[Bug 728006] Review Request: mhddfs - Fuse-based file system for unifying several mount points into one
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=728006 --- Comment #5 from Nathan Owe 2011-08-04 01:05:44 EDT --- Let me know if you agree on the SPEC file I did or not and works fine for you as well. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 719854] Review Request: rubygem-xmlparser-0.6.81-1 - Ruby bindings to the Expat XML parsing 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=719854
--- Comment #26 from Shawn Starr 2011-08-04 00:49:44
EDT ---
I guess that doesn't matter, there doesn't seem to be a clear guideline, but
I've been following %{ruby_sitearch}/%{gemname}/*.so
Can this package be approved for submission?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 728088] Review Request: rubygem-idn - Ruby Bindings for the GNU LibIDN 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=728088 Shawn Starr changed: What|Removed |Added OS/Version|All |Linux -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 588428] Review Request: rubygem-addressable - Improved URI/URL handling
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=588428 --- Comment #4 from Shawn Starr 2011-08-04 00:44:16 EDT --- NOW: Part of Dependency packaging for OpenNebula 2.x/3.x I have updated this to use Rspec for tests Spec URL: http://www.sh0n.net/spstarr/fedora/rubygem-addressable/rubygem-addressable.spec SRPM URL: http://www.sh0n.net/spstarr/fedora/rubygem-addressable/rubygem-addressable-2.2.6-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: Improved URI/URL handling MOCK: PASS -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 728006] Review Request: mhddfs - Fuse-based file system for unifying several mount points into one
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=728006 Nathan Owe changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 728006] Review Request: mhddfs - Fuse-based file system for unifying several mount points into one
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=728006 Nathan Owe changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ndowen...@gmail.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 728006] Review Request: mhddfs - Fuse-based file system for unifying several mount points into one
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=728006 Nathan Owe changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 715180] Review Request: freemat - A free environment for rapid engineering, scientific prototyping and data processing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=715180 Bug 715180 depends on bug 727301, which changed state. Bug 727301 Summary: Wrong location of header files https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727301 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution|NOTABUG | Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 715180] Review Request: freemat - A free environment for rapid engineering, scientific prototyping and data processing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=715180 Bug 715180 depends on bug 727301, which changed state. Bug 727301 Summary: Wrong location of header files https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727301 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||NOTABUG Status|NEW |CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 728088] Review Request: rubygem-idn - Ruby Bindings for the GNU LibIDN 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=728088 Shawn Starr changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|shawn.st...@rogers.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 728088] New: Review Request: rubygem-idn - Ruby Bindings for the GNU LibIDN 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: rubygem-idn - Ruby Bindings for the GNU LibIDN library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=728088 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-idn - Ruby Bindings for the GNU LibIDN library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: unspecified Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: shawn.st...@rogers.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Part of Dependency packaging for OpenNebula 2.x/3.x Spec URL: http://www.sh0n.net/spstarr/fedora/rubygem-idn/rubygem-idn.spec SRPM URL: http://www.sh0n.net/spstarr/fedora/rubygem-idn/rubygem-idn-0.0.2-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: Ruby Bindings for the GNU LibIDN library MOCK: PASS -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 728051] Review Request: rubygem-stringex - Extensions to Rubys String class
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=728051 Shawn Starr changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|shawn.st...@rogers.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 728006] Review Request: mhddfs - Fuse-based file system for unifying several mount points into one
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=728006
--- Comment #4 from Nathan Owe 2011-08-03 23:03:46 EDT ---
install -d -m 755 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_bindir}
install -d -m 755 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_mandir}/man1
install -m 755 %{name} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_bindir}
install -m 644 %{name}.1 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_mandir}/man1
instead do:
install -d $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_bindir}
install -d $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_mandir}/man1
install -m755 %{name} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_bindir}/%{name}
install -m644 %{name}.1 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_mandir}/man1/%{name}.1
SPEC: http://pastebin.com/cpmd7BNd
Above is one I updated.
Also if you are not going to release this package for EPEL or RHEL then you can
remove:
BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
%clean section
and also the defattr(-root,root-)
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 728006] Review Request: mhddfs - Fuse-based file system for unifying several mount points into one
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=728006 --- Comment #3 from Jameson 2011-08-03 22:49:48 EDT --- No. I already maintain a couple of packages. I just threw this one together for myself, and thought maybe others could use it. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 728051] New: Review Request: rubygem-stringex - Extensions to Rubys String class
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: rubygem-stringex - Extensions to Rubys String class https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=728051 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-stringex - Extensions to Rubys String class Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: unspecified Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: shawn.st...@rogers.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Part of Dependency packaging for OpenNebula 2.x/3.x Spec URL: http://www.sh0n.net/spstarr/fedora/rubygem-stringex/rubygem-stringex.spec SRPM URL: http://www.sh0n.net/spstarr/fedora/rubygem-stringex/rubygem-stringex-1.2.2-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: Extensions to Rubys String class MOCK: PASS -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 728006] Review Request: mhddfs - Fuse-based file system for unifying several mount points into one
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=728006 Nathan Owe changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ndowen...@gmail.com --- Comment #2 from Nathan Owe 2011-08-03 22:37:25 EDT --- Are you needing a sponsor? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 711547] Review Request: sketch - Free Graphics Software for the TeX, LaTeX, and PSTricks Community
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=711547
Luke Macken changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|lmac...@redhat.com
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Comment #25 from Luke Macken 2011-08-03 22:21:14 EDT
---
MUST Items:
[X] rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build
produces. The output should be posted in the review.[1]
sketch.x86_64: W: summary-ended-with-dot C A 3D Scene Description
Translator.
sketch.x86_64: W: spelling-error 0%description -l en_US un -> UN, nu,
in
sketch.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/sketch
sketch.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/doc/sketch-0.3.2/Data/hand.sk
sketch.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/doc/sketch-0.3.2/Data/buggy.sk
sketch.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/doc/sketch-0.3.2/Data/cone.sk
sketch.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/doc/sketch-0.3.2/Data/2tori.sk
sketch.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/doc/sketch-0.3.2/COPYING.txt
sketch.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/doc/sketch-0.3.2/Data/bunny.sk
sketch.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/doc/sketch-0.3.2/Data/test.sk
sketch.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sketch
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 11 warnings.
