well).
More specifically, rpm, on those distributions, is/was not able to
build/deliver multi-architecture packages.
I have now a more tricky issue with CMake and the (HTML/PDF) documentation
generation. When compiling with parallel flag until '-j4', everything is fine.
But above (e.g., '-j6'), there is a dependency issue with the Latex-related
target (PDF reference manual generation). I have to look more thoroughly and to
try a few target inter-dependency mechanisms...
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 726962] Review Request: wmWeather - Applet which shows local weather conditions
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=726962 --- Comment #1 from Mario Blättermann mari...@freenet.de 2011-07-31 10:19:18 EDT --- Please don't review for the time being, because it causes buffer overflows. Just seen there are newer versions available from http://people.debian.org/~godisch/wmweather/. I will update the package soon. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 726962] Review Request: wmWeather - Applet which shows local weather conditions
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=726962 --- Comment #2 from Mario Blättermann mari...@freenet.de 2011-07-31 12:06:40 EDT --- New files: Spec URL: http://mariobl.fedorapeople.org/Review/SPECS/wmweather.spec SRPM URL: http://mariobl.fedorapeople.org/Review/SRPMS/wmweather-2.4.5-1.fc15.src.rpm Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3241337 $ rpmlint -i -v * wmweather.i686: I: checking wmweather.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dockapp - dock app, dock-app, paddock The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. wmweather.i686: I: checking-url http://people.debian.org/~godisch/wmweather/ (timeout 10 seconds) wmweather.src: I: checking wmweather.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dockapp - dock app, dock-app, paddock The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. wmweather.src: I: checking-url http://people.debian.org/~godisch/wmweather/ (timeout 10 seconds) wmweather.src: I: checking-url http://ftp.de.debian.org/debian/pool/main/w/wmweather/wmweather_2.4.5.orig.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds) wmweather.x86_64: I: checking wmweather.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dockapp - dock app, dock-app, paddock The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. wmweather.x86_64: I: checking-url http://people.debian.org/~godisch/wmweather/ (timeout 10 seconds) wmweather-debuginfo.i686: I: checking wmweather-debuginfo.i686: I: checking-url http://people.debian.org/~godisch/wmweather/ (timeout 10 seconds) wmweather-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/wmweather-2.4.5/src/wmweather.c The Free Software Foundation address in this file seems to be outdated or misspelled. Ask upstream to update the address, or if this is a license file, possibly the entire file with a new copy available from the FSF. wmweather-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking wmweather-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking-url http://people.debian.org/~godisch/wmweather/ (timeout 10 seconds) wmweather-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/wmweather-2.4.5/src/wmweather.c The Free Software Foundation address in this file seems to be outdated or misspelled. Ask upstream to update the address, or if this is a license file, possibly the entire file with a new copy available from the FSF. 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 3 warnings. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 726962] Review Request: wmweather - Applet which shows local weather conditions
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=726962 Mario Blättermann mari...@freenet.de changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: wmWeather - |Review Request: wmweather - | Applet which shows local | Applet which shows local |weather conditions |weather conditions -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 227077] Review Request: junitperf-1.9.1-2jpp - JUnit extension for performance and scalability testing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=227077 Mat Booth fed...@matbooth.co.uk changed: What|Removed |Added CC||fed...@matbooth.co.uk Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #8 from Mat Booth fed...@matbooth.co.uk 2011-07-31 13:41:39 EDT --- Package Change Request == Package Name: junitperf New Branches: el6 Owners: mbooth -- 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 722781] Review Request: wmcube - Dockapp with a rotating 3d-object and the current CPU load
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=722781 Martin Gieseking martin.giesek...@uos.de changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Martin Gieseking martin.giesek...@uos.de 2011-07-31 14:38:00 EDT --- OK, looks good now. Package APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 702987] Review Request: stdair - C++ Standard Airline IT 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=702987 --- Comment #12 from Denis Arnaud denis.arnaud_fed...@m4x.org 2011-07-31 14:53:49 EDT --- Spec URL: http://denisarnaud.fedorapeople.org/stdair/stdair-0.36.1-1.spec SRPM URL: https://downloads.sourceforge.net/project/stdair/fedora_15/stdair-0.36.1-1.fc15.src.rpm === The issue with the HTML/PDF documentation generation has been solved (thanks to the add_custom_command() macro to accept several output files: http://cmake.org/cmake/help/cmake2.6docs.html#command:add_custom_command). I had therefore to release a new version, namely 0.36.1. -- 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 722781] Review Request: wmcube - Dockapp with a rotating 3d-object and the current CPU load
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=722781 Mario Blättermann mari...@freenet.de changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Mario Blättermann mari...@freenet.de 2011-07-31 14:56:48 EDT --- Many thanks for your approval. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: wmcube Short Description: Dockapp with a rotating 3d-object and the current CPU load Owners: mariobl Branches: f15 f16 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 674008] Review Request: openrave - Open Robotics Automation Virtual Environment
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=674008 Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.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 674008] Review Request: openrave - Open Robotics Automation Virtual Environment
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=674008
--- Comment #64 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com 2011-07-31 15:13:17
EDT ---
REVIEW:
Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable
+ rpmlint is not completely silent:
sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SPECS: rpmlint ~/Desktop/openrave-*
openrave.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libopenrave-core.so.0.4.1
exit@GLIBC_2.2.5
^^^ This should be reported upstream (Rosen, ping!) as it could be a possible
defect. Not a blocker anyway.
