[Bug 688499] Review Request: cabal-dev - Haskell package sandboxing 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=688499 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 688499] Review Request: cabal-dev - Haskell package sandboxing 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=688499 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System 2011-08-03 02:58:11 EDT --- cabal-dev-0.8-2.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/cabal-dev-0.8-2.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 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 #12 from Jussi Lehtola 2011-08-03 02:34:47 EDT --- (In reply to comment #10) > On the scrambled email address. I hope it is allowed to help combat spambots > from getting it so my email won't get cluttered with spam. Seems like scrambling is OK. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 720857] Review Request: datalog - A Lightweight Deductive Database using Datalog
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=720857
Martin Gieseking changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||martin.giesek...@uos.de
--- Comment #4 from Martin Gieseking 2011-08-03
02:29:47 EDT ---
John, is this your first Fedora package submission? I can't find your email
address in the packager group. If so, please add FE-NEEDSPONSOR to the Blocks
field above and see the following pages for further information:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/HowToGetSponsored
Some quick comments on your spec:
- According to the source file headers, the license is LGPLv2+. The "+"
indicates the addition "or (at your option) any later version".
- Drop the Vendor field. It is set automatically by the build system.
- The BuildRoot field can be omitted for Fedora packages. However, it's still
required for EPEL <= 5. If you keep it, use one of the variants given here:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/GuidelinesAndPolicies#BuildRoot_tag
- Replace %defattr (-, root, root) with %defattr (-, root, root, -) or remove
it completely. %defattr is still required for EPEL 4 builds, though.
- Avoid using plain asterisks in %files. Always try to be more specific,
especially if only single folders/files are added.
- Add COPYING.LIB as %doc. The file containing the license text must always be
packaged if present in the tarball.
- Drop the asterisk from %{_datadir}/%{name}/* for proper directory ownership.
- Fedora usually avoids providing static libraries. If there's no way to
build a shared library for this package, see the following page how to
handle the static one:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Packaging_Static_Libraries
- Always bump the Release number if you provide a new package for the same
version. Thus, two %changelog entries should never get the same
%{version}-%{release} tag.
Also, The %changlog is intended to document changes to the package/spec
only. Therefore, don't add information about the (upstream) changes
applied to the program code.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 677496] Review Request: nbc - Next Byte Codes (NBC) and Not Exactly C (NXC)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=677496 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||nbc-1.2.1.r3-3.fc15 Resolution||ERRATA Last Closed||2011-08-02 22:33:59 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 677496] Review Request: nbc - Next Byte Codes (NBC) and Not Exactly C (NXC)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=677496 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|nbc-1.2.1.r3-3.fc15 |nbc-1.2.1.r3-3.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 592670] Review Request: mongoose - An easy-to-use self-sufficient web server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=592670 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|mongoose-2.8-6.fc12 |mongoose-3.0-1.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 592670] Review Request: mongoose - An easy-to-use self-sufficient web server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=592670 --- Comment #40 from Fedora Update System 2011-08-02 22:35:42 EDT --- mongoose-3.0-1.fc14 has been pushed to the Fedora 14 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 677496] Review Request: nbc - Next Byte Codes (NBC) and Not Exactly C (NXC)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=677496 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System 2011-08-02 22:33:53 EDT --- nbc-1.2.1.r3-3.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 stable repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 677496] Review Request: nbc - Next Byte Codes (NBC) and Not Exactly C (NXC)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=677496 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System 2011-08-02 22:35:29 EDT --- nbc-1.2.1.r3-3.fc14 has been pushed to the Fedora 14 stable repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 690038] Review Request: ompl - The Open Motion Planning 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=690038 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|ompl-0.9.3-2.fc14 |ompl-0.9.3-2.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 592670] Review Request: mongoose - An easy-to-use self-sufficient web server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=592670 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|mongoose-3.0-1.fc15 |mongoose-3.0-1.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 592670] Review Request: mongoose - An easy-to-use self-sufficient web server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=592670 --- Comment #39 from Fedora Update System 2011-08-02 22:35:04 EDT --- mongoose-3.0-1.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 690038] Review Request: ompl - The Open Motion Planning 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=690038 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System 2011-08-02 22:32:09 EDT --- ompl-0.9.3-2.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 stable repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 690038] Review Request: ompl - The Open Motion Planning 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=690038 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||ompl-0.9.3-2.fc14 Resolution||ERRATA Last Closed||2011-08-02 22:26:34 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 690038] Review Request: ompl - The Open Motion Planning 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=690038 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System 2011-08-02 22:26:26 EDT --- ompl-0.9.3-2.fc14 has been pushed to the Fedora 14 stable repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 #11 from Nathan Owe 2011-08-02 19:21:24 EDT --- Also can somebody install ufw and add/delete a firewall rule in it and see if it does have an effect. When I do a port scan on my PC it doesn't seem to make a difference. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 #10 from Nathan Owe 2011-08-02 19:13:47 EDT --- SPEC: http://ndowens.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/ufw.spec SRPM: http://ndowens.fedorapeople.org/SRPM/ufw-0.30.1-4.fc15.src.rpm On the scrambled email address. I hope it is allowed to help combat spambots from getting it so my email won't get cluttered with spam. I am not sure what to do about the following init scripts: /lib/ufw/ufw-init /lib/ufw/ufw-init-functions I know ufw enable will pretty much do /lib/ufw/ufw-init start. So really do I need to install it to /etc/rc.d/init.d even though ufw looks for them in /lib and I also tried doing something like it shows in the wiki: /sbin/chkconfig --add /lib/ufw/ufw-init and it gives a error like "error reading information on service ufw-init: No such file or directory" -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 723703] Review Request: eclipse-gprof - Eclipse plug-ins for gprof support
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=723703
--- Comment #4 from Jeff Johnston 2011-08-02 18:55:56 EDT
---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Package Review
> ==
>
> Key:
> - = N/A
> x = Check
> ! = Problem
> ? = Not evaluated
>
> === REQUIRED ITEMS ===
> [x] Rpmlint output:
> [x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines[1].
> [x] Spec file name must match the base package name, in the format
> %{name}.spec.
> [x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines[2].
> [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms.
> [!] Buildroot definition is not present
> Please remove BuildRoot.
>
> [x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
> other
> legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
> Guidelines[3,4].
> [x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
> License type:
> [x] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
> in
> its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
> package is included in %doc.
> [-] All independent sub-packages have license of their own
> [x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
> [!] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as
> provided
> in the spec URL.
> MD5SUM this package: 35a9b7f73874a5b64408f970ae82f9b9
> MD5SUM upstream package: f1c34f0b4c4342fdfbe6761a17adacf7
> md5sums do not match but extracted sources are the same as the upstream
> snapshot version.
> However the sources contain source for unrelated projects
>
> [x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
> are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines[5].
> [x] Package must own all directories that it creates.
> [x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
> [x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
> [!] File sections do not contain %defattr(-,root,root,-) unless changed with
> good reason
> Please remove.
>
> [x] Permissions on files are set properly.
> [!] Package does NOT have a %clean section which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}
> (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). (not needed anymore)
> please remove %{__rm} -rf %{buildroot}
>
> [x] Package consistently uses macros (no %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
> mixing)
> [!] Package contains code, or permissable content.
> See comment above about non-gprof code
>
> [-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
> [-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
> application.
> [x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
> [-] Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
> subpackage
> [-] Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlinks)
> [-] Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
> [-] Javadoc subpackages have Require: jpackage-utils
> [x] Package uses %global not %define
> [x] If package uses tarball from VCS include comment how to re-create that
> tarball (svn export URL, git clone URL, ...)
> [x] If source tarball includes bundled jar/class files these need to be
> removed prior to building
> [x] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
> [-] Jar files are installed to %{_javadir}/%{name}.jar (see [6] for details)
> [-] If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even
> when
> building with ant
> [-] pom files has correct add_maven_depmap
>
> === Maven ===
> [-] Use %{_mavenpomdir} macro for placing pom files instead of
> %{_datadir}/maven2/poms
> [-] If package uses "-Dmaven.test.skip=true" explain why it was needed in a
> comment
> [-] If package uses custom depmap "-Dmaven.local.depmap.file=*" explain why
> it's needed in a comment
> [-] Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun
> [-] Packages DOES NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on
> jpackage-utils for %update_maven_depmap macro
>
> === Other suggestions ===
> [x] If possible use upstream build method (maven/ant/javac)
> [x] Avoid having BuildRequires on exact NVR unless necessary
> [x] Package has BuildArch: noarch (if possible)
> [x] Latest version is packaged.