[X] The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
[X] The spec file name must match the base package 100%{name}, in the
format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [2] .
[X] The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
[X] The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines .
[X] The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license. [3]
[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 must be included in 100%doc.[4]
[X] The spec file must be written in American English. [5]
[X] The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [6]
[X] The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no
upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL
Guidelines for how to deal with this.
[X] The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture. [7]
[X] If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line. [8]
[X] All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
[X] The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
100%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.[9]
[X] Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library
files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must
call ldconfig in 100%post and %postun. [10]
[X] Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.[11]
[X] If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker. [12]
[X] A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not
create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
create that directory. [13]
[X] A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
100%files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific
situations)[14]
[X] Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, for example. [15]
[X] Each package must consistently use macros. [16]
[X] The package must contain code, or permissable content. [17]
[X] Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition
of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to
s
[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 #6 from Nathan Owe 2011-08-03 21:37:20 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> > Instead you can do:
> > ...
>
> Unconvincing.
>
> Explicitly listing specific files in a %files section can be beneficial, not
> limited to config files. Such a files section makes a build fail whenever the
> specified file gets renamed or lost. That would not be the case when using
> directory tree inclusion as you suggested.
>
> The combination of
>
> %dir %{_sysconfdir}/%{name}/
> %config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/%{name}/config.php
>
> is fine.
Well it seem almost every person that reviews my packages have different
opinions. I can list every single file and they recommend to condense it a
little and if I condense it too much, I need to list more.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on 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 #13 from Nathan Owe 2011-08-03 21:35:35 EDT --- (In reply to comment #11) > 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. Well just remembered that I am also behind a router so that might be why I see no 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 721179] Review Request: rubygem-extlib - Support library for DataMapper and Merb
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=721179 --- Comment #23 from Shawn Starr 2011-08-03 21:18:58 EDT --- Points addressed, removed non-ruby dependency/package, merge %changelog See updates spec: Spec URL: http://www.sh0n.net/spstarr/fedora/rubygem-extlib/rubygem-extlib.spec SRPM URL: http://www.sh0n.net/spstarr/fedora/rubygem-extlib/rubygem-extlib-0.9.13-1.fc17.src.rpm Now tracking rawhide (fedora 17) 1) The test suite is not executed at all. I would suggest to execute the test suite using spec instead of rake. That would allow to remove the patch. -- FIXED 2) The YARD documentation is generated in %check section. That is not correct place. - FIXED, RSpec 2.x is generating yard doc automagically now. 3) I would suggest to not provide the ruby subpackage unless there is real need for it. - FIXED, removed this 4) If that is .spec file recycled from EPEL, I would expect to see there the original changelog. - FIXED, merged %changelog 5) The BuildRoot is not necessary unless the spec is used to build EPEL5. In that case I would suggest to put there some condition to be clear. - FIXED, keep incase EPEL wants to use this spec file. 6) defattr in files section is not necessary anymore - FIXED, removed 7) %clean section is not required - FIXED, removed -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 725906] Review Request: php53-extras - Additional PHP modules from the standard PHP distribution
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725906 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 725906] Review Request: php53-extras - Additional PHP modules from the standard PHP distribution
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725906 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System 2011-08-03 20:19:39 EDT --- php53-extras-5.3.3-1.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/php53-extras-5.3.3-1.el5 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 728006] Review Request: mhddfs - Fuse-based file system for unifying several mount points into one
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=728006 --- Comment #1 from Jameson 2011-08-03 19:31:07 EDT --- Forgot a build requirement. SRPM URL: http://imntreal.fedorapeople.org/mhddfs-0.1.38-2.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 727909] Review Request: rubygem-capybara - Simplify the process of integration testing Rack applications
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727909
Adam Huffman changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Adam Huffman 2011-08-03 19:16:13 EDT
---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
[x] : MUST - Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported architecture.
[x] : MUST - Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x] : MUST - Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x] : MUST - Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=...
doesn't work.
[x] : MUST - Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x] : MUST - Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
/home/adam/tmp/reviewhelper/727909/capybara-1.0.0.gem :
MD5SUM this package : 6ee03d9facbb5c65692647f2828ff4ea
MD5SUM upstream package : 6ee03d9facbb5c65692647f2828ff4ea
[x] : MUST - Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[-] : MUST - %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[-] : MUST - Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop using
desktop-file-install file if it is a GUI application.
[-] : MUST - Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] : MUST - ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[-] : MUST - The spec file handles locales properly.
[-] : MUST - No %config files under /usr.
[-] : MUST - Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] : MUST - Static libraries in -static subpackage, if present.
[!] : MUST - Rpmlint output is silent.
- apparently the doc-related warnings are expected
[x] : MUST - Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and
meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[-] : MUST - %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x] : MUST - All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x] : MUST - Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x] : MUST - Changelog in prescribed format.
[x] : MUST - Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x] : MUST - Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[-] : MUST - Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x] : MUST - Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x] : MUST - Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x] : MUST - Permissions on files are set properly.
[x] : MUST - Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x] : MUST - Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[-] : MUST - If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %doc.
[!] : MUST - License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
- the Github site claims the license is MIT
[-] : MUST - License file installed when any subpackage combination is
installed.
[x] : MUST - Package consistently uses macros. instead of hard-coded directory
names.
[x] : MUST - Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
[ ] : MUST - Package does not generates any conflict.
[-] : MUST - Package does not contains kernel modules.
[-] : MUST - Package contains no static executables.
[x] : MUST - Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x] : MUST - Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x] : MUST - Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[?] : MUST - Package installs properly.