openrave.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/bash_completion.d/openrave.bash
^^^ That's ok.
openrave.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/doc/openrave-0.4.1/AUTHORS
^^^ This should be fixed with dos2unix or sed. Please, take care of this
message.
openrave.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary openrave
openrave-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary openrave-config
openrave-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary openrave-createplugin.py
^^^ That's ok for now. Hopefully they will be written someday.
openrave-octave.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object
/usr/libexec/octave/packages/openrave-0.4.1/orcreate.mex
openrave-octave.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object
/usr/libexec/octave/packages/openrave-0.4.1/orwrite.mex
openrave-octave.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object
/usr/libexec/octave/packages/openrave-0.4.1/orread.mex
^^^ that should be fixed. Just chmod them to 0755 at the end of %install
section and rpmbuild will do the rest.
openrave-octave.x86_64: W: no-documentation
openrave-python.x86_64: W: no-documentation
^^^ That's ok.
openrave-python.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/openravepy/databases/linkstatistics.py
openrave-python.x86_64: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/openravepy/interfaces/__init__.py 0644L
/usr/bin/env
openrave-python.x86_64: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/openravepy/__init__.py 0644L /usr/bin/env
^^^ That should be fixed if possible. I'm not sure about purposes of these
scrips so I can't say for sure what to do with them - I guess that you should
remove shebang and mark them as 0644.
openrave-python.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary openrave.py
openrave-python.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary openrave-robot.py
^^^ No man-pages for now. It's ok for packaging, although it's not that good
for project - adding good old man-pages is always a good idea (Ping again,
Rosen).
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 13 warnings.
sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SPECS:
+ The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
+ The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
+ The package meets the Packaging Guidelines. Well, this package is quite big
so I could overlook something, but it does look ok at first glance.
+ The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines.
+ The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
+ The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included
in %doc.
+ The spec file is written in American English.
+ The spec file for the package is legible.
+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
primary architecture:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3241903
+ All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
0 No need to handle locales.
+ The package stores shared library files in some of the dynamic linker's
default paths, and it calls ldconfig in %post and %postun.
+ The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
0 The package is not designed to be relocatable.
+ The package owns all directories that it creates.
+ The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files
listings.
+ Permissions on files are set properly.
+ The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ The package consistently uses macros.
+ The package contains code, or permissible content.
0 No extremely large documentation files.
+ Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the
application.
+ Header files are stored in a -devel package.
0 No static libraries.
+ The pkgconfig(.pc) files are stored in a -devel package and necessary runtime
requirement added.
+ The library file(s) that end in .so (without suffix) is(are) stored in a
-devel package.
+ The -devel package requires the base package using a fully versioned
dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
+ The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
0 The package does not contain *.desktop file. This isn't a blocker but I
strongly advice you to convince upstream (Rosen, ping again!) to add it.
- The package mustn't own files or directories already owned by other packages.