> [x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
> Tested on:
> x86_64 f15 + build deps from rawhide
> and x86_64 on f16
> === Issues ===
> Summary of the issues from above:
>
> [!] Buildroot definition is not present
> Please remove BuildRoot.
>
> [!] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as
> provided
> in the spec URL.
> MD5SUM this package: 35a9b7f73874a5b64408f970ae82f9b9
> MD5SUM upstream package: f1c34f0b4c4342fdfbe6761a17adacf7
> md5sums do not match but extracted sources are the same as the upstream
> snapshot version.
> However the sources contain source for unrelated proje
[Bug 727635] Review Request: java-1.7.0-openjdk - OpenJDK runtime 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=727635 Deepak Bhole changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #8 from Deepak Bhole 2011-08-02 18:53:57 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: java-1.7.0-openjdk Short Description: OpenJDK runtime environment Owners: dbhole jvanek omajid Branches: f16 InitialCC: dbhole jvanek omajid -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 727635] Review Request: java-1.7.0-openjdk - OpenJDK runtime 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=727635 Deepak Bhole changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #7 from Deepak Bhole 2011-08-02 18:50:29 EDT --- Setting review to + as Omair couldn't. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 725168] Review Request: xspice - X and Spice server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725168 --- Comment #5 from Alon Levy 2011-08-02 17:04:24 EDT --- Updated spec, update srpm: New urls (erased the old to avoid confusion): http://annarchy.freedesktop.org/~alon/Xspice/xorg-x11-server-Xspice.spec http://annarchy.freedesktop.org/~alon/Xspice/xorg-x11-server-Xspice-0.0.16-1.fc15.src.rpm (prebuilt binaries for x86_64 are also there) 1. added Require: python >= 2.6 2. added several patches that rename the executable to Xspice and fix the ca-cert issue you noticed. 3. Updated spec to include comment on why it excludes the excluded arches, per the guidelines in [8], since this is a new package the bugs are to be opened only after it is approved. Here is the section from [8]: Architecture Build Failures If a Fedora package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch needs to have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number should then be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line. New packages will not have bugzilla entries during the review process, so they should put this description in the comment until the package is approved, then file the bugzilla entry, and replace the long explanation with the bug number. The bug should be marked as blocking one (or more) of the following bugs to simplify tracking such issues: FE-ExcludeArch-x86 FE-ExcludeArch-x64 FE-ExcludeArch-ppc FE-ExcludeArch-ppc64 F-ExcludeArch-arm F-ExcludeArch-s390x F-ExcludeArch-sparc -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 669911] Review Request: guestfs-browser - Guest filesystem browser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=669911 --- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System 2011-08-02 17:02:53 EDT --- guestfs-browser-0.2.1-1.fc15.1 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/guestfs-browser-0.2.1-1.fc15.1 -- 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 669911] Review Request: guestfs-browser - Guest filesystem browser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=669911 --- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System 2011-08-02 17:02:45 EDT --- guestfs-browser-0.2.1-1.fc16.2 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/guestfs-browser-0.2.1-1.fc16.2 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 727199] Review Request: xorg-x11-drv-displaylink - X.Org X11 DisplayLink video driver
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727199 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System 2011-08-02 16:49:56 EDT --- xorg-x11-drv-displaylink-0-1.20110102git.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 testing repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 727635] Review Request: java-1.7.0-openjdk - OpenJDK runtime 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=727635 --- Comment #6 from Omair Majid 2011-08-02 16:46:17 EDT --- Looks good to me. APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 727635] Review Request: java-1.7.0-openjdk - OpenJDK runtime 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=727635
--- Comment #5 from Deepak Bhole 2011-08-02 16:37:11 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> (In reply to comment #3)
> > === REQUIRED ITEMS ===
> > [!] Rpmlint output:
>
> > SPECS/java-1.7.0-openjdk.spec:785: E: hardcoded-library-path in
> > /usr/lib/jvm/java-gcj/*
> > SPECS/java-1.7.0-openjdk.spec:818: E: hardcoded-library-path in
> > /usr/lib/jvm/java-gcj/jre/lib/rt.jar
> >
> > Fixed.
> >
>
> Minor suggestion (and so feel free to ignore): JDK_TO_BUILD_WITH should also
> be
> fixed.
Sure, I will keep it in mind for the next iteration. Skipping now due to time
constraints.
>
> >
> > SPECS/java-1.7.0-openjdk.spec: W: invalid-url Source14: pulseaudio.tar.gz
> > SPECS/java-1.7.0-openjdk.spec: W: invalid-url Source12: desktop-files.tar.gz
> > SPECS/java-1.7.0-openjdk.spec: W: invalid-url Source11:
> > systemtap-tapset.tar.gz
> > SPECS/java-1.7.0-openjdk.spec: W: invalid-url Source10:
> > class-rewriter.tar.gz
> > SPECS/java-1.7.0-openjdk.spec: W: invalid-url Source9:
> > generated-files.tar.gz
> >
> > Instructions/comments addded for each. Some are not yet separate upstream
> > because we need to know how well the RPM works first. Once we are certain,
> > the
> > projects will be split as needed and the urls added.
> >
>
> It would be nice to have instructions on how to create these tarballs.
>
I've added them for generated-files. The rest don't really have instructions.
They will when moved upstream.
> >
> > [!] Buildroot definition is not present
> > Defining build root is depricated; it should not be defined.
> >
>
> The new spec file still defines a buildroot. Please remove it.
Removed.
>
> > [!] All independent sub-packages have license of their own
> > javadoc subpackage does not include the LICENSE file
> >
> > Added to add sub-packages.
>
> Actually, that's not quite right. It should only be added to subpackages if it
> isnt being pulled in via a dependency. If the main package has the LICENSE
> file, and -devel requires the main package then devel does not need the
> LICENSE
> file. From what I can see in the spec file, only the javadoc subpackage does
> not require the main package and needs the LICENSE file.
>
Ah okay. Fixed.
> > [!] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as
> > provided
> > in the spec URL.
> > I cant find the source for generated-files.tar.gz,
> > class-rewriter.tar.gz,
> > systemtap-tapset.tar.gz and pulseaudio.tar.gz - I can guess it's from
> > icedtea6
> > or 7.
> >
> > They are from 7. As mentioned above, once we know that the rpm works, we
> > will
> > find a separate home for them.
> >
>
> Any chance you can include the instructions to create these tarball?
>
They are there for generated files and pulseaudio.
> > [!] Package does NOT have a %clean section which contains rm -rf
> > %{buildroot}
> > (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). (not needed anymore)
> >
>
> Please remove the %clean section.
>
Done.
> > 1. Avoid having BuildRequires on exact NVR unless necessary
> > (freetype-devel, pulseaudio-libs-devel pulseaudio,pkgconfig)
> >
> > Add requires are >=, not exact. They were added after problems were found
> > with
> > lower versions.
> >
>
> Hm.. all these packages have a higher NVR in F15. I am quite positive that the
> F16 packages will be higher still. I suppose it's not an issue.
>
> > 3. The forest at icedtea.classpath.org/hg/icedtea7-forest is more up to date
> > than hg.openjdk.java.net/icedtea/jdk7
> >
> > We tested with the latter, so I kept it. Going forward, we will be
> > switching.
> >
>
> Yeah, this was a more FYI than anything else.
>
> > 6. License field contents should use 'and' or 'or'
> > (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios)
> >
> > Different parts ahve different licences. Neither and nor or apply.
> >
>
> IANAL. But the text at
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios
> suggests that 'and' should be used here:
>
Ah okay, changed.
> """
> Example: Package bar-utils contains some files under the Python License, some
> other files under the GNU Lesser General Public License v2 or later, and one
> file under the BSD License (no advertising). The package spec must have:
>
> License: Python and LGPLv2+ and BSD
> """
new spec file uploaded.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 718479] Review Request: wmwave - Statistics about a current wireless Ethernet connection
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=718479
Martin Gieseking changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||martin.giesek...@uos.de
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|martin.giesek...@uos.de
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Comment #4 from Martin Gieseking 2011-08-02
16:26:51 EDT ---
I'm going to sponsor Damian, thus taking over the review.
(In reply to comment #3)
> [+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license.
> - GPLv2 according to script header
As neither the source file headers nor the documentation mention the intended
GPL version, the package is licensed under GPL+.
Also see the comment on "GPL+" at
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#SoftwareLicenses
> [] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
> - Spec file includes German Summary(de): and %description -l de
That's fine. Additional translations of Summary and %description are always
welcome.
