[Bug 728128] New: Review Request: mod_map_user - Apache module designed to reformat authenticated username
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: mod_map_user - Apache module designed to reformat authenticated username https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=728128 Summary: Review Request: mod_map_user - Apache module designed to reformat authenticated username Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: marcus.moel...@gmx.ch QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Spec URL: http://www.marcusmoeller.ch/share/build/mod_map_user/0-0.1.20110703cvs/mod_map_user.spec SRPM URL: http://www.marcusmoeller.ch/share/build/mod_map_user/0-0.1.20110703cvs/mod_map_user-0-0.1.20110703cvs.fc14.src.rpm Description: mod_map_user is an Apache module designed to reformat the authenticated username for use by other authorization modules, such as mod_authnz_ldap. It runs at the beginning of the authorization phase so it can serve as glue between the authentication and authorization phases. It is never authoritative. rpmlint SPECS/mod_map_user.spec SRPMS/mod_map_user-0-0.1.20110703cvs.fc14.src.rpm RPMS/i686/mod_map_user-0-0.1.20110703cvs.fc14.i686.rpm RPMS/i686/mod_map_user-debuginfo-0-0.1.20110703cvs.fc14.i686.rpm SPECS/mod_map_user.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: mod_map_user-20110703.tar.gz mod_map_user.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US authnz -> author, authentic, auth mod_map_user.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ldap -> lap, dap, leap mod_map_user.src: W: invalid-url Source0: mod_map_user-20110703.tar.gz mod_map_user.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US authnz -> author, authentic, auth mod_map_user.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ldap -> lap, dap, leap 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 728131] Review Request: jboss-marshalling - JBoss Marshalling
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=728131 Marek Goldmann changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||652183(FE-JAVASIG) Depends on||725991 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 728131] New: Review Request: jboss-marshalling - JBoss Marshalling
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: jboss-marshalling - JBoss Marshalling https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=728131 Summary: Review Request: jboss-marshalling - JBoss Marshalling Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: mgold...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Spec URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/jboss-marshalling/1/jboss-marshalling.spec SRPM URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/jboss-marshalling/1/jboss-marshalling-1.3.0-1.fc15.src.rpm Description: This package contains JBoss Marshalling $ rpmlint jboss-marshalling-1.3.0-1.fc15.src.rpm jboss-marshalling.src: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US jboss-marshalling.src: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.jboss.org/jbossmarshalling HTTP Error 403: Forbidden jboss-marshalling.src: W: invalid-url Source0: jboss-marshalling-1.3.0.GA.tar.xz 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. $ rpmlint jboss-marshalling.spec jboss-marshalling.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: jboss-marshalling-1.3.0.GA.tar.xz 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 624705] Review Request: pam_script - execute scripts from within pam
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=624705 --- Comment #11 from Marcus Moeller 2011-08-04 03:24:08 EDT --- http://www.marcus-moeller.de/share/build/pam_script/1.1.4-9/pam_script.spec SRPM URL: http://www.marcus-moeller.de/share/build/pam_script/1.1.4-9/pam_script-1.1.4-9.fc14.src.rpm Updated to require selinux-policy-doc. Still in need for review ;) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 728128] Review Request: mod_map_user - Apache module designed to reformat authenticated username
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=728128 Robert Scheck changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|redhat-bugzilla@linuxnetz.d ||e 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 714507] Review Request: perl-MooseX-Role-Matcher - Generic object matching based on attributes and methods
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=714507 Mario Blättermann changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mari...@freenet.de Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Mario Blättermann 2011-08-04 03:40:58 EDT --- Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3247485 $ rpmlint -i -v *rpm perl-MooseX-Role-Matcher.noarch: I: checking perl-MooseX-Role-Matcher.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US regexes -> regexps, reg exes, reg-exes The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. perl-MooseX-Role-Matcher.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US coderefs -> code refs, code-refs, recorders The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. perl-MooseX-Role-Matcher.noarch: I: checking-url http://search.cpan.org/dist/MooseX-Role-Matcher/ (timeout 10 seconds) perl-MooseX-Role-Matcher.