Please, add cmake as a requires to
[Bug 723326] Review Request: dolibarr - ERP CRM for small companies, freelances or foundations
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=723326 --- Comment #1 from Laurent Destailleur e...@destailleur.fr 2011-07-31 15:17:13 EDT --- I have resubmitted SRPMS to match package names rules and fix the target arch. Correct one is noarch. This is links to SRPMS to use is: http://www.dolibarr.org/files/fedora/dolibarr-3.1.0-0.2.beta1.src.rpm And links to binary package is: http://www.dolibarr.org/files/fedora/dolibarr-3.1.0-0.2.beta1.noarch.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 722930] Review Request: ddpt - dd utility variant for SCSI/storage devices
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=722930 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 #1 from Mario Blättermann mari...@freenet.de 2011-07-31 15:35:02 EDT --- Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3241983 $ rpmlint -i -v * ddpt.i686: I: checking ddpt.i686: W: summary-not-capitalized C dd utility variant for SCSI/storage devices Summary doesn't begin with a capital letter. ddpt.i686: I: checking-url http://sg.danny.cz/sg/ddpt.html (timeout 10 seconds) ddpt.src: I: checking ddpt.src: W: summary-not-capitalized C dd utility variant for SCSI/storage devices Summary doesn't begin with a capital letter. ddpt.src: I: checking-url http://sg.danny.cz/sg/ddpt.html (timeout 10 seconds) ddpt.src: I: checking-url http://sg.danny.cz/sg/p/ddpt-0.92.tar.bz2 (timeout 10 seconds) ddpt.x86_64: I: checking ddpt.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized C dd utility variant for SCSI/storage devices Summary doesn't begin with a capital letter. ddpt.x86_64: I: checking-url http://sg.danny.cz/sg/ddpt.html (timeout 10 seconds) ddpt-debuginfo.i686: I: checking ddpt-debuginfo.i686: I: checking-url http://sg.danny.cz/sg/ddpt.html (timeout 10 seconds) ddpt-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking ddpt-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking-url http://sg.danny.cz/sg/ddpt.html (timeout 10 seconds) ddpt.spec: I: checking-url http://sg.danny.cz/sg/p/ddpt-0.92.tar.bz2 (timeout 10 seconds) 5 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Just a single issue: the Summary line doesn't begin with a capital letter. I would recommend Variant of the dd utility for SCSI/storage devices to make rpmlint happy again. Full review follows. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 722781] Review Request: wmcube - Dockapp with a rotating 3d-object and the current CPU load
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=722781 --- Comment #8 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2011-07-31 15:39:16 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 227077] Review Request: junitperf-1.9.1-2jpp - JUnit extension for performance and scalability testing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=227077 --- Comment #9 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2011-07-31 15:37:35 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 725914] Review Request: php-channel-pearplex - Adds the PearPlex channel to PEAR
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725914 --- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2011-07-31 15:41:02 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 697492] Review Request: django-keyedcache - Utilities for simplified development of cache aware objects
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=697492 --- Comment #12 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2011-07-31 15:42:17 EDT --- Already exists? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 726245] Review Request: perl-Eval-LineNumbers - Add line numbers to hereis blocks that contain perl source code
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=726245 --- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2011-07-31 15:41:39 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 722930] Review Request: ddpt - dd utility variant for SCSI/storage devices
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=722930 --- Comment #3 from Mario Blättermann mari...@freenet.de 2011-07-31 15:45:48 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2) [.] SHOULD: Your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. Currently no man page available. Forget about it. Of course we have a man page here. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 722930] Review Request: ddpt - dd utility variant for SCSI/storage devices
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=722930
Mario Blättermann mari...@freenet.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Mario Blättermann mari...@freenet.de 2011-07-31 15:44:03
EDT ---
-
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.
BSD
[+] 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 *
4224a31bd3e6903d3371ebe7fdd46938 ddpt-0.92.tar.bz2
4224a31bd3e6903d3371ebe7fdd46938 ddpt-0.92.tar.bz2.packaged
[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
- See Koji build above.
[.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, ...
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.
[.] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly.
[.] MUST: If a package installs files below %{_datadir}/icons, the icon cache
must be updated.
[.] MUST: Packages storing shared library files (not just symlinks) must call
ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[.] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[.] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, ...
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates.
[+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in %files.
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
[+] MUST: Packages must not provide RPM dependency information when that
information is not global in nature, or are otherwise handled.
[.] MUST: When filtering automatically generated RPM dependency information,
the filtering system implemented by Fedora must be used.
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[.] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
[+] MUST: Files in %doc must not affect the runtime of the application.
[.] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[.] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[.] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g.
libfoo.so.1.1), ...
[.] MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned
dependency.
[.] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
[.] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file
[.] MUST: .desktop files must be properly installed with desktop-file-install
in the %install section.
[+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
[+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
[.] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream...
[+] SHOULD: Timestamps of files should be preserved.
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
See Koji build above (which uses mock anyway)
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described.
I assume the packager has tested it. He's the upstream developer anyway...