> [] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
> is chmod -x %{name}.1 strictly necessary?
Yes. Mario, please clear the exec bits of the manpage:
- drop chmod -x %{name}.1 from %install
- add option -m 644 to the last install statement
I also suggest to move the "find" statement from %build to %prep.
> [+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
It's recommended to either use $RPM_OPT_FLAGS/$RPM_BUILD_ROOT or
%{optflags}/%{buildroot} and not to mix styles (variables vs. macros).
Currently, %{optflags} are used in the %build section and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT in
%install.
> EPEL <= 5 only:
> [+] MUST: The spec file must contain a valid BuildRoot field.
There's no BuildRoot field in the spec. ;) But that's OK as Mario probably
don't want to build for EPEL.
> [] SHOULD: Timestamps of files should be preserved.
It's good practice to keep the timestamps of files that go from the source
archive into the package, e.g. manpages, media files, ...
The manpage is properly installed with "install -p", so this is OK.
> [] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described.
Just try to install and to run the built binary and verify if it works. It
shouldn't crash at least. It seems to work as expected.
So far for now. I'm going to do the formal review tomorrow.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 727635] Review Request: java-1.7.0-openjdk - OpenJDK runtime 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=727635
--- Comment #4 from Omair Majid 2011-08-02 16:25:32 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> === REQUIRED ITEMS ===
> [!] Rpmlint output:
> SPECS/java-1.7.0-openjdk.spec:785: E: hardcoded-library-path in
> /usr/lib/jvm/java-gcj/*
> SPECS/java-1.7.0-openjdk.spec:818: E: hardcoded-library-path in
> /usr/lib/jvm/java-gcj/jre/lib/rt.jar
>
> Fixed.
>
Minor suggestion (and so feel free to ignore): JDK_TO_BUILD_WITH should also be
fixed.
>
> SPECS/java-1.7.0-openjdk.spec: W: invalid-url Source14: pulseaudio.tar.gz
> SPECS/java-1.7.0-openjdk.spec: W: invalid-url Source12: desktop-files.tar.gz
> SPECS/java-1.7.0-openjdk.spec: W: invalid-url Source11:
> systemtap-tapset.tar.gz
> SPECS/java-1.7.0-openjdk.spec: W: invalid-url Source10: class-rewriter.tar.gz
> SPECS/java-1.7.0-openjdk.spec: W: invalid-url Source9: generated-files.tar.gz
>
> Instructions/comments addded for each. Some are not yet separate upstream
> because we need to know how well the RPM works first. Once we are certain, the
> projects will be split as needed and the urls added.
>
It would be nice to have instructions on how to create these tarballs.
>
> [!] Buildroot definition is not present
> Defining build root is depricated; it should not be defined.
>
The new spec file still defines a buildroot. Please remove it.
> [!] All independent sub-packages have license of their own
> javadoc subpackage does not include the LICENSE file
>
> Added to add sub-packages.
Actually, that's not quite right. It should only be added to subpackages if it
isnt being pulled in via a dependency. If the main package has the LICENSE
file, and -devel requires the main package then devel does not need the LICENSE
file. From what I can see in the spec file, only the javadoc subpackage does
not require the main package and needs the LICENSE file.
> [!] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as
> provided
> in the spec URL.
> I cant find the source for generated-files.tar.gz, class-rewriter.tar.gz,
> systemtap-tapset.tar.gz and pulseaudio.tar.gz - I can guess it's from icedtea6
> or 7.
>
> They are from 7. As mentioned above, once we know that the rpm works, we will
> find a separate home for them.
>
Any chance you can include the instructions to create these tarball?
> [!] Package does NOT have a %clean section which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}
> (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). (not needed anymore)
>
Please remove the %clean section.
> 1. Avoid having BuildRequires on exact NVR unless necessary
> (freetype-devel, pulseaudio-libs-devel pulseaudio,pkgconfig)
>
> Add requires are >=, not exact. They were added after problems were found with
> lower versions.
>
Hm.. all these packages have a higher NVR in F15. I am quite positive that the
F16 packages will be higher still. I suppose it's not an issue.
> 3. The forest at icedtea.classpath.org/hg/icedtea7-forest is more up to date
> than hg.openjdk.java.net/icedtea/jdk7
>
> We tested with the latter, so I kept it. Going forward, we will be switching.
>
Yeah, this was a more FYI than anything else.
> 6. License field contents should use 'and' or 'or'
> (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios)
>
> Different parts ahve different licences. Neither and nor or apply.
>
IANAL. But the text at
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios
suggests that 'and' should be used here:
"""
Example: Package bar-utils contains some files under the Python License, some
other files under the GNU Lesser General Public License v2 or later, and one
file under the BSD License (no advertising). The package spec must have:
License: Python and LGPLv2+ and BSD
"""
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on 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 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System 2011-08-02 16:25:12 EDT --- stdair-0.36.2-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 727672] New: Review Request: metasploit-4.0 - The Metasploit Framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: metasploit-4.0 - The Metasploit Framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727672 Summary: Review Request: metasploit-4.0 - The Metasploit Framework Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: fed...@affix.me QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Spec URL: http://affix.me/packagin/metasploit.spec SRPM URL: http://affix.me/packagin/metasploit-4.0-1.src.rpm Description: The Metasploit Framework is a development platform for creating security tools and exploits. The framework is used by network security professionals to perform penetration tests, system administrators to verify patch installations, product vendors to perform regression testing, and security researchers world-wide. The framework is written in the Ruby programming language and includes components written in C and assembler. rpmlint metasploit-4.0-1.src.rpm = metasploit.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary C Metasploit metasploit.src: W: strange-permission metasploit.spec 0600L metasploit.src: W: no-%build-section metasploit.src: W: file-size-mismatch framework-4.0.0.tar.bz2 = 81297115, http://updates.metasploit.com/data/releases/framework-4.0.0.tar.bz2 = 79515768 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Package was built from the SVN Version on Metasploit-4.0 Release day -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 727670] New: Review Request: simplevalidation - A simple library for retrofitting user-interface input validation to Swing applications
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: simplevalidation - A simple library for retrofitting user-interface input validation to Swing applications https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727670 Summary: Review Request: simplevalidation - A simple library for retrofitting user-interface input validation to Swing applications Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: oma...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Spec URL: http://omajid.fedorapeople.org/simplevalidation/simplevalidation.spec SRPM URL: http://omajid.fedorapeople.org/simplevalidation/simplevalidation-0.4-1.fc15.src.rpm Description: This is a simple library for quickly adding validation code to Swing user-interfaces. It handles validating user input when the user changes a component's value, showing error messages and decorating components to indicate which component is the source of the problem. It contains a large number of built-in validators to handle most common situations, such as validating numbers, email addresses, urls and so forth. The primary goal is to make it easy to retrofit validation code on existing UIs without needing to rewrite anything or add more than a few lines of code. Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3247686 This package is needed for the netbeans ide. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 727635] Review Request: java-1.7.0-openjdk - OpenJDK runtime 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=727635
--- Comment #3 from Deepak Bhole 2011-08-02 15:56:03 EDT ---
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[!] Rpmlint output:
SPECS/java-1.7.0-openjdk.spec:91: W: macro-in-comment %{jit_arches}
Removed.
SPECS/java-1.7.0-openjdk.spec:121: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib
On purpose.
SPECS/java-1.7.0-openjdk.spec:163: W: macro-in-comment %define
SPECS/java-1.7.0-openjdk.spec:163: W: macro-in-comment %{sdkdir}
Fixed.
SPECS/java-1.7.0-openjdk.spec:189: W: macro-in-comment %{icedtea_jdk7_snapshot}
SPECS/java-1.7.0-openjdk.spec:190: W: macro-in-comment %{corba_snapshot}
SPECS/java-1.7.0-openjdk.spec:191: W: macro-in-comment %{hotspot_snapshot}
SPECS/java-1.7.0-openjdk.spec:192: W: macro-in-comment %{jaxp_snapshot}
SPECS/java-1.7.0-openjdk.spec:193: W: macro-in-comment %{jaxws_snapshot}
SPECS/java-1.7.0-openjdk.spec:194: W: macro-in-comment %{jdk_snapshot}
SPECS/java-1.7.0-openjdk.spec:195: W: macro-in-comment %{langtools_snapshot}
Needed for build instructions.
SPECS/java-1.7.0-openjdk.spec:785: E: hardcoded-library-path in
/usr/lib/jvm/java-gcj/*
SPECS/java-1.7.0-openjdk.spec:818: E: hardcoded-library-path in
/usr/lib/jvm/java-gcj/jre/lib/rt.jar
Fixed.