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/perl-MooseX-Role-Matcher-0.05/LICENSE The Free Software Foundation address in this file seems to be outdated or misspelled. Ask upstream to update the address, or if this is a license file, possibly the entire file with a new copy available from the FSF. perl-MooseX-Role-Matcher.src: I: checking perl-MooseX-Role-Matcher.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US regexes -> regexps, reg exes, reg-exes The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. perl-MooseX-Role-Matcher.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US coderefs -> code refs, code-refs, recorders The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. perl-MooseX-Role-Matcher.src: I: checking-url http://search.cpan.org/dist/MooseX-Role-Matcher/ (timeout 10 seconds) perl-MooseX-Role-Matcher.src: I: checking-url http://www.cpan.org/modules/by-module/MooseX/MooseX-Role-Matcher-0.05.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds) 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings. No real spelling errors, the warnings could be ignored. For the wrong FSF address, you should inform upstream about this issue. Full review follows immediately. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 #4 from Volker Fröhlich 2011-08-04 03:46:15 EDT --- Thank you for reviewing. The package will go to EPEL 6 and Fedora only. >[] SHOULD: Timestamps of files should be preserved. >Use install -p ? That -p refers to the install command, not a spec file section or a build target. Spec URL: http://www.geofrogger.net/review/spatialindex.spec SRPM URL: http://www.geofrogger.net/review/spatialindex-1.6.1-2.fc15.src.rpm http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3251440 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 714507] Review Request: perl-MooseX-Role-Matcher - Generic object matching based on attributes and methods
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=714507
Mario Blättermann changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Mario Blättermann 2011-08-04 03:49:29
EDT ---
-
key:
[+] OK
[.] OK, not applicable
[X] needs work
-
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}.
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license.
GPL+ or Artistic
[+] 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 *
0c0a4a4da62984437fd4fd46b795fdf9 MooseX-Role-Matcher-0.05.tar.gz
0c0a4a4da62984437fd4fd46b795fdf9 MooseX-Role-Matcher-0.05.tar.gz.packaged
[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
- Succesful Koji build available.
[.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, ...
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.
[.] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly.
[.] MUST: If a package installs files below %{_datadir}/icons, the icon cache
must be updated.
[.] MUST: Packages storing shared library files (not just symlinks) must call
ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[.] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[.] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, ...
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates.
[+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in %files.
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
[+] MUST: Packages must not provide RPM dependency information when that
information is not global in nature, or are otherwise handled.
[.] MUST: When filtering automatically generated RPM dependency information,
the filtering system implemented by Fedora must be used.
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[.] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
[+] MUST: Files in %doc must not affect the runtime of the application.
[.] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[.] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[.] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g.
libfoo.so.1.1), ...
[.] MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned
dependency.
[.] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
[.] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file
[.] MUST: .desktop files must be properly installed with desktop-file-install
in the %install section.
[+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
[+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
[.] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream...
[+] SHOULD: Timestamps of files should be preserved.
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
See Koji build above (which uses mock anyway)
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described.
I assume the packager has tested it. Don't know how to test it on my
system.
[+] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane.
[.] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency.
[.] SHOULD: pkgconfig(.pc) files should be placed in a -devel pkg.
[.] SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin,
/usr/bin, or /usr/sbin ...
[.] SHOULD: Your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts.