[.] 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
Please change the summary please before the package goes into VCS.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 726989] Review Request: ipwatchd - IP conflict detection 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=726989 Jaroslav Imrich ja...@jariq.sk changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 726989] New: Review Request: ipwatchd - IP conflict detection tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: ipwatchd - IP conflict detection tool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=726989 Summary: Review Request: ipwatchd - IP conflict detection tool Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: unspecified Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: ja...@jariq.sk QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Spec URL: http://fedora.jimrich.sk/ipwatchd.spec SRPM URL: http://fedora.jimrich.sk/ipwatchd-1.2.1-1.fc15.src.rpm Description: I would appreciate a review of ipwatchd package so it can be included in Fedora repositories. Package is rpmlint error free and it also builds in FC15 mock environment. I am the upstream author and I maintain this package also in Debian and Ubuntu. IPwatchD is a simple daemon that analyses all incoming ARP packets in order to detect IP conflicts on Linux. It can be configured to listen on one or more interfaces (alias interfaces are also supported) in active or passive mode. In active mode IPwatchD protects your host before IP takeover by answering Gratuitous ARP requests received from conflicting system. In passive mode it just records information about conflict through standard syslog interface. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 722781] Review Request: wmcube - Dockapp with a rotating 3d-object and the current CPU load
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=722781 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 722781] Review Request: wmcube - Dockapp with a rotating 3d-object and the current CPU load
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=722781 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-07-31 16:06:07 EDT --- wmcube-0.98-2.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/wmcube-0.98-2.fc16 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 725914] Review Request: php-channel-pearplex - Adds the PearPlex channel to PEAR
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725914 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-07-31 16:08:02 EDT --- php-channel-pearplex-1.3-2.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/php-channel-pearplex-1.3-2.el6 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 722781] Review Request: wmcube - Dockapp with a rotating 3d-object and the current CPU load
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=722781 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-07-31 16:06:15 EDT --- wmcube-0.98-2.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/wmcube-0.98-2.fc15 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 725914] Review Request: php-channel-pearplex - Adds the PearPlex channel to PEAR
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725914 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-07-31 16:07:38 EDT --- php-channel-pearplex-1.3-2.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/php-channel-pearplex-1.3-2.fc14 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 725914] Review Request: php-channel-pearplex - Adds the PearPlex channel to PEAR
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725914 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-07-31 16:06:58 EDT --- php-channel-pearplex-1.3-2.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/php-channel-pearplex-1.3-2.fc16 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 725914] Review Request: php-channel-pearplex - Adds the PearPlex channel to PEAR
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725914 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |MODIFIED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 725914] Review Request: php-channel-pearplex - Adds the PearPlex channel to PEAR
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725914 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-07-31 16:07:20 EDT --- php-channel-pearplex-1.3-2.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/php-channel-pearplex-1.3-2.fc15 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 725914] Review Request: php-channel-pearplex - Adds the PearPlex channel to PEAR
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725914 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-07-31 16:08:22 EDT --- php-channel-pearplex-1.3-2.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/php-channel-pearplex-1.3-2.el5 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 705587] Review Request: android-tools - Android platform tools (adb, fastboot, etc)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=705587 --- Comment #4 from Ivan Afonichev ivan.afonic...@gmail.com 2011-07-31 16:16:18 EDT --- Spec URL: https://github.com/vanaf/android-tools-fedora/blob/master/android-tools.spec SRPM URL: http://baldr.sgu.ru/rpm/android-tools-20110731.810cf41-1.fc15.src.rpm - Update to upstream git commit 810cf41 - Fix License - Use optflags - Added more udev devices - Remove Epoch -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 697680] Review Request: surf-geometry - visualizer for real algebraic geometry
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=697680 --- Comment #10 from Mario Blättermann mari...@freenet.de 2011-07-31 16:49:18 EDT --- After some weeks, I would expect a SCM request from reporter's side. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 544821] Review Request: php-gettext - Gettext emulation in php