SPECS/java-1.7.0-openjdk.spec:908: W: configure-without-libdir-spec
SPECS/java-1.7.0-openjdk.spec:932: W: configure-without-libdir-spec
Expected. Neither are installed via make install.
SPECS/java-1.7.0-openjdk.spec:1317: W: macro-in-comment %doc
SPECS/java-1.7.0-openjdk.spec:1320: W: macro-in-comment %doc
SPECS/java-1.7.0-openjdk.spec:1321: W: macro-in-comment %doc
SPECS/java-1.7.0-openjdk.spec:1322: W: macro-in-comment %doc
SPECS/java-1.7.0-openjdk.spec:1323: W: macro-in-comment %doc
SPECS/java-1.7.0-openjdk.spec:1324: W: macro-in-comment %doc
SPECS/java-1.7.0-openjdk.spec:1351: W: macro-in-comment %doc
SPECS/java-1.7.0-openjdk.spec:1351: W: macro-in-comment %{buildoutputdir}
SPECS/java-1.7.0-openjdk.spec:1354: W: macro-in-comment %doc
Fixed.
SPECS/java-1.7.0-openjdk.spec:1468: W: macro-in-%changelog %{_jvmdir}
SPECS/java-1.7.0-openjdk.spec:1468: W: macro-in-%changelog %{jredir}
SPECS/java-1.7.0-openjdk.spec:1470: W: macro-in-%changelog %{_jvmdir}
SPECS/java-1.7.0-openjdk.spec:1470: W: macro-in-%changelog %{sdkdir}
Comments..
SPECS/java-1.7.0-openjdk.spec:163: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces:
line 32, tab: line 163)
Fixed.
SPECS/java-1.7.0-openjdk.spec: W: patch-not-applied Patch0:
java-1.7.0-openjdk-optflags.patch
Removed.
SPECS/java-1.7.0-openjdk.spec: W: patch-not-applied Patch1:
java-1.7.0-openjdk-java-access-bridge-tck.patch
SPECS/java-1.7.0-openjdk.spec: W: patch-not-applied Patch2:
java-1.7.0-openjdk-java-access-bridge-idlj.patch
SPECS/java-1.7.0-openjdk.spec: W: patch-not-applied Patch3:
java-1.7.0-openjdk-java-access-bridge-security.patch
SPECS/java-1.7.0-openjdk.spec: W: patch-not-applied Patch4:
java-1.7.0-openjdk-accessible-toolkit.patch
SPECS/java-1.7.0-openjdk.spec: W: patch-not-applied Patch5:
java-1.7.0-openjdk-debugdocs.patch
SPECS/java-1.7.0-openjdk.spec: W: patch-not-applied Patch6:
%{name}-debuginfo.patch
Applied via patch command manually.
SPECS/java-1.7.0-openjdk.spec: W: invalid-url Source14: pulseaudio.tar.gz
SPECS/java-1.7.0-openjdk.spec: W: invalid-url Source12: desktop-files.tar.gz
SPECS/java-1.7.0-openjdk.spec: W: invalid-url Source11: systemtap-tapset.tar.gz
SPECS/java-1.7.0-openjdk.spec: W: invalid-url Source10: class-rewriter.tar.gz
SPECS/java-1.7.0-openjdk.spec: W: invalid-url Source9: generated-files.tar.gz
Instructions/comments addded for each. Some are not yet separate upstream
because we need to know how well the RPM works first. Once we are certain, the
projects will be split as needed and the urls added.
SPECS/java-1.7.0-openjdk.spec: W: invalid-url Source6:
https://java.net/downloads/jax-ws/JDK7/jdk7-jaf-2010_08_19.zip HTTP Error 404:
Not Found
Link works for me.
SPECS/java-1.7.0-openjdk.spec: W: invalid-url Source3: mauve-2008-10-22.tar.gz
This was imported from java-1.6.0-openjdk. Not sure what the right URL is, but
I will look into it. It is not used right now, so please ignore it for the time
being.
SPECS/java-1.7.0-openjdk.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: icedtea-jdk7.tar.gz
No direct link as it comes from a forest. Instructions to re-create are
specified.
java-1.7.0-openjdk.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US runtime -> run
time, run-time, rudiment
OK.
java-1.7.0-openjdk.src: W: invalid-license ASL 1.1, ASL 2.0, GPL+, GPLv2, GPLv2
with exceptions, LGPL+, LGPLv2, MPLv1.0, MPLv1.1, Public Domain, W3C
Mixed license.
java-1.7.0-openjdk.src: W: strange-permission javac-wrapper 0775L
Only used during bootstrap build. Not distributed.
Rest of the issues are same as above so I've skipped them.
There are many false positives, but I am quite concerned about a few of these
including invalid-url and patch not applied
[Bug 718479] Review Request: wmwave - Statistics about a current wireless Ethernet connection
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=718479
--- Comment #3 from Damian L Brasher 2011-08-02
15:28:49 EDT ---
Detailed informal review
key:
[+] OK
[.] OK, not applicable
[X] needs work
[] unsure [learning]
-
[+] 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.
req. final check with potential sponsor
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license.
- GPLv2 according to script header
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[+] MUST: The file containing the text of the license(s) for the package must
be included in %doc.
[] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
- Spec file includes German Summary(de): and %description -l de
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source.
md5sum wmwave-0-4.tgz*
8728507eccb01a9749336f53ac4182c5 wmwave-0-4.tgz
8728507eccb01a9749336f53ac4182c5 wmwave-0-4.tgz.1
[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
[.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, ...
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.
[+] MUST: When compiling C, C++, or Fortran files, %{optflags} must be applied.
[.] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly.
[.] MUST: Packages storing shared library files (not just symlinks) must call
ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[+] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[.] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, ...
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates.
[+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in %files.
[] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
is chmod -x %{name}.1 strictly necessary?
[+] MUST: Packages must not provide RPM dependency information when that
information is not global in nature, or are otherwise handled.
[.] MUST: When filtering automatically generated RPM dependency information,
the filtering system implemented by Fedora must be used.
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[.] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
[+] MUST: Files in %doc must not affect the runtime of the application.
[.] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[.] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[.] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g.
libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in
a -devel package.
[.] MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned
dependency.
[+] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
[.] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file
[+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
[+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
EPEL <= 5 only:
[+] MUST: The spec file must contain a valid BuildRoot field.
[x] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf
%{buildroot}.
[x] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot}.
[.] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'
[+] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[] SHOULD: Timestamps of files should be preserved.
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all
supported architectures.
[] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described.
[.] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane.
[.] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency.
[.] SHOULD: pkgconfig(.pc) files should be placed in a -devel pkg.
[.] SHOULD: If the package 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.
[+] 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 727664] New: Review Request: florist - Open-source implementation of IEEE Standard 1003.5b-1996
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: florist - Open-source implementation of IEEE Standard 1003.5b-1996 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727664 Summary: Review Request: florist - Open-source implementation of IEEE Standard 1003.5b-1996 Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: pa...@zhukoff.net QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Spec URL: http://landgraf.fedorapeople.org/packages/requested/florist/florist.spec SRPM URL: http://landgraf.fedorapeople.org/packages/requested/florist/florist-2011-4.fc15.src.rpm Description: FLORIST is an implementation of the IEEE Standards 1003.5: 1992, IEEE STD 1003.5b: 1996, and parts of IEEE STD 1003.5c: 1998, also known as the POSIX Ada Bindings. Using this library, you can call operating system services from within Ada programs. koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3247531 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 727664] Review Request: florist - Open-source implementation of IEEE Standard 1003.5b-1996
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727664 --- Comment #1 from Pavel Zhukov 2011-08-02 15:20:55 EDT --- rpmlint: florist.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/florist/libflorist.so.2011 florist.src: W: invalid-url Source0: florist-gpl-2011-src.tgz -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 669911] Review Request: guestfs-browser - Guest filesystem browser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=669911
--- Comment #18 from Richard W.M. Jones 2011-08-02 15:12:51
EDT ---
(In reply to comment #17)
> (In reply to comment #0)
> > NB: This will only build with ocaml-camomile >= 0.8.1 and that package
> > is only available on Fedora 15+.
>
> Should there be a final Requires for this too? I get "Fatal error: exception
> Not_found" when I run, and strace says:
> > open("/usr/share/camomile/database/general_category.mar", O_RDONLY) = -1
> > ENOENT (No such file or directory)
> That file is provided by ocaml-camomile-data, but I don't happen to have any
> ocaml* packages at all on this system.