PACKAGE APPROVED
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 Vít Ondruch changed: What|Removed |Added CC||vondr...@redhat.com --- Comment #6 from Vít Ondruch 2011-08-04 04:13:13 EDT --- Hey guys, one rule of [1] says "Search in the Review Tracker for packages under review." This might be good start for your packaging effort next time. Thank you. [1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join#Ensure_your_package_is_suitable -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 #7 from Vít Ondruch 2011-08-04 04:13:46 EDT --- *** Bug 707158 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 707158] Review Request: rubygem-childprocess - Solution for controlling external programs running in the background
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=707158 Vít Ondruch changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||DUPLICATE Last Closed||2011-08-04 04:13:46 --- Comment #1 from Vít Ondruch 2011-08-04 04:13:46 EDT --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 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 692131] Review Request: sflphone - SIP/IAX2 compatible enterprise-class softphone for multi-way conferencing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=692131 --- Comment #9 from PRABIN KUMAR DATTA 2011-08-04 04:35:02 EDT --- Hi! Mario, Currently, my home system is not in good condition and soon I have to buy a new motherboard and processor. Till f14 (gnome2), upstream package need no changes but now in f15 there are few changes required to be done so as to make it supported for f15(gnome3). If you wish you can work forward and feel free to ping me for any help. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 624705] Review Request: pam_script - execute scripts from within pam
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=624705 Marcus Moeller changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|steve.tray...@cern.ch |nob...@fedoraproject.org -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 728158] New: Review Request: jboss-vfs - JBoss Virtual File System
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: jboss-vfs - JBoss Virtual File System https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=728158 Summary: Review Request: jboss-vfs - JBoss Virtual File System Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: mgold...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Spec URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/jboss-vfs/1/jboss-vfs.spec SRPM URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/jboss-vfs/1/jboss-vfs-3.0.1-1.fc15.src.rpm Description: This package contains the JBoss Virtual File System. $ rpmlint ./jboss-vfs.spec ./jboss-vfs.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: jboss-vfs-3.0.1.GA.tar.xz 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. $ rpmlint jboss-vfs-3.0.1-1.fc15.src.rpm jboss-vfs.src: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US jboss-vfs.src: W: invalid-url Source0: jboss-vfs-3.0.1.GA.tar.xz 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 728158] Review Request: jboss-vfs - JBoss Virtual File System
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=728158 Marek Goldmann changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||652183(FE-JAVASIG) Depends on||726351 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 692131] Review Request: sflphone - SIP/IAX2 compatible enterprise-class softphone for multi-way conferencing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=692131 --- Comment #10 from Mario Santagiuliana 2011-08-04 04:50:46 EDT --- Thank you Prabin, I will try to create different packages and test it in this weekend! :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 726351] Review Request: jboss-logging - JBoss Logging Framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=726351 Marek Goldmann changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||728158 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 643140] Review Request: autokey - A desktop automation utility
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=643140 Rahul Sundaram changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag||fedora-review+ --- Comment #27 from Rahul Sundaram 2011-08-04 04:53:31 EDT --- As I noted in IRC. not a fan of the metapackage here but it is certainly not a blocker to the review. APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 692131] Review Request: sflphone - SIP/IAX2 compatible enterprise-class softphone for multi-way conferencing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=692131 --- Comment #11 from Christoph Wickert 2011-08-04 05:01:46 EDT --- What about the bundled libraries? If they cannot be unbundled this package will not make it into Fedora. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 727559] Review Request: perl-POE-Component-Syndicator - POE component base class which implements the Observer pattern
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727559 Marcela Mašláňová changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mmasl...@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 692131] Review Request: sflphone - SIP/IAX2 compatible enterprise-class softphone for multi-way conferencing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=692131 --- Comment #12 from Mario Santagiuliana 2011-08-04 05:17:31 EDT --- I check them and try to create different packages... I need to undestand: is it better to create different spec files for sflphone-common and sflphone-gnome-client or just one spec file with different subpackages? Same things for libraries? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 718479] Review Request: wmwave - Statistics about a current wireless Ethernet connection