[?] : MUST - Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[?] : MUST - Package is not relocatable.
[x] : MUST - Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x] : MUST - Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-] : MUST - Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one.
[x] : MUST - File names are valid UTF-8.
[-] : MUST - Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x] : SHOULD - Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x] : SHOULD - Dist tag is present.
[x] : SHOULD - SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
[x] : SHOULD - SourceX is a working URL.
[x] : SHOULD - Spec use %global instead of %define.
[-] : SHOULD - Uses parallel make.
[-] : SHOULD - The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[?] : 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.
[x] : SHOULD - No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
/usr/sbin.
[x] : SHOULD - Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q
[Bug 727899] Review Request: rubygem-selenium-webdriver - The next generation developer focused tool for automated testing of webapps
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727899 --- Comment #2 from Adam Huffman 2011-08-03 19:17:39 EDT --- Oops - pasted in the wrong section. The rest is correct: [x] : MUST - Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. /home/adam/tmp/reviewhelper/727899/selenium-webdriver-2.3.2.gem : MD5SUM this package : 1177ead16da294a04401aa5923b4cfa0 MD5SUM upstream package : 1177ead16da294a04401aa5923b4cfa0 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 226383] Merge Review: rwall
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226383 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System 2011-08-03 18:56:54 EDT --- Package rwall-0.17-32.fc15: * should fix your issue, * was pushed to the Fedora 15 testing repository, * should be available at your local mirror within two days. Update it with: # su -c 'yum update --enablerepo=updates-testing rwall-0.17-32.fc15' as soon as you are able to. Please go to the following url: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rwall-0.17-32.fc15 then log in and leave karma (feedback). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 720998] Review Request: OpenNL - A library for solving sparse linear systems
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=720998 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||OpenNL-3.2.1-5.fc14 Resolution||ERRATA Last Closed||2011-08-03 18:54:51 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 720998] Review Request: OpenNL - A library for solving sparse linear systems
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=720998 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|OpenNL-3.2.1-5.fc14 |OpenNL-3.2.1-5.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 720998] Review Request: OpenNL - A library for solving sparse linear systems
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=720998 --- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System 2011-08-03 18:55:58 EDT --- OpenNL-3.2.1-5.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 720998] Review Request: OpenNL - A library for solving sparse linear systems
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=720998 --- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System 2011-08-03 18:54:45 EDT --- OpenNL-3.2.1-5.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 727899] Review Request: rubygem-selenium-webdriver - The next generation developer focused tool for automated testing of webapps
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727899
Adam Huffman changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Adam Huffman 2011-08-03 18:45:56 EDT
---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
[x] : MUST - Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported architecture.
[x] : MUST - Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x] : MUST - Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x] : MUST - Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=...
doesn't work.
[x] : MUST - Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x] : MUST - Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
/home/adam/tmp/reviewhelper/727909/capybara-1.0.0.gem :
MD5SUM this package : 6ee03d9facbb5c65692647f2828ff4ea
MD5SUM upstream package : 6ee03d9facbb5c65692647f2828ff4ea
[x] : MUST - Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[-] : MUST - %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[-] : MUST - Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop using
desktop-file-install file if it is a GUI application.
[-] : MUST - Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] : MUST - ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[-] : MUST - The spec file handles locales properly.
[-] : MUST - No %config files under /usr.
[-] : MUST - Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] : MUST - Static libraries in -static subpackage, if present.
[!] : MUST - Rpmlint output is silent.
- apparently the doc warnings are expected
[x] : MUST - Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and
meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[-] : MUST - %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x] : MUST - All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x] : MUST - Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x] : MUST - Changelog in prescribed format.
[x] : MUST - Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-] : MUST - Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[-] : MUST - Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x] : MUST - Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x] : MUST - Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[ ] : MUST - Permissions on files are set properly.
[x] : MUST - Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x] : MUST - Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[-] : MUST - If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %doc.
[x] : MUST - License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[-] : MUST - License file installed when any subpackage combination is
installed.
[x] : MUST - Package consistently uses macros. instead of hard-coded directory
names.
[x] : MUST - Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
[x] : MUST - Package does not generates any conflict.
[x] : MUST - Package does not contains kernel modules.
[x] : MUST - Package contains no static executables.
[x] : MUST - Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x] : MUST - Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x] : MUST - Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[?] : MUST - Package installs properly.
[?] : MUST - Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[?] : MUST - Package is not relocatable.
[x] : MUST - Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x] : MUST - Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-] : MUST - Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one.
[x] : MUST - File names are valid UTF-8.
[-] : MUST - Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x] : SHOULD - Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x] : SHOULD - Dist tag is present.
[x] : SHOULD - SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
[x] : SHOULD - SourceX is a working URL.
[x] : SHOULD - Spec use %global instead of %define.
[-] : SHOULD - Uses parallel make.
[-] : SHOULD - The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[?] : 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.
[x] : SHOULD - No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
/usr/sbin.
[x] : SHOULD - Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm
-q --requires).