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=544821 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-07-31 17:23:21 EDT --- php-gettext-1.0.11-1.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/php-gettext-1.0.11-1.el5 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 700814] Review Request: din - A musical instrument using multiple Bezier curves
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=700814 --- Comment #10 from Adam Huffman bl...@verdurin.com 2011-07-31 18:22:04 EDT --- (In reply to comment #8) (In reply to comment #7) Don't know whether you noticed in the recent release notes, but a factory reset has been required i.e. removing ~/.din if you've used an earlier version. I tried that just know with a local build of my 1.6.1 package and it starts up and runs fine. Could you try again after renaming your ~/.din? (Mine is on F14 - haven't upgraded my main desktop yet) I have never tried it until now, so there was no ~/.din. I have intended to try to debug it to see where it is crashing but have not yet had time. I've uploaded a new build which includes the latest upstream release (1.6.6): http://verdurin.fedorapeople.org/reviews/din/din.spec http://verdurin.fedorapeople.org/reviews/din/din-1.6.6-1.fc14.src.rpm Could you give it a try and see if it still crashes? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 689488] Review Request: vcftools - VCF file manipulation tools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=689488 --- Comment #8 from Adam Huffman bl...@verdurin.com 2011-07-31 18:33:15 EDT --- Updated to 0.1.6: http://verdurin.fedorapeople.org/reviews/vcftools/vcftools.spec http://verdurin.fedorapeople.org/reviews/vcftools/vcftools-0.1.6-1.fc17.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 725292] Review Request: s3fs - FUSE-based file system backed by Amazon S3
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725292 --- Comment #6 from Jorge A Gallegos k...@blegh.net 2011-07-31 18:43:31 EDT --- Fair enough. I set passwd-s3fs as a doc file. Spec: http://kad.fedorapeople.org/packages/s3fs/s3fs.spec SRPM: http://kad.fedorapeople.org/packages/s3fs/s3fs-1.58-3.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 643140] Review Request: autokey - A desktop automation utility
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=643140 --- Comment #26 from Raghu Udiyar raghusidda...@gmail.com 2011-07-31 19:13:27 EDT --- Updated the SPEC with the new upstream release and the following changes : - Update to upstream 0.71.3-2 release - Source tarball now extracts to autokey-version instead of build directory - The README file now explicitly mentions the licence - Drop defattr from the spec since recent RPM makes it redundant Koji build : http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3242254 SPEC file and RPM : http://raghusiddarth.fedorapeople.org/autokey.spec http://raghusiddarth.fedorapeople.org/transmission-2.33-1.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 727004] New: Review Request: mimelib - A library for creating, parsing, and modifying MIME messages
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: mimelib - A library for creating, parsing, and modifying MIME messages https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727004 Summary: Review Request: mimelib - A library for creating, parsing, and modifying MIME messages Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: sebast...@when.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Spec URL: http://sdz.fedorapeople.org/rpmbuild/mimelib.spec SRPM URL: http://sdz.fedorapeople.org/rpmbuild/mimelib-1.1.4-1.fc15.src.rpm Description: This is for lurker! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 727004] Review Request: mimelib - A library for creating, parsing, and modifying MIME messages
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727004 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 693317] Review Request: emacs-flim - Basic library for handling email messages for Emacs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=693317 --- Comment #5 from Michel Alexandre Salim michel+...@sylvestre.me 2011-07-31 20:44:59 EDT --- Been busy; apologies. Will try and take a look in the next couple of days. Not sure how xemacs support would work, if flim requires apel and apel no longer supports xemacs -- I'll have to give this some 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 725292] Review Request: s3fs - FUSE-based file system backed by Amazon S3
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725292
--- Comment #7 from Nathan Owe ndowen...@gmail.com 2011-07-31 22:32:02 EDT ---
Remove the line [ %{buildroot} != / ] rm -rf %{buildroot}
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 624434] Review Request: UFW - Uncomplicated Firewall
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=624434 Nathan Owe ndowen...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Blocks|177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | Resolution||INSUFFICIENT_DATA Last Closed||2011-07-31 23:27:24 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 624434] Review Request: UFW - Uncomplicated Firewall
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=624434 Nathan Owe ndowen...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ndowen...@gmail.com Status Whiteboard|StalledSubmitter|StalledSubmitter, Almost a ||year and no response --- Comment #3 from Nathan Owe ndowen...@gmail.com 2011-07-31 23:41:27 EDT --- No response in over a year -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 725200] Review Request: raptor2 - RDF Parser Toolkit for Redland
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725200 --- Comment #26 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-08-01 00:14:05 EDT --- soprano-2.6.52-2.20110723.fc16,redland-1.0.14-1.fc16,rasqal-0.9.26-1.fc16,raptor2-2.0.4-2.fc16,raptor-1.4.21-10.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/soprano-2.6.52-2.20110723.fc16,redland-1.0.14-1.fc16,rasqal-0.9.26-1.fc16,raptor2-2.0.4-2.fc16,raptor-1.4.21-10.fc16 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 725200] Review Request: raptor2 - RDF Parser Toolkit for Redland