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=718479 --- Comment #5 from Mario Blättermann 2011-08-04 05:16:59 EDT --- Due to some crashes, I've tried to fix it by using a patch from the Debian folks (http://patch-tracker.debian.org/patch/misc/view/wmwave/0.4-9/wmwave.c). This adds a new BR for wireless-tools-devel, and I had to patch the Makefile accordingly. Now it works fine, no crashes anymore. Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3251590 New files: Spec URL: http://mariobl.fedorapeople.org/Review/SPECS/wmwave.spec SRPM URL: http://mariobl.fedorapeople.org/Review/SRPMS/wmwave-0.4-3.fc15.src.rpm As described in wmwave.c, the code is mainly derived from wmsysmon and wmtop. At least, wmtop is released under GPLv2, see my package (bug #682353). Is it really correct here to drop the GPL version? Should't we respect the original license? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 727087] Review Request: perl-Alien-SDL - Building, finding and using SDL binaries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727087 Petr Sabata changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||psab...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|psab...@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 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 #4 from Vít Ondruch 2011-08-04 05:31:38 EDT --- Hi guys, why don't you spend time bringing Redmine to Rails 3.x instead of archaeology? If Redmine don't get updated to Rails 3.x it will become soon abandoned as well as Rails 2x.x and there are other competitors [1] One of commitments of Fedora is "First", i.e. to bring the newest, bleeding edge technologies, but that are not Rails 2.x. There is no new development, no new features, anything. It just brings in potential problems with version conflicts, e.g. some package will be updated for newer Rails but will be incompatible with Rails 2.x, security, etc. [1] https://github.com/teambox/teambox -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 728171] New: Review Request: jboss-logging-tools - JBoss Logging I18n Tools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: jboss-logging-tools - JBoss Logging I18n Tools https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=728171 Summary: Review Request: jboss-logging-tools - JBoss Logging I18n Tools Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: mgold...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Spec URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/jboss-logging-tools/1/jboss-logging-tools.spec SRPM URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/jboss-logging-tools/1/jboss-logging-tools-1.0.0-0.1.Beta7.fc15.src.rpm Description: JBoss Logging I18n Tools $ rpmlint ./jboss-logging-tools.spec ./jboss-logging-tools.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: jboss-logging-tools-1.0.0.Beta7.tar.xz 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. $ rpmlint ~/rpmbuild/SRPMS/jboss-logging-tools-1.0.0-0.1.Beta7.fc15.src.rpm jboss-logging-tools.src: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US jboss-logging-tools.src: W: invalid-url Source0: jboss-logging-tools-1.0.0.Beta7.tar.xz 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 726351] Review Request: jboss-logging - JBoss Logging Framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=726351 Marek Goldmann changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||728171 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 728171] Review Request: jboss-logging-tools - JBoss Logging I18n Tools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=728171 Marek Goldmann changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||652183(FE-JAVASIG) Depends on||726351 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 727780] Review Request: qtruby - Ruby bindings for QT4
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727780 --- Comment #1 from Jaroslav Reznik 2011-08-04 05:42:36 EDT --- Name: ? shouldn't we name it according ruby package naming scheme ruby-qt [1] Summary: ok just s/QT4/Qt 4 License: invalid-license LGPLv2.1+ Group: ok URL: ok Sources: ok (md5sum d17198b985f954cedd92ab669623de59) BuildRoot: ok Requires/BuildRequires: not ok according to Ruby packaging guideline (no ABI specified) etc. Provides/Obsoletes: not ok, non sense to obsolete/provide same package (as it was in kdebindings subpackage already) Description: ok Devel package: ok (but same prov/obs) Macros usage: ok, consistent ldconfig: ok Other Ruby requirements: ok Docs: ok rpmlint qtruby-4.7.0-1.src.rpm qtruby.src: W: invalid-license LGPLv2.1+ qtruby.src: E: specfile-error sh: ruby: command not found qtruby.src: E: specfile-error sh: ruby: command not found 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings. [1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 #27 from Steve Traylen 2011-08-04 05:53:22 EDT --- I can sponser ulrich and approve package, but i still need to see an informal review of some other package. Steve. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 #28 from Vít Ondruch 2011-08-04 05:57:30 EDT
---
(In reply to comment #26)
> I guess that doesn't matter, there doesn't seem to be a clear guideline, but
> I've been following %{ruby_sitearch}/%{gemname}/*.so
The *.so file has to follow the original gem folder structure. E.g:
1) %{geminstdir}/lib/foo.so => %{ruby_sitearch}/foo.so
2) %{geminstdir}/lib/%{gemname}/foo.so => %{ruby_sitearch}/%{gemname}/foo.so
2) %{geminstdir}/ext/foo.so => %{ruby_sitearch}/ext/foo.so
If you do not follow this rule, then you would need to patch the require of
*.so file somewhere in gem ruby code, because the *.so file wouldn't be