[?] : SHOULD - Packa
[Bug 727887] Review Request: rubygem-childprocess - A simple and reliable gem for controlling external programs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727887 --- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla 2011-08-03 18:34:02 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 726690] Review Request: compat-rubygem-rails - rails 2 alongside rails 3
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=726690 --- Comment #3 from Guillermo Gómez 2011-08-03 18:18:39 EDT --- Two issues: _I prefer the use of the dot_ rubygem-actionmailer2.3-2.3.12-1.fc15.src.rpm instead of rubygem-actionmailer23-2.3.12-1.fc15.src.rpm The second issue and more important issue is about splitting this BZ in singles. Each package in the future will need to be tracked here so having multiples specs/srpms refered will make it messy. So i suggest to close and open single bz per pkg. Parallel benefit, u just need to get sponsor for ONE pkg to get into packagers group, and others packagers could help you with the rest (im interested in rails 2.3.x for redmine) Im interested in getting redmine as fast as possible into Fedora, but im also interested u get promoted. rgds Guillermo -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 727899] Review Request: rubygem-selenium-webdriver - The next generation developer focused tool for automated testing of webapps
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727899 Adam Huffman changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bl...@verdurin.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|bl...@verdurin.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 728006] New: Review Request: mhddfs - Fuse-based file system for unifying several mount points into one
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: mhddfs - Fuse-based file system for unifying several mount points into one https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=728006 Summary: Review Request: mhddfs - Fuse-based file system for unifying several mount points into one Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: imntr...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Spec URL: http://imntreal.fedorapeople.org/mhddfs.spec SRPM URL: http://imntreal.fedorapeople.org/mhddfs-0.1.38-1.fc15.src.rpm Description: This FUSE-based file system allows mount points (or directories) to be combined, simulating a single big volume which can merge several hard drives or remote file systems. It is like unionfs, but can choose the drive with the most free space to create new files on, and can move data transparently between drives. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 727909] Review Request: rubygem-capybara - Simplify the process of integration testing Rack applications
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727909 Adam Huffman changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bl...@verdurin.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|bl...@verdurin.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 727903] Review Request: rubygem-xpath - Generate XPath expressions from Ruby
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727903 Chris Lalancette changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2011-08-03 17:06:46 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 727909] Review Request: rubygem-capybara - Simplify the process of integration testing Rack applications
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727909 Bug 727909 depends on bug 727903, which changed state. Bug 727903 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-xpath - Generate XPath expressions from Ruby https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727903 What|Old Value |New Value Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 716580] Review Request: httpry - A specialized packet sniffer designed for displaying and logging HTTP traffic
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=716580 --- Comment #5 from Major Hayden 2011-08-03 16:57:42 EDT --- Thanks for all of the tips. I'd completely overlooked the EPEL requirements. Hopefully these meet the packaging requirements: http://majorhayden.com/RPMS/httpry/httpry-0.1.5.spec http://majorhayden.com/RPMS/httpry/httpry-0.1.5-3.fc16.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 722790] Review Request: spatialindex - Spatial index 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=722790
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 #3 from Martin Gieseking 2011-08-03
16:43:06 EDT ---
I'm going to sponsor Damian, and will do the formal review of this package
later.
> [+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
> -TODO comments should be removed for the sake of clarity?
The comments can stay in the file as they help keeping track of things to be
considered in future updates.
> -Is the handling of static libraries during %install ok?
Yes, Fedora usually ships shared libs only, and static libs should be removed
explicitly.
> -The installed bin files are library files - ending with .so.*, would the
> addition of lib to the package name be recommended?
Not necessarily. It's up to the packager to add the "lib" prefix. Usually, the
package should match the upstream name of the project/tarball.
> [+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license.
> - LGPLv2+ according to spec and source file headers
OK. The copyright information given in the upstream sources are the crucial
resources to identify the license here. The (downstream) spec file must match
this license.
> [X] MUST: When compiling C, C++, or Fortran files, %{optflags} must be
> applied.
The %optflags are honored properly as you can see in file build.log created by
mock. The CFLAGS/CXXFLAGS variables are set by the %configure macro (see output
of rpm --eval %configure, for example).
> [] MUST: Files in %doc must not affect the runtime of the application.
> Not sure which application will use the installed library files to test
> this.
The %doc files are not used (i.e. read) by the library, so no problem here
either.
> [+] MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned
> dependency.
The guidelines have been updated in February. The "fully versioned dependency"
looks like this now:
Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines#Requiring_Base_Package
> (looks as if no plans to use EPEL - I'll detail anyway)
>
> EPEL <= 5 only:
> [+] MUST: The spec file must contain a valid BuildRoot field.
There's no BuildRoot field in the spec. ;)
=
Some additional notes on the spec:
- I recommend to remove the rpath with the sed statements given in the
guidelines instead of using chrpath:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Removing_Rpath
It works without mentioning the complete library filename and makes life
easier with future updates.
- I'd also avoid adding the soversion in %files. A single
%{_libdir}/lib%{name}*.so.* should be sufficient.
- The copyright information in the source files contain an old FSF address.
If upstream is still alive, please ask them to update it according to the
current LGPL license text: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-2.1.html
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 727899] Review Request: rubygem-selenium-webdriver - The next generation developer focused tool for automated testing of webapps
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727899 Bug 727899 depends on bug 727879, which changed state. Bug 727879 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-rubyzip - A ruby module for reading and writing zip files https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727879 What|Old Value |New Value Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 727879] Review Request: rubygem-rubyzip - A ruby module for reading and writing zip files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727879 Chris Lalancette changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2011-08-03 16:27:45 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 705372] Review Request: perl-Unicode-LineBreak - UAX #14 Unicode Line Breaking Algorithm
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=705372 --- Comment #5 from Xavier Bachelot 2011-08-03 16:14:08 EDT --- Thanks for the review Emmanuel. I've filed a bug upstream about the FSF address : https://rt.cpan.org/Public/Bug/Display.html?id=6 I can't seem to get rid off of the useless-provides perl(Unicode::LineBreak). I'm probably doing something stupid with the filters, or may be the %filter_provides_in and %perl_default_filter don't stack up nicely, but here is a new package with better filtering anyway : http://www.bachelot.org/fedora/SPECS/perl-Unicode-LineBreak.spec http://www.bachelot.org/fedora/SRPMS/perl-Unicode-LineBreak-2011.05-2.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 634911] Review Request: nodejs - Evented I/O for v8 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=634911 Ian Weller changed: What|Removed |Added CC||i...@ianweller.org --- Comment #26 from Ian Weller 2011-08-03 16:11:51 EDT --- Ping again? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 727903] Review Request: rubygem-xpath - Generate XPath expressions from Ruby
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727903 --- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla 2011-08-03 16:04:10 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 727887] Review Request: rubygem-childprocess - A simple and reliable gem for controlling external programs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727887 --- Comment #3 from Chris Lalancette 2011-08-03 16:02:12 EDT --- Thanks again. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 727879] Review Request: rubygem-rubyzip - A ruby module for reading and writing zip files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727879 --- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla 2011-08-03 16:03:03 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 727887] Review Request: rubygem-childprocess - A simple and reliable gem for controlling external programs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727887 Chris Lalancette changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Chris Lalancette 2011-08-03 16:02:50 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: rubygem-childprocess Short Description: A simple and reliable gem for controlling external programs Owners: clalance mmorsi Branches: f16 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 727903] Review Request: rubygem-xpath - Generate XPath expressions from Ruby
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727903 --- Comment #3 from Chris Lalancette 2011-08-03 16:00:51 EDT --- Nice, thanks! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 727903] Review Request: rubygem-xpath - Generate XPath expressions from Ruby
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727903 Chris Lalancette changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Chris Lalancette 2011-08-03 16:01:26 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: rubygem-xpath Short Description: Generate XPath expressions from Ruby Owners: clalance mmorsi Branches: f16 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 727879] Review Request: rubygem-rubyzip - A ruby module for reading and writing zip files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727879
--- Comment #3 from Chris Lalancette 2011-08-03 15:57:00
EDT ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> [+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package
> 44 rpmlint warnings from rdoc being derpy, that's not your fault though.