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725200 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 690728] Review Request: Nitrate - A test case management system written in Django
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=690728 --- Comment #47 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com 2011-08-01 00:53:18 EDT --- (In reply to comment #46) Those two libraries(wadofstuff and xml2dict) are light weight with no more than 500 lines of codes in all and are both available at pypi.python.org, since it may take more time get them reviewed, how about include them into nitrate directly? I would like to say yes but I think you really need to submit them for package reviews: hopefully if they are small and clean then their reviews should not take too long. I suggest filing reviews for them asap to not delay nitrate further. I can certainly try to review one or both of them as your sponsor. Once you are sponsored a lot more people can help with reviewing your packages. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 727030] New: Review Request: ufw - uncomplicated firewall
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: ufw - uncomplicated firewall https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727030 Summary: Review Request: ufw - uncomplicated firewall Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: ndowen...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Spec URL: http://ndowens.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/ufw.spec SRPM URL: http://ndowens.fedorapeople.org/SRPM/ufw-0.30.1-1.fc15.src.rpm Description: The Uncomplicated Firewall(ufw) is a front-end for netfilter, which aims to make it easier for people unfamiliar with firewall concepts. Ufw provides a framework for managing netfilter as well as manipulating the firewall. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 727030] Review Request: ufw - uncomplicated firewall
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727030 --- Comment #1 from Nathan Owe ndowen...@gmail.com 2011-08-01 01:03:37 EDT --- The only errors I get is a spelling error for netfilter I also get hardcoded-library-path /lib even though I tried to work around it by creating a macro __libdir /lib to get around that. [ndowens@revan rpmbuild]$ rpmlint SRPMS/ufw-0.30.1-1.fc15.src.rpm ufw.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US netfilter - net filter, net-filter, filterer ufw.src:1: E: hardcoded-library-path in /lib 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 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 690728] Review Request: Nitrate - A test case management system written in Django
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=690728 --- Comment #48 from Yuguang Wang yuw...@redhat.com 2011-08-01 01:07:27 EDT --- (In reply to comment #47) I would like to say yes but I think you really need to submit them for package reviews: hopefully if they are small and clean then their reviews should not take too long. I suggest filing reviews for them asap to not delay nitrate further. I can certainly try to review one or both of them as your sponsor. Once you are sponsored a lot more people can help with reviewing your packages. Thanks for updating. Seem another one django-tinymce also needs to be reviewed. I'll file those 3 packages for 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 725292] Review Request: s3fs - FUSE-based file system backed by Amazon S3
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725292 --- Comment #8 from Jorge A Gallegos k...@blegh.net 2011-08-01 01:55:00 EDT --- Good catch, I got rid of the buildroot cleaning as per the guidelines: BuildRoot tag Fedora (as of F-10) does not require the presence of the BuildRoot tag in the spec and if one is defined it will be ignored. The provided buildroot will automatically be cleaned before commands in %install are called. Spec: http://kad.fedorapeople.org/packages/s3fs/s3fs.spec SRPM: http://kad.fedorapeople.org/packages/s3fs/s3fs-1.58-4.fc15.src.rpm Builds cleanly in koji. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 727004] Review Request: mimelib - A library for creating, parsing, and modifying MIME messages
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727004 --- Comment #1 from Ian Weller i...@ianweller.org 2011-08-01 01:56:42 EDT --- [ OK ] specfiles match: d645381e46de5b12a9b91285cd0dce11 mimelib.spec d645381e46de5b12a9b91285cd0dce11 mimelib.spec.1 [ OK ] source files match upstream: faee9a08b96a1c62a33ce79915797474 mimelib1_1.1.4.orig.tar.gz faee9a08b96a1c62a33ce79915797474 mimelib1_1.1.4.orig.tar.gz.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. [ OK ] compiler flags are appropriate. [ N/A ] %clean is present. Based on the relevant guideline that you shouted to me across the room, this is okay that it is not present *but* if you ever get this built for EL5 or less %clean does need to be present. [ OK ] package builds in mock. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3242344 [ OK ] package installs properly. [ OK ] debuginfo package looks complete. [ OK ] rpmlint is silent. (only errors are spelling errors which is ridiculous) [ OK ] final provides and requires are sane [ N/A ] %check is present and all tests pass: [ OK ] 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. [ OK ] scriptlets match those on ScriptletSnippets page. [ OK ] code, not content. [ OK ] documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. [ OK ] %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. [ OK ] no headers not in -devel. [ OK ] no pkgconfig files not in -devel. [ OK ] no libtool .la droppings. [ N/A ] desktop files valid and installed properly. - This package (mimelib) 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