possible to find using Ruby $LOAD_PATH.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 692131] Review Request: sflphone - SIP/IAX2 compatible enterprise-class softphone for multi-way conferencing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=692131 --- Comment #13 from Christoph Wickert 2011-08-04 06:01:50 EDT --- The rule of thumb is: One tarball from upstream = one spec/srpm. You can build different binary packages from it, say sflphone-common, sflphone-cli, sflphone-gnome and sflphone-kde. Having completely different srpms only makes sense if they are separate upstream, too or have a different release cycle. However the current package is building against pjproject, iax2 and dbus-c++. The latter two are in Fedora, pjproject is not. So we first need to package pjproject and then sflphone. When building sflphone it should be possible to nuke the whole 'libs' folder and build against the libraries from Fedora. This will require a lot of patching though. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 728178] New: Review Request: xfce4-wmdock-plugin - Compatibility layer for running dockapps in an Xfce panel
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: xfce4-wmdock-plugin - Compatibility layer for running dockapps in an Xfce panel https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=728178 Summary: Review Request: xfce4-wmdock-plugin - Compatibility layer for running dockapps in an Xfce panel Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: martin.giesek...@uos.de QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Spec URL: http://mgieseki.fedorapeople.org/review/xfce4-wmdock-plugin.spec SRPM URL: http://mgieseki.fedorapeople.org/review/xfce4-wmdock-plugin-0.3.4-1.fc15.src.rpm Description: The WMdock plugin is a compatibility layer for running WindowMaker dockapps on the XFCE desktop. It integrates the dockapps into a panel, closely resembling the look and feel of the WindowMaker dock or clip, respectively. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 692131] Review Request: sflphone - SIP/IAX2 compatible enterprise-class softphone for multi-way conferencing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=692131 --- Comment #14 from Mario Santagiuliana 2011-08-04 06:11:03 EDT --- Ok, I will create pjproject rpm... SFLphone provides one tarball package that include different packages, so I think the best way is to create one spec file that will create different packages. I will report here the new review request for pjproject 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 725614] Review Request: libcryptui - Library for prompting for GPG keys
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725614 Tomáš Bžatek changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||715662 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 #24 from Vít Ondruch 2011-08-04 06:22:50 EDT --- (In reply to comment #23) > 2) The YARD documentation is generated in %check section. That is not correct > place. > > - FIXED, RSpec 2.x is generating yard doc automagically now. I don't understand it. The YARD doc is not generated at all, which is fine IMO, since nobody expect it to be generated. So now you can use BuildRequires: rubygem(rspec-core), ruby(json) and remove the Rake and Yard from BuildRequires. I would remove also the rakefile patch, since we are not using the rakefile, it is packaged in -doc subpackage and if somebody really wants to use it, (s)he should really know what is going on. Please also remove all the ruby_sitelib macro. It is not used anywhere and moreover rpmlint is complaining about the commented out version. If you fix/explain these issues, I will have no other objections. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 718479] Review Request: wmwave - Statistics about a current wireless Ethernet connection
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=718479 --- Comment #6 from Martin Gieseking 2011-08-04 06:23:42 EDT --- (In reply to comment #5) > As described in wmwave.c, the code is mainly derived from wmsysmon and wmtop. > At least, wmtop is released under GPLv2, see my package (bug #682353). Is it > really correct here to drop the GPL version? Should't we respect the original > license? a) No and b) Yes. In this case GPLv2+ is correct. Unfortunately, the author of wmwave didn't add a proper notice about the license of the code he derived from. If wmtop and wmsysmon are provided under GPLv2+, then wmwave is at least GPLv2 too. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 727087] Review Request: perl-Alien-SDL - Building, finding and using SDL binaries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727087
--- Comment #1 from Petr Sabata 2011-08-04 06:29:03 EDT ---
Package: perl-Alien-SDL
Version: 1.428
Release: 1.fc14
Sources: Alien-SDL-1.428.tar.gz
Patches:
--
Package successfully built in mock, fedora-rawhide-x86_64.
Package successfully built in mock, fedora-rawhide-i386.
Package successfully built in koji, dist-rawhide.
MUST items:
[ OK ] Package does NOT include pre-built binaries or libraries
[ OK ] Spec file is legible and written in American english
[ OK ] Package successfully builds on at least one supported primary
architecture
[ -- ] All ExcludeArch tags valid, referencing proper bug reports
[ OK ] Package obeys FHS (with _libexecdir and /srv exceptions)
[ NOTE ] No errors reported by rpmlint
[ OK ] Changelog present and properly formatted
[ OK ] Package does NOT include Packager, Vendor, Copyright or PreReq tags
[ OK ] Source tags are working URLs and sources match upstream or justified
otherwise
[ FAIL ] Requires correct or justified otherwise
[ NOTE ] BuildRequires correct or justified otherwise
[ OK ] All file names are in proper UTF-8 encoding
[ OK ] All plain text failes are in proper UTF-8 encoding
[ -- ] Large documentation files are located in doc subpackage
[ OK ] All documentation prefixed with %doc
[ OK ] Documentation is NOT executable
[ OK ] No files in %doc are needed at run-time
[ -