Ah ha, yes that is the problem.
I'll add the required runtime deps ...
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 727635] Review Request: java-1.7.0-openjdk - OpenJDK runtime 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=727635 --- Comment #2 from Omair Majid 2011-08-02 15:00:29 EDT --- On a slightly unrelated note, are there any plans to drop gnome-java-bridge (deprecated) and switch to http://git.gnome.org/browse/java-atk-wrapper/ ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 669911] Review Request: guestfs-browser - Guest filesystem browser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=669911
Josh Stone changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jist...@redhat.com
--- Comment #17 from Josh Stone 2011-08-02 14:50:52 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> NB: This will only build with ocaml-camomile >= 0.8.1 and that package
> is only available on Fedora 15+.
Should there be a final Requires for this too? I get "Fatal error: exception
Not_found" when I run, and strace says:
> open("/usr/share/camomile/database/general_category.mar", O_RDONLY) = -1
> ENOENT (No such file or directory)
That file is provided by ocaml-camomile-data, but I don't happen to have any
ocaml* packages at all on this system.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 718479] Review Request: wmwave - Statistics about a current wireless Ethernet connection
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=718479 --- Comment #2 from Damian L Brasher 2011-08-02 14:47:31 EDT --- Informal review (working with potential sponsor) [build@fedora15 result]$ rpmlint *.rpm wmwave.i686: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found de wmwave.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dockapp -> dock app, dock-app, paddock wmwave.i686: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/man/man1/wmwave.1.gz wmwave.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dockapp -> dock app, dock-app, paddock 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. --- (I will post a full detailed review shorty) Damian -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 727635] Review Request: java-1.7.0-openjdk - OpenJDK runtime 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=727635
--- Comment #1 from Omair Majid 2011-08-02 14:42:34 EDT ---
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[!] Rpmlint output:
SPECS/java-1.7.0-openjdk.spec:91: W: macro-in-comment %{jit_arches}
SPECS/java-1.7.0-openjdk.spec:121: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib
SPECS/java-1.7.0-openjdk.spec:163: W: macro-in-comment %define
SPECS/java-1.7.0-openjdk.spec:163: W: macro-in-comment %{sdkdir}
SPECS/java-1.7.0-openjdk.spec:189: W: macro-in-comment %{icedtea_jdk7_snapshot}
SPECS/java-1.7.0-openjdk.spec:190: W: macro-in-comment %{corba_snapshot}
SPECS/java-1.7.0-openjdk.spec:191: W: macro-in-comment %{hotspot_snapshot}
SPECS/java-1.7.0-openjdk.spec:192: W: macro-in-comment %{jaxp_snapshot}
SPECS/java-1.7.0-openjdk.spec:193: W: macro-in-comment %{jaxws_snapshot}
SPECS/java-1.7.0-openjdk.spec:194: W: macro-in-comment %{jdk_snapshot}
SPECS/java-1.7.0-openjdk.spec:195: W: macro-in-comment %{langtools_snapshot}
SPECS/java-1.7.0-openjdk.spec:785: E: hardcoded-library-path in
/usr/lib/jvm/java-gcj/*
SPECS/java-1.7.0-openjdk.spec:818: E: hardcoded-library-path in
/usr/lib/jvm/java-gcj/jre/lib/rt.jar
SPECS/java-1.7.0-openjdk.spec:908: W: configure-without-libdir-spec
SPECS/java-1.7.0-openjdk.spec:932: W: configure-without-libdir-spec
SPECS/java-1.7.0-openjdk.spec:1317: W: macro-in-comment %doc
SPECS/java-1.7.0-openjdk.spec:1320: W: macro-in-comment %doc
SPECS/java-1.7.0-openjdk.spec:1321: W: macro-in-comment %doc
SPECS/java-1.7.0-openjdk.spec:1322: W: macro-in-comment %doc
SPECS/java-1.7.0-openjdk.spec:1323: W: macro-in-comment %doc
SPECS/java-1.7.0-openjdk.spec:1324: W: macro-in-comment %doc
SPECS/java-1.7.0-openjdk.spec:1351: W: macro-in-comment %doc
SPECS/java-1.7.0-openjdk.spec:1351: W: macro-in-comment %{buildoutputdir}
SPECS/java-1.7.0-openjdk.spec:1354: W: macro-in-comment %doc
SPECS/java-1.7.0-openjdk.spec:1468: W: macro-in-%changelog %{_jvmdir}
SPECS/java-1.7.0-openjdk.spec:1468: W: macro-in-%changelog %{jredir}
SPECS/java-1.7.0-openjdk.spec:1470: W: macro-in-%changelog %{_jvmdir}
SPECS/java-1.7.0-openjdk.spec:1470: W: macro-in-%changelog %{sdkdir}
SPECS/java-1.7.0-openjdk.spec:163: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces:
line 32, tab: line 163)
SPECS/java-1.7.0-openjdk.spec: W: patch-not-applied Patch0:
java-1.7.0-openjdk-optflags.patch
SPECS/java-1.7.0-openjdk.spec: W: patch-not-applied Patch1:
java-1.7.0-openjdk-java-access-bridge-tck.patch
SPECS/java-1.7.0-openjdk.spec: W: patch-not-applied Patch2:
java-1.7.0-openjdk-java-access-bridge-idlj.patch
SPECS/java-1.7.0-openjdk.spec: W: patch-not-applied Patch3:
java-1.7.0-openjdk-java-access-bridge-security.patch
SPECS/java-1.7.0-openjdk.spec: W: patch-not-applied Patch4:
java-1.7.0-openjdk-accessible-toolkit.patch
SPECS/java-1.7.0-openjdk.spec: W: patch-not-applied Patch5:
java-1.7.0-openjdk-debugdocs.patch
SPECS/java-1.7.0-openjdk.spec: W: patch-not-applied Patch6:
%{name}-debuginfo.patch
SPECS/java-1.7.0-openjdk.spec: W: invalid-url Source14: pulseaudio.tar.gz
SPECS/java-1.7.0-openjdk.spec: W: invalid-url Source12: desktop-files.tar.gz
SPECS/java-1.7.0-openjdk.spec: W: invalid-url Source11: systemtap-tapset.tar.gz
SPECS/java-1.7.0-openjdk.spec: W: invalid-url Source10: class-rewriter.tar.gz
SPECS/java-1.7.0-openjdk.spec: W: invalid-url Source9: generated-files.tar.gz
SPECS/java-1.7.0-openjdk.spec: W: invalid-url Source6:
https://java.net/downloads/jax-ws/JDK7/jdk7-jaf-2010_08_19.zip HTTP Error 404:
Not Found
SPECS/java-1.7.0-openjdk.spec: W: invalid-url Source3: mauve-2008-10-22.tar.gz
SPECS/java-1.7.0-openjdk.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: icedtea-jdk7.tar.gz
java-1.7.0-openjdk.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US runtime -> run
time, run-time, rudiment
java-1.7.0-openjdk.src: W: invalid-license ASL 1.1, ASL 2.0, GPL+, GPLv2, GPLv2
with exceptions, LGPL+, LGPLv2, MPLv1.0, MPLv1.1, Public Domain, W3C
java-1.7.0-openjdk.src: W: strange-permission javac-wrapper 0775L
java-1.7.0-openjdk.src:91: W: macro-in-comment %{jit_arches}
java-1.7.0-openjdk.src:121: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib
java-1.7.0-openjdk.src:163: W: macro-in-comment %define
java-1.7.0-openjdk.src:163: W: macro-in-comment %{sdkdir}
java-1.7.0-openjdk.src:189: W: macro-in-comment %{icedtea_jdk7_snapshot}
java-1.7.0-openjdk.src:190: W: macro-in-comment %{corba_snapshot}
java-1.7.0-openjdk.src:191: W: macro-in-comment %{hotspot_snapshot}
java-1.7.0-openjdk.src:192: W: macro-in-comment %{jaxp_snapshot}
java-1.7.0-openjdk.src:193: W: macro-in-comment %{jaxws_snapshot}
java-1.7.0-openjdk.src:194: W: macro-in-comment %{jdk_snapshot}
java-1.7.0-openjdk.src:195: W: macro-in-comment %{langtools_snapshot}
java-1.7.0-openjdk.src:785: E: hardcoded-library-path in
/usr/lib/jvm/java-gcj/*
java-1.7.0-openjdk.src:818: E: hardcoded-library-path in
/usr/lib/jvm/java-gcj/jre/lib/rt.jar
java-1.7.0-openjdk.src:908: W: configure-without-libdir-
[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 #24 from Fedora Update System 2011-08-02 14:38:48 EDT --- stdair-0.36.2-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/stdair-0.36.2-1.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 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 #22 from Fedora Update System 2011-08-02 14:13:57 EDT --- stdair-0.36.2-1.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/stdair-0.36.2-1.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 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 #21 from Fedora Update System 2011-08-02 14:12:37 EDT --- stdair-0.36.2-1.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/stdair-0.36.2-1.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 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 #23 from Fedora Update System 2011-08-02 14:15:06 EDT --- stdair-0.36.2-1.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/stdair-0.36.2-1.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 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 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 727646] New: Review Request: link-grammar - A Grammar Checking library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: link-grammar - A Grammar Checking library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727646 Summary: Review Request: link-grammar - A Grammar Checking library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: johannes.l...@googlemail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- This package was removed due to a FTBFS error. I updated it and fixed build errors. Should be easy to review it. Spec URL: http://hannes.fedorapeople.org/link-grammar.spec SRPM URL: http://hannes.fedorapeople.org/link-grammar-4.7.4-1.fc15.src.rpm Description: A library that can perform grammar checking. Koji-Scratch-Build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3247344 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 725504] Review Request: jsoup - Java library for working with real-world HTML
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725504 JaromÃr CápÃk changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE Last Closed||2011-08-02 13:39:42 --- Comment #6 from JaromÃr CápÃk 2011-08-02 13:39:42 EDT --- Thanks guys. Closing. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 Jussi Lehtola changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW AssignedTo|jussi.leht...@iki.fi|nob...@fedoraproject.org -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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
Jussi Lehtola changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jussi.leht...@iki.fi
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Comment #9 from Jussi Lehtola 2011-08-02 13:24:13
EDT ---
Some more comments:
Please use the %{version} macro for
%{python_sitelib}/ufw-0.30.1*
And, since it is an egg-info file, it's better to be a bit more explicit:
%{python_sitelib}/ufw-%{version}-py*.egg-info.