> [+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming
> Guidelines
> [+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name} [...]
> [+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines
> [+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license
> and meet the Licensing Guidelines
> Ruby license dual licenses with GPL, you may just want to note that in the
> specfile
> > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main mentions that it's only GPL
> > compatible if it's dual licensed, I don't see how it hurts to make that
> > explicit.
Ah, right. I didn't read the Ruby license closely enough. I'll change that
before importing the package.
Thanks for the 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 727879] Review Request: rubygem-rubyzip - A ruby module for reading and writing zip files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727879 Chris Lalancette changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Chris Lalancette 2011-08-03 15:58:37 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: rubygem-rubyzip Short Description: A ruby module for reading and writing zip files Owners: clalance mmorsi Branches: f16 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 727305] Review Request: python-iptables - Python library for manipulating iptables
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727305 Chris Lalancette changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2011-08-03 15:59:29 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 727887] Review Request: rubygem-childprocess - A simple and reliable gem for controlling external programs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727887
Ryan Rix changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Ryan Rix 2011-08-03 15:34:33 EDT ---
[+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package
as always with rubygems, there's warnings from rdoc generated stuff.
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming
Guidelines
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name} [...]
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license
and meet the Licensing Guidelines
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the
actual license
[+] MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of
the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream
source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for
this task. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package,
please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this.
3c5d7cacc3519f1811efa227dea2cc65 childprocess-0.2.0.gem
3c5d7cacc3519f1811efa227dea2cc65 SOURCES/childprocess-0.2.0.gem
[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary
rpms on at least one primary architecture
[0] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on
an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the
spec in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST
have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package
does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST
be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except
for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging
Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply
common sense.
[0] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by
using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly
forbidden
[0] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared
library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's
default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[0] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must
state this fact in the request for review, along with the
rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without
this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker.
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does
not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package
which does create that directory.
[+] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files
listing.
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should
be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section
must include a %defattr(...) line.
[+] 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. (The
definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but
is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or
quantity).
[+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the
program must run properly if it is not present.
[0] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[0] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[0] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires:
pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability).
[0] 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.
[0] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the
base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release}
[+] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must
be removed in the spec if they are built.
[0] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a
%{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with
desktop-file-install in the %install s
[Bug 722790] Review Request: spatialindex - Spatial index 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=722790
--- Comment #2 from Damian L Brasher 2011-08-03
15:30:25 EDT ---
key:
[+] OK
[.] OK, not applicable
[X] needs work
---
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}.
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
-TODO comments should be removed for the sake of clarity?
-Is the handling of static libraries during %install ok?
-The installed bin files are library files - ending with .so.*, would the
addition of lib to the package name be recommended?
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license.
- LGPLv2+ according to spec and source file headers
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[+] MUST: The file containing the text of the license(s) for the package must
be included in %doc.
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source.
md5sum *
63399913b42278cfcfd2c79d1b2ec4a3 spatialindex-src-1.6.1.tar.bz2
63399913b42278cfcfd2c79d1b2ec4a3 spatialindex-src-1.6.1.tar.bz2.1
[+] 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.
[X] MUST: When compiling C, C++, or Fortran files, %{optflags} must be applied.
[.] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly.
[+] MUST: Packages storing shared library files (not just symlinks) must call
ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[+] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[.] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, ...
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates.
[+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in %files.
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
[+] MUST: Packages must not provide RPM dependency information when that
information is not global in nature, or are otherwise handled.
[.] MUST: When filtering automatically generated RPM dependency information,
the filtering system implemented by Fedora must be used.
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[.] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
[] MUST: Files in %doc must not affect the runtime of the application.
Not sure which application will use the installed library files to test
this.
[+] 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.
(looks as if no plans to use EPEL - I'll detail anyway)
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.
Use install -p ?
[+] 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.
Not sure which application will use the installed library files to test
this.
[.] 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.
Damian
--
Configure bugmail: https://
[Bug 727305] Review Request: python-iptables - Python library for manipulating iptables
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727305 Chris Lalancette changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Chris Lalancette 2011-08-03 15:16:07 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-iptables Short Description: Python library for manipulating iptables Owners: clalance Branches: f16 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 727887] Review Request: rubygem-childprocess - A simple and reliable gem for controlling external programs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727887 Ryan Rix changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||r...@n.rix.si AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|r...@n.rix.si Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Ryan Rix 2011-08-03 15:13:46 EDT --- I'll review this one. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 727305] Review Request: python-iptables - Python library for manipulating iptables
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727305 --- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla 2011-08-03 15:16:50 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 727305] Review Request: python-iptables - Python library for manipulating iptables
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727305 --- Comment #5 from Chris Lalancette 2011-08-03 15:14:36 EDT --- Thanks Steve, it is appreciated. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System 2011-08-03 15:14:52 EDT --- cabal-dev-0.8-2.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 727903] Review Request: rubygem-xpath - Generate XPath expressions from Ruby
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727903
--- Comment #2 from Ryan Rix 2011-08-03 15:09:40 EDT ---
[+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package
rpmlint complains about rdoc derpiness, but that's about it.
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming
Guidelines
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name} [...]
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license
and meet the Licensing Guidelines
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the
actual license
[+] MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of
the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream
source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for
this task. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package,
please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this.
[rrix@stinkpad rpmbuild]$ md5sum xpath-0.1.4.gem SOURCES/xpath-0.1.4.gem
d92bb15ffb21a6f5975c9cd39fdde651 xpath-0.1.4.gem
d92bb15ffb21a6f5975c9cd39fdde651 SOURCES/xpath-0.1.4.gem
[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary
rpms on at least one primary architecture
[0] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on
an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the
spec in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST
have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package
does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST
be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except
for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging
Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply
common sense.
[0] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by
using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly
forbidden
[0] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared
library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's
default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[0] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must
state this fact in the request for review, along with the
rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without
this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker.
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does
not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package
which does create that directory.
[+] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files
listing.
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should
be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section
must include a %defattr(...) line.
[+] 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. (The
definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but
is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or
quantity).
[+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the
program must run properly if it is not present.
[0] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[0] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[0] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires:
pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability).
[0] 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.
[0] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the
base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release}
[+] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must
be removed in the spec if they are built.
[0] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a
%{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with
desktop-file-install in the %install section. If you feel that your
packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put
a comment in the spec file with your explanation.
[+] MU
[Bug 683587] Review Request: gsissh - An implementation of the SSH protocol with GSI authentication
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=683587 --- Comment #10 from Brian Bockelman 2011-08-03 14:56:38 EDT --- Hi Jim, I figured out what I was doing wrong. Here's an SRPM with the issue fixed: http://vdt.cs.wisc.edu/repos/3.0/el5/development/src/gsissh-4.3p2-2.osg.src.rpm I also changed around some defaults in sshd_config so "yum install gsissh-server && service gsisshd start" Just Works. Brian -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 #5 from sami 2011-08-03 14:55:53 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> > [!] Package does NOT have a %clean section which contains rm -rf
> > %{buildroot}
> > (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). (not needed anymore)
> > please remove %{__rm} -rf %{buildroot}
> >
>
> The package no longer has a %clean section. There is an rm -rf buildroot at
> the
> start of the %install section. Are you claiming this has to be removed as
> well?
>
Yes, it is not needed. The buildroot will be cleaned automatically before
%install
> > [!] Package contains code, or permissable content.
> > See comment above about non-gprof code
> >
>
> The source tarball uses an upstream tarball from git based on a particular
> commit hash. Optionally this could be trimmed via an external script, but
> there
> is no content that needs to be removed for the build to occur. If it is
> recommended that the tarball be smaller at the cost of having it fetchable
> upstream, I will concur.
>
It is preferable that the tarball contain no unrelated 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 727305] Review Request: python-iptables - Python library for manipulating iptables
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727305 Steven Dake changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review?, |fedora-review+ |needinfo?(sd...@redhat.com) | --- Comment #4 from Steven Dake 2011-08-03 14:29:10 EDT --- Package approved by reviewer. scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3250382 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 640742] Review Request: drupal6-ckeditor - Replace textarea fields with the CKEditor - a visual HTML editor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=640742 --- Comment #3 from Orion Poplawski 2011-08-03 14:29:25 EDT --- http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/drupal6-ckeditor-1.5-1.fc15.src.rpm * Wed Aug 3 2011 Orion Poplawski - 1.5-1 - Update to 1.5 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 640740] Review Request: ckeditor - WYSIWYG text editor to be used inside web pages
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=640740 --- Comment #1 from Orion Poplawski 2011-08-03 14:19:31 EDT --- http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/ckeditor-3.6.1-1.fc15.src.rpm * Wed Aug 3 2011 Orion Poplawski 3.6.1-1 - Update to 3.6.1 -- 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 727305] Review Request: python-iptables - Python library for manipulating iptables
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727305 Chris Lalancette changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo?(sd...@redhat.com) --- Comment #3 from Chris Lalancette 2011-08-03 14:02:34 EDT --- Thanks for the review. As you pointed out on IRC, the NOTICE file contains the license. I've now added that as %doc to the SPEC, and uploaded a new version: Spec: http://people.redhat.com/clalance/python-iptables/python-iptables.spec SRPM: http://people.redhat.com/clalance/python-iptables/python-iptables-0.1.0-2.fc14.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 727903] Review Request: rubygem-xpath - Generate XPath expressions from Ruby
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727903 Ryan Rix changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||r...@n.rix.si AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|r...@n.rix.si Flag||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Ryan Rix 2011-08-03 13:52:22 EDT --- I'll take a look at this one. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 727879] Review Request: rubygem-rubyzip - A ruby module for reading and writing zip files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727879
--- Comment #2 from Ryan Rix 2011-08-03 13:50:05 EDT ---
[+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package
44 rpmlint warnings from rdoc being derpy, that's not your fault though.
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming
Guidelines
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name} [...]
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license
and meet the Licensing Guidelines
Ruby license dual licenses with GPL, you may just want to note that in the
specfile
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main mentions that it's only GPL
> compatible if it's dual licensed, I don't see how it hurts to make that
> explicit.
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the
actual license
[+] MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of
the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream
source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for
this task. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package,
please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this.