**
You are still missing ownership of
%{_datadir}/ufw/iptables/
Please combine
%{_datadir}/ufw/iptables/*.rules
%dir %{_datadir}/ufw/
to simply
%{_datadir}/ufw/
**
You are mixing styles:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Using_.25.7Bbuildroot.7D_and_.25.7Boptflags.7D_vs_.24RPM_BUILD_ROOT_and_.24RPM_OPT_FLAGS
Since this is a noarch package, you should drop CFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS" from
the build statement.
**
I'm also not sure why you want to break lines to exceedingly small length in
%{__python} setup.py install \
--skip-build \
--root %{buildroot}
but the very next line is very long.
**
By the way, there is a reason why firewall rules are not world readable. They
should be owned by root and installed as 600.
**
What does Patch0 do? Please add a comment about it in the spec file.
**
Note that you do not need to use the %{__python} macro, plain "python" will do
just fine.
**
I am wondering whether the use of a scrambled email address is allowed, but the
guideline is a bit unclear. I'll get this cleared up.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 723703] Review Request: eclipse-gprof - Eclipse plug-ins for gprof support
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=723703 --- Comment #3 from sami 2011-08-02 13:02:33 EDT --- Here are some things I forgot to fillout > [x] Rpmlint output: $ rpmlint eclipse-gprof-0.7.0-0.1.20110718gitc011a2c7a0.fc15.noarch.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint eclipse-gprof-0.7.0-0.1.20110718gitc011a2c7a0.fc16.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. > [x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > License type: EPL -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 726131] Review Request: yourls - your own url shortening service
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=726131 --- Comment #3 from Martin Krizek 2011-08-02 12:59:42 EDT --- Thank you very much for your comments, updated versions follows: Spec URL: http://mkrizek.fedorapeople.org/yourls.spec SRPM URL: http://mkrizek.fedorapeople.org/yourls-1.5-2.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 727635] New: Review Request: java-1.7.0-openjdk - OpenJDK runtime environment
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: java-1.7.0-openjdk - OpenJDK runtime environment https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727635 Summary: Review Request: java-1.7.0-openjdk - OpenJDK runtime environment Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: dbh...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Spec URL: http://dbhole.fedorapeople.org/java/7/review/java-1.7.0-openjdk.spec SRPM URL: http://dbhole.fedorapeople.org/java/7/review/java-1.7.0-openjdk-1.7.0.0-0.1.20110729.fc15.src.rpm Description: The OpenJDK runtime and development environment -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 727635] Review Request: java-1.7.0-openjdk - OpenJDK runtime 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=727635 Deepak Bhole changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|oma...@redhat.com Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 725243] Review Request: gespeaker - A GTK+ frontend for eSpeak and mbrola
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725243 --- Comment #2 from Martin Gieseking 2011-08-02 12:46:19 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1) > * add %doc doc/ to %files Oops, I meant %doc doc/* 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 725243] Review Request: gespeaker - A GTK+ frontend for eSpeak and mbrola
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725243
Martin Gieseking changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||martin.giesek...@uos.de
--- Comment #1 from Martin Gieseking 2011-08-02
12:42:52 EDT ---
Hi Raphael,
here are some quick comments on your package:
- the license of the program is GPLv2+ because of the addition
"or (at your option) any later version" in the copyright notice.
- replace BR: python > 2.4 with BR: python2-devel
- The package doesn't seem to provide arch-dependent files. Thus add
BuildArch: noarch
- the .desktop file must be verified with desktop-file-validate
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Desktop_files
- patch the .desktop file to not use absolute paths (Exec and Icon)
- see here how to install the locale files properly:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Handling_Locale_Files
- Drop the asterisk from %{_datadir}/%{name}/* for proper directory ownership.
- replace %{_mandir}/man1/%{name}.1.gz with %{_mandir}/man1/%{name}.1*
- drop the empty %doc line in %files
- the documentation should be installed into
%{_defaultdocdir}/%{name}-%{version}. The easiest way to do that is to
remove the installed docs from the buildroot and add it with %doc:
* add rm -rf %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/doc/ to %install
* add %doc doc/ to %files
* remove %{_defaultdocdir}/%{name}/* from %files
This also adds the missing file "copyright"
Have a look at the packaging guidelines for further information:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on 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 #8 from Nathan Owe 2011-08-02 12:11:00 EDT --- SPEC: http://ndowens.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/ufw.spec SRPM: http://ndowens.fedorapeople.org/SRPM/ufw-0.30.1-3.fc15.src.rpm Those are the updated version -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 716475] Review Request: game-music-emu - Video game music file emulation/playback library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=716475 --- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla 2011-08-02 11:57:11 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests). Added f16 branch. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 716475] Review Request: game-music-emu - Video game music file emulation/playback library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=716475 Michael Schwendt changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 #20 from Jon Ciesla 2011-08-02 11:42:14 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 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 Denis Arnaud changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #19 from Denis Arnaud 2011-08-02 11:31:42 EDT --- Package Change Request == Package Name: stdair New Branches: f16 Owners: denisarnaud -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 727199] Review Request: xorg-x11-drv-displaylink - X.Org X11 DisplayLink video driver
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727199 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 727199] Review Request: xorg-x11-drv-displaylink - X.Org X11 DisplayLink video driver
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727199 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System 2011-08-02 11:31:29 EDT --- xorg-x11-drv-displaylink-0-1.20110102git.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/xorg-x11-drv-displaylink-0-1.20110102git.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 727199] Review Request: xorg-x11-drv-displaylink - X.Org X11 DisplayLink video driver
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727199 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System 2011-08-02 11:29:27 EDT --- xorg-x11-drv-displaylink-0-1.20110102git.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/xorg-x11-drv-displaylink-0-1.20110102git.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 727608] Review Request: jboss-modules - A Modular Classloading System
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727608 Marek Goldmann changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||652183(FE-JAVASIG) Depends on||727220 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 457343] Review Request: jquery - Fast, concise library that simplifies how you use javascript
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=457343 --- Comment #7 from Toshio Ernie Kuratomi 2011-08-02 11:13:59 EDT --- Would you like to take over? I'm not using jquery myself and the draft has stalled (for years). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 727220] Review Request: maven-injection-plugin - Bytecode injection at Maven build time
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727220 Marek Goldmann changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||727608 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 727608] New: Review Request: jboss-modules - A Modular Classloading System
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: jboss-modules - A Modular Classloading System https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727608 Summary: Review Request: jboss-modules - A Modular Classloading System Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: mgold...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Spec URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/jboss-modules/1/jboss-modules.spec SRPM URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/jboss-modules/1/jboss-modules-1.0.2-1.fc15.src.rpm Description: A Modular Classloading System $ rpmlint ./jboss-modules.spec ./jboss-modules.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: jboss-modules-1.0.2.GA.tar.xz 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. $ rpmlint jboss-modules-1.0.2-1.fc15.src.rpm jboss-modules.src: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US jboss-modules.src: W: invalid-url Source0: jboss-modules-1.0.2.GA.tar.xz 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 Jon Ciesla changed: What|Removed |Added CC||l...@jcomserv.net --- Comment #18 from Jon Ciesla 2011-08-02 10:41:53 EDT --- I missed it, but you probably want to submit a package change request to add an f16 branch. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 727199] Review Request: xorg-x11-drv-displaylink - X.Org X11 DisplayLink video driver
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727199 --- Comment #8 from Jon Ciesla 2011-08-02 10:40:44 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests). Added f16 since we've branched. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 #17 from Jon Ciesla 2011-08-02 10:39:26 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 #7 from Jussi Lehtola 2011-08-02 10:31:23
EDT ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Mainly because some people say that the file list should be more detailed.