[rrix@stinkpad rpmbuild]$ md5sum SOURCES/rubyzip-0.9.4.gem rubyzip-0.9.4.gem
8d29e794c2aa53e9193fea5076486a2e SOURCES/rubyzip-0.9.4.gem
8d29e794c2aa53e9193fea5076486a2e rubyzip-0.9.4.gem
[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary
rpms on at least one primary architecture
[0] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on
an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the
spec in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST
have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package
does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST
be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except
for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging
Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply
common sense.
[0] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by
using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly
forbidden
[0] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared
library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's
default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[0] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must
state this fact in the request for review, along with the
rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without
this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker.
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does
not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package
which does create that directory.
[+] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files
listing.
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should
be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section
must include a %defattr(...) line.
[+] 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. (The
definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but
is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or
quantity).
[+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the
program must run properly if it is not present.
[0] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[0] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[0] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires:
pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability).
[0] 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.
[0] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the
base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release}
[+] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must
be removed in the spec if they are built.
[0] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a
%{name}.d
[Bug 727879] Review Request: rubygem-rubyzip - A ruby module for reading and writing zip files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727879 Ryan Rix changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |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 727305] Review Request: python-iptables - Python library for manipulating iptables
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727305
Steven Dake changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #1 from Steven Dake 2011-08-03 13:42:16 EDT ---
[ FAIL ] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package
rpmlint /root/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/python-iptables-0.1.0-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm
python-iptables.x86_64: W: no-documentation
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
I would recommend including the NOTICE file as a %doc section
[ OK ] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming
Guidelines
[ OK ] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name} [...]
[ OK ] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines
[ OK ] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license
and meet the Licensing Guidelines
[ OK ] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the
actual license
[ FAIL ] MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of
the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc
[ OK ] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[ OK ] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[ OK ] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream
source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for
this task. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package,
please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this.
srpm tarball:
a43ff0e1fbc6382cdbc6317589813dc47ee37f610340906aefcfc44d6ecd9862
python-iptables-0.1.0.tar.gz
a43ff0e1fbc6382cdbc6317589813dc47ee37f610340906aefcfc44d6ecd9862
python-iptables-0.1.0.tar.gz
[ OK ] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary
rpms on at least one primary architecture
[ N/A ] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on
an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the
spec in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST
have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package
does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST
be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line
[ OK ] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except
for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging
Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply
common sense.
[ N/A ] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by
using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly
forbidden
[ N/A ] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared
library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's
default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[ N/A ] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must
state this fact in the request for review, along with the
rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without
this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker.
[ OK ] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does
not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package
which does create that directory.
[ OK ] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files
listing.
[ OK ] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should
be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section
must include a %defattr(...) line.
[ OK ] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[ OK ] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[ OK ] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The
definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but
is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or
quantity).
[ OK ] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the
program must run properly if it is not present.
[ N/A ] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[ N/A ] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[ N/A ] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires:
pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability).
[ N/A ] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g.
libfoo.s
[Bug 727305] Review Request: python-iptables - Python library for manipulating iptables
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727305 --- Comment #2 from Steven Dake 2011-08-03 13:43:19 EDT --- fedora-review+ blocked on missing license file from %doc section. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 722790] Review Request: spatialindex - Spatial index 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=722790 --- Comment #1 from Damian L Brasher 2011-08-03 13:31:20 EDT --- Initial informal review (my future sponsor may follow through) rpmlint *.rpm spatialindex.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US indices -> induces, indies, indicts spatialindex.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US indices -> induces, indies, indicts spatialindex-devel.i686: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Detailed informal review to follow shortly (hours). 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 727879] Review Request: rubygem-rubyzip - A ruby module for reading and writing zip files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727879 Ryan Rix changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||r...@n.rix.si AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|r...@n.rix.si Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Ryan Rix 2011-08-03 13:00:56 EDT --- I'll review this. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 727911] Review Request: funnel - Handling submissions of talks and voting
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727911 --- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla 2011-08-03 13:01:16 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 727911] Review Request: funnel - Handling submissions of talks and voting
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727911 --- Comment #3 from Praveen Kumar 2011-08-03 12:44:32 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: funnel Short Description: Handling submissions of talks and voting Owners: sundaram pjp kumarpraveen 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 727911] Review Request: funnel - Handling submissions of talks and voting
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727911 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 727305] Review Request: python-iptables - Python library for manipulating iptables
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727305 Steven Dake changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|sd...@redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 727911] Review Request: funnel - Handling submissions of talks and voting
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727911 pjp changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||pj.pan...@yahoo.co.in AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|pj.pan...@yahoo.co.in --- Comment #1 from pjp 2011-08-03 12:36:39 EDT --- [X] Package name - ok. [X] Package group - ok. [X] Package license - ok. [X] Build successful - ok. [X] $ rpmlint SRPMS/funnel-0.0-1.20110803git66922b.fc14.src.rpm funnel.src: W: invalid-url Source0: funnel-0.0.20110803git66922b.tar.xz 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. - ok. [X] $ rpmlint RPMS/noarch/funnel-0.0-1.20110803git66922b.fc14.noarch.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. - ok. [X]$ rpmlint SPECS/funnel.spec SPECS/funnel.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: funnel-0.0.20110803git66922b.tar.xz 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. - ok. Install/Un-install - ok. Overall good. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 727911] Review Request: funnel - Handling submissions of talks and voting
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727911 pjp changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from pjp 2011-08-03 12:37:24 EDT --- Approved. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 727305] Review Request: python-iptables - Python library for manipulating iptables
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727305 Steven Dake changed: What|Removed |Added CC||sd...@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 727911] Review Request: funnel - Handling submissions of talks and voting
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727911 Praveen Kumar changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 727911] New: Review Request: funnel - Handling submissions of talks and voting
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: funnel - Handling submissions of talks and voting https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727911 Summary: Review Request: funnel - Handling submissions of talks and voting Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: kumarpraveen.nit...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Spec URL: http://kumarpraveen.fedorapeople.org/funnel/funnel.spec SRPM URL: http://kumarpraveen.fedorapeople.org/funnel/funnel-0.0-1.20110803git66922b.fc15.src.rpm Description: The funnel is a space for proposals and voting on events. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 726690] Review Request: compat-rubygem-rails - rails 2 alongside rails 3
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=726690 --- Comment #2 from Emanuel Rietveld 2011-08-03 11:27:07 EDT --- Thanks Guillermo Gómez! Updated packages at http://xls01.freecult.org/pkg/ Now in a git repository, so I can keep track of what I am doing. If you are unfamiliar with the gitweb interface: Click rails23, then click snapshot next to the most recent version to download the specs/srpms. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 727899] Review Request: rubygem-selenium-webdriver - The next generation developer focused tool for automated testing of webapps
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727899 Chris Lalancette changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||727909 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 727909] New: Review Request: rubygem-capybara - Simplify the process of integration testing Rack 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: rubygem-capybara - Simplify the process of integration testing Rack applications https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727909 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-capybara - Simplify the process of integration testing Rack applications Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: Unspecified OS/Version: Unspecified Status: NEW Severity: unspecified Priority: unspecified Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: clala...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/clalance/rubygem-capybara/rubygem-capybara.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/clalance/rubygem-capybara/rubygem-capybara-1.0.0-1.fc14.src.rpm Description: Capybara is an integration testing tool for rack based web applications. It simulates how a user would interact with a website. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 725906] Review Request: php53-extras - Additional PHP modules from the standard PHP distribution
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725906 --- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla 2011-08-03 11:24:14 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 727909] Review Request: rubygem-capybara - Simplify the process of integration testing Rack applications
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727909 Chris Lalancette changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||727903, 727899 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 727903] Review Request: rubygem-xpath - Generate XPath expressions from Ruby
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727903 Chris Lalancette changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||727909 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 727903] New: Review Request: rubygem-xpath - Generate XPath expressions from Ruby
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: rubygem-xpath - Generate XPath expressions from Ruby https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727903 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-xpath - Generate XPath expressions from Ruby Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: Unspecified OS/Version: Unspecified Status: NEW Severity: unspecified Priority: unspecified Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: clala...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/clalance/rubygem-xpath/rubygem-xpath.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/clalance/rubygem-xpath/rubygem-xpath-0.1.4-1.fc14.src.rpm Description: XPath is a Ruby DSL for generating XPath expressions -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 725906] Review Request: php53-extras - Additional PHP modules from the standard PHP distribution
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725906 Robert Scheck changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Robert Scheck 2011-08-03 11:17:53 EDT --- Sorry, my fault. New try: New Package SCM Request === Package Name: php53-extras Short Description: Additional PHP modules from the standard PHP distribution Owners: robert Branches: el5 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 725906] Review Request: php53-extras - Additional PHP modules from the standard PHP distribution
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725906 --- Comment #3 from Jon Ciesla 2011-08-03 11:14:25 EDT --- Please correct field values in request. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 727899] New: Review Request: rubygem-selenium-webdriver - The next generation developer focused tool for automated testing of webapps
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: rubygem-selenium-webdriver - The next generation developer focused tool for automated testing of webapps https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727899 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-selenium-webdriver - The next generation developer focused tool for automated testing of webapps Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: Unspecified OS/Version: Unspecified Status: NEW Severity: unspecified Priority: unspecified Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: clala...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/clalance/rubygem-selenium-webdriver/rubygem-selenium-webdriver.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/clalance/rubygem-selenium-webdriver/rubygem-selenium-webdriver-2.3.2-1.fc14.src.rpm Description: WebDriver is a tool for writing automated tests of websites. It aims to mimic the behavior of a real user, and as such interacts with the HTML of the application. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 727879] Review Request: rubygem-rubyzip - A ruby module for reading and writing zip files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727879 Chris Lalancette changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||727899 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 727899] Review Request: rubygem-selenium-webdriver - The next generation developer focused tool for automated testing of webapps
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727899 Chris Lalancette changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||727879, 727887 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 727887] Review Request: rubygem-childprocess - A simple and reliable gem for controlling external programs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727887 Chris Lalancette changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||727899 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 725906] Review Request: php53-extras - Additional PHP modules from the standard PHP distribution
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725906 Robert Scheck changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Robert Scheck 2011-08-03 10:59:22 EDT --- Manuel, thank you very much for the review. I will correct the wrong license after the import into GIT but before the first build. That way somebody else can verify that I really imported what has been reviewed. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: Additional PHP modules from the standard PHP distribution Short Description: php53-extras Owners: robert Branches: el5 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 727887] New: Review Request: rubygem-childprocess - A simple and reliable gem for controlling external programs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: rubygem-childprocess - A simple and reliable gem for controlling external programs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727887 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-childprocess - A simple and reliable gem for controlling external programs Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: Unspecified OS/Version: Unspecified Status: NEW Severity: unspecified Priority: unspecified Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: clala...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/clalance/rubygem-childprocess/rubygem-childprocess.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/clalance/rubygem-childprocess/rubygem-childprocess-0.2.0-1.fc14.src.rpm Description: This gem aims at being a simple and reliable solution for controlling external programs running in the background on any Ruby / OS combination. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 #5 from Michael Schwendt 2011-08-03 10:20:56
EDT ---
> Instead you can do:
> ...
Unconvincing.
Explicitly listing specific files in a %files section can be beneficial, not
limited to config files. Such a files section makes a build fail whenever the
specified file gets renamed or lost. That would not be the case when using
directory tree inclusion as you suggested.
The combination of
%dir %{_sysconfdir}/%{name}/
%config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/%{name}/config.php
is fine.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on 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 #16 from Fedora Update System 2011-08-03 10:17:02 EDT --- klt-1.3.4-1.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/klt-1.3.4-1.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