I'm one of them: for instance, I abhor too freeminded use of wildcards such as
%{python_sitelib}/*
which may up owning stuff that it isn't supposed to. Or, for the current
example, one might not detect if the egg-info isn't built (which may happen
e.g. on EPEL-5, where one has to do a trick to get it).
However, there's no sense in listing every single file that goes in the RPM, if
they are placed in a package-specific directory, or obey some sane naming
scheme, e.g.
%{_bindir}/foo
%{_bindir}/foo-*
Being too specific can also bite you, as you noticed.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 727199] Review Request: xorg-x11-drv-displaylink - X.Org X11 DisplayLink video driver
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727199 Martin Decky changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Martin Decky 2011-08-02 10:22:10 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: xorg-x11-drv-displaylink Short Description: X.Org X11 DisplayLink video driver Owners: mdecky 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 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 Denis Arnaud changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|unspecified |low Platform|Unspecified |All Flag||fedora-cvs? Severity|unspecified |medium --- Comment #16 from Denis Arnaud 2011-08-02 10:15:07 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: stdair Short Description: C++ Standard Airline IT Object Library Owners: denisarnaud Branches: f14 f15 el4 el5 el6 InitialCC: denisarnaud -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 #6 from Nathan Owe 2011-08-02 10:09:13 EDT --- Mainly because some people say that the file list should be more detailed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 723703] Review Request: eclipse-gprof - Eclipse plug-ins for gprof support
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=723703
--- Comment #2 from sami 2011-08-02 09:17:50 EDT ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x] Rpmlint output:
[x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines[1].
[x] Spec file name must match the base package name, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines[2].
[x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms.
[!] Buildroot definition is not present
Please remove BuildRoot.
[x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines[3,4].
[x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type:
[x] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package is included in %doc.
[-] All independent sub-packages have license of their own
[x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[!] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
MD5SUM this package: 35a9b7f73874a5b64408f970ae82f9b9
MD5SUM upstream package: f1c34f0b4c4342fdfbe6761a17adacf7
md5sums do not match but extracted sources are the same as the upstream
snapshot version.
However the sources contain source for unrelated projects
[x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines[5].
[x] Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[!] File sections do not contain %defattr(-,root,root,-) unless changed with
good reason
Please remove.
[x] Permissions on files are set properly.
[!] Package does NOT have a %clean section which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}
(or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). (not needed anymore)
please remove %{__rm} -rf %{buildroot}
[x] Package consistently uses macros (no %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
mixing)
[!] Package contains code, or permissable content.
See comment above about non-gprof code
[-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
[x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[-] Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
subpackage
[-] Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlinks)
[-] Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
[-] Javadoc subpackages have Require: jpackage-utils
[x] Package uses %global not %define
[x] If package uses tarball from VCS include comment how to re-create that
tarball (svn export URL, git clone URL, ...)
[x] If source tarball includes bundled jar/class files these need to be
removed prior to building
[x] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
[-] Jar files are installed to %{_javadir}/%{name}.jar (see [6] for details)
[-] If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even when
building with ant
[-] pom files has correct add_maven_depmap
=== Maven ===
[-] Use %{_mavenpomdir} macro for placing pom files instead of
%{_datadir}/maven2/poms
[-] If package uses "-Dmaven.test.skip=true" explain why it was needed in a
comment
[-] If package uses custom depmap "-Dmaven.local.depmap.file=*" explain why
it's needed in a comment
[-] Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun
[-] Packages DOES NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on
jpackage-utils for %update_maven_depmap macro
=== Other suggestions ===
[x] If possible use upstream build method (maven/ant/javac)
[x] Avoid having BuildRequires on exact NVR unless necessary
[x] Package has BuildArch: noarch (if possible)
[x] Latest version is packaged.
[x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
Tested on:
x86_64 f15 + build deps from rawhide
and x86_64 on f16
=== Issues ===
Summary of the issues from above:
[!] Buildroot definition is not present
Please remove BuildRoot.
[!] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
MD5SUM this package: 35a9b7f73874a5b64408f970ae82f9b9
MD5SUM upstream package: f1c34f0b4c4342fdfbe6761a17adacf7
md5sums do not match but extracted sources are the same as the upstream
snapshot version.
However the sources contain source for unrelated projects
[!] File sections do not contain %defattr(-,root,root,-) unless changed with
good reason
Please remove.
[!] Package does NOT have a %clean section which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}
(or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). (not needed anymore)
please remove %{__rm} -rf %{buildro
[Bug 727559] New: Review Request: perl-POE-Component-Syndicator - POE component base class which implements the Observer pattern
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: perl-POE-Component-Syndicator - POE component base class which implements the Observer pattern https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727559 Summary: Review Request: perl-POE-Component-Syndicator - POE component base class which implements the Observer pattern Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: psab...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Spec URL: http://psabata.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/perl-POE-Component-Syndicator/perl-POE-Component-Syndicator.spec SRPM URL: http://psabata.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/perl-POE-Component-Syndicator/perl-POE-Component-Syndicator-0.06-1.fc15.src.rpm Description: POE::Component::Syndicator is a base class for POE components which need to handle a persistent resource (e.g. a connection to an IRC server) for one or more sessions in an extendable way. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 727199] Review Request: xorg-x11-drv-displaylink - X.Org X11 DisplayLink video driver
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727199 Peter Lemenkov changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | --- Comment #6 from Peter Lemenkov 2011-08-02 09:03:30 EDT --- Unblocking FE-NEEDSPONSOR - I just sponsored Martin. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 727559] Review Request: perl-POE-Component-Syndicator - POE component base class which implements the Observer pattern
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727559 Petr Sabata changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||726022 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 713677] Review Request: klt - An implementation of the Kanade-Lucas-Tomasi feature tracker.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=713677 --- Comment #10 from Ankur Sinha 2011-08-02 09:03:39 EDT --- Hello, I've uploaded the srpm again. Please have a look: http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/klt/klt-1.3.4-1.fc15.src.rpm I had modified/patched it to create sonames. Should I remove the static libs altogether? They're in a -static subpackage at the time. 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 727199] Review Request: xorg-x11-drv-displaylink - X.Org X11 DisplayLink video driver
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727199 --- Comment #5 from Martin Decky 2011-08-02 08:53:18 EDT --- > APPROVED. Thanks! > Martin, what's your FAS name? It's "mdecky". -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 727199] Review Request: xorg-x11-drv-displaylink - X.Org X11 DisplayLink video driver
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727199
Peter Lemenkov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Peter Lemenkov 2011-08-02 08:40:57 EDT
---
REVIEW:
Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable
+ rpmlint is silent
work ~: rpmlint ~/Desktop/xorg-x11-drv-displaylink-*
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
work ~:
+ 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.
+ 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
(GPLv2).
+ 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 sources used to build the package, match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
primary architecture:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3246472
+ All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
0 No need to handle locales.
0 No shared library files in some of the dynamic linker's default paths.
+ 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.
0 No header files.
0 No static libraries.
0 No pkgconfig(.pc) files.
0 The package doesn't contain library files without a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so).
0 No devel sub-package.
+ The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
0 Not a GUI application.
+ The package does not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
+ At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.
This package is
APPROVED.
Martin, what's your FAS name?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 725168] Review Request: xspice - X and Spice server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725168 --- Comment #3 from Marc-Andre Lureau 2011-08-02 08:36:24 EDT --- Created attachment 516316 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=516316 updated spec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 725168] Review Request: xspice - X and Spice server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725168 --- Comment #4 from Marc-Andre Lureau 2011-08-02 08:39:31 EDT --- Missing requires: python? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 725168] Review Request: xspice - X and Spice server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725168 --- Comment #2 from Marc-Andre Lureau 2011-08-02 08:35:53 EDT --- elmarco@makai:~$ xspice --port 5900 --disable-ticketing :1.0 missing ca-cert - ./ca-cert.pem does not exist What am I supposed to do? Anything missing in the package to make it work by default after installation? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 725168] Review Request: xspice - X and Spice server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725168 Marc-Andre Lureau changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |MODIFIED --- Comment #1 from Marc-Andre Lureau 2011-08-02 08:33:01 EDT --- * Wrong depedency on spice-sever: replaced with spice-server-devel * rpmlint xspice-0.0.16-1.fc15.src.rpm xspice.src: W: summary-not-capitalized C xspice, an X and spice server xspice.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary C xspice - The name 'xspice' doesn't follow convention to prefix with xorg-x11-server- X11 servers: xorg-x11-server-Xspice instead - updated summary * rpmlint xorg-x11-server-Xspice-0.0.16-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm xorg-x11-server-Xspice.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/X11/spiceqxl.xorg.conf xorg-x11-server-Xspice.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary xspice - added %config package name: modified spec file name: modified packaging guidelines: ok license: ok license field: ok license file: ok spec language: ok spec readability: ok upstream sources: ok buildable: yes excludearch: FIXME (MUST have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line. [8]) buildrequires: modified locale handling: ok ldconfig: ok system libs: ok relocatable: ok directory ownership: ok duplicate files: ok file permissions: ok macro use: ok permissible content: ok large docs: ok %doc content: ok header files: ok static libs: ok shared libs: ok devel deps: ok libtool archives: ok gui apps: ok duplicate ownership: ok utf8 filenames: ok -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 713584] Review Request: cogl - A library for using 3D graphics hardware to draw pretty pictures
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=713584 Peter Robinson changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE Last Closed||2011-08-02 08:31:48 --- Comment #10 from Peter Robinson 2011-08-02 08:31:48 EDT --- built and in rawhide and F-16 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 727543] New: jnr-ffi - Java Abstracted Foreign Function Layer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: jnr-ffi - Java Abstracted Foreign Function Layer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727543 Summary: jnr-ffi - Java Abstracted Foreign Function Layer Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: Unspecified OS/Version: Unspecified Status: NEW Severity: unspecified Priority: unspecified Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: mmo...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Spec URL: http://mo.morsi.org/files/jruby/jnr-ffi.spec SRPM URL: http://mo.morsi.org/files/jruby/jnr-ffi-0.5.10-1.fc15.src.rpm Description: Java Abstracted Foreign Function Layer Obsoletes jaffl. Required by JRuby. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3246435 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 727543] jnr-ffi - Java Abstracted Foreign Function Layer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727543 Mo Morsi changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||723191 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 727199] Review Request: xorg-x11-drv-displaylink - X.Org X11 DisplayLink video driver
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727199 --- Comment #3 from Martin Decky 2011-08-02 08:18:49 EDT --- Thanks for your comments. I have tried to address them and updated the spec file and the source RPM in-place on my web, please re-download them. The current spec file, SRPM and binary RPMs (built on i686 and x86_64 in Fedora 15) pass rpmlint without errors. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 727541] New: Review Request: comoonics-base-py - base libs for comoonics-cdsl-py and comoonics-cluster-py
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: comoonics-base-py - base libs for comoonics-cdsl-py and comoonics-cluster-py https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727541 Summary: Review Request: comoonics-base-py - base libs for comoonics-cdsl-py and comoonics-cluster-py Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: gri...@atix.de QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Spec URL: http://www.open-sharedroot.org/development/comoonics-base-py/comoonics-base-py.spec SRPM URL: http://www.open-sharedroot.org/development/comoonics-base-py/comoonics-base-py-0.1.tar.gz Description: Hi, I just wanted to reenable (right now it is orphaned for Fedora 16) the package comoonics-base-py. It is dep for the packages comoonics-cdsl-py and comoonics-cluster-py. In the last days they failed to build for rawhide because of the missing dep. This package has been orphaned for Fedora 16. I took ownership of the older rpms but would need it also for Fedora 16 because of the dependencies so I would also like to take the ownership there too. This package has been part of the Open-Sharedroot feature see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Opensharedroot. I reuploaded the sources/specs so they should build. Let me know what I can do. Thanks Marc. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 727382] Review Request: django-recaptcha-works - Integrate the reCaptcha service
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727382 --- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla 2011-08-02 07:53:39 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 727199] Review Request: xorg-x11-drv-displaylink - X.Org X11 DisplayLink video driver
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727199
--- Comment #2 from Peter Lemenkov 2011-08-02 07:26:55 EDT
---
Successfully built for F-15, see koji logs:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3246300
However there is a room for the SPEC-file improvement.
1. Please, add a comments on how to reproduce / rebuild tarball you're using.
For example, take a look at the following SPEC-file:
http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/gitweb/?p=flashrom.git;a=blob;f=flashrom.spec;hb=HEAD
2. Parts of the SPEC-file, related to doc-files, should be simplified. Instead
of installing doc-files explicitly you may use rpmbuild's internal doc-file
processing routines. E.g. instead of
-
%define pkgdocdir %{_datadir}/doc/%{name}-%{version}
...
mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{pkgdocdir}
install -m 0644 COPYING $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{pkgdocdir}
install -m 0644 README $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{pkgdocdir}
...
%dir %{pkgdocdir}/
%doc %{pkgdocdir}/COPYING
%doc %{pkgdocdir}/README
-
you should just write
-
%files
...
%doc COPYING README
-
and rpmbuild will do the rest.
Please, comment/address these issues and I'll continue.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 727199] Review Request: xorg-x11-drv-displaylink - X.Org X11 DisplayLink video driver
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727199 Peter Lemenkov changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||lemen...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|lemen...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Peter Lemenkov 2011-08-02 07:09:04 EDT --- I'll review (and I'll sponsor you eventually). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #15 from Martin Gieseking 2011-08-02 06:39:33 EDT --- (In reply to comment #14) > Thanks again for that thorough review! You're welcome. :) The package looks fine now and is ready for check-in. 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 688499] Review Request: cabal-dev - Haskell package sandboxing 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=688499 --- Comment #11 from Jon Ciesla 2011-08-02 06:16:16 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 727382] Review Request: django-recaptcha-works - Integrate the reCaptcha service
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727382 Praveen Kumar changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 727382] Review Request: django-recaptcha-works - Integrate the reCaptcha service
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727382 --- Comment #3 from Praveen Kumar 2011-08-02 06:11:15 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: django-recaptcha-works Short Description: Integrate the reCaptcha service Owners: kumarpraveen sundaram pjp Branches: f14 f15 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 725168] Review Request: xspice - X and Spice server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725168 Marc-Andre Lureau changed: What|Removed |Added CC||marcandre.lur...@redhat.com Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 713677] Review Request: klt - An implementation of the Kanade-Lucas-Tomasi feature tracker.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=713677
Mario Ceresa changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mrcer...@gmail.com
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Comment #9 from Mario Ceresa 2011-08-02 05:09:06 EDT
---
I'll review it!
Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable
- rpmlint is silent?
klt.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Multi -> Mulch, Mufti
klt.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US affine -> caffeine, fine
klt-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
klt-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation
those can be ignored
klt.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libklt.so.1.3.4
exit@GLIBC_2.2.5
here there is not much we can do except report it to the mantainer, if
available.
+ 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.
+ The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines.
+ The spec file is written in American English.
+ The spec file for the package is legible.
- The sources used to build the package, match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
784776f0160acc4f73c88b01bdf88053
http://www.ces.clemson.edu/~stb/klt/klt1.3.4.zip
I cannot check the md5sum for the srpm because the uploaded one is corrupted
and won't install. Please re-upload so I can check the mkd5sum
+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
primary architecture.
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3246001
+ All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
0 No need to handle locales.
+ Shared library files are correctly handled (soname + ldconfig)
+ 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.
+ 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.
- No static libraries.
See comment 6 above
+ No pkgconfig(.pc) files.
+ 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 Not a GUI application.
+ The package does not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
+ At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.
Please re-upload the srpm so I can check the md5sum of the source files and
I'll approve the package
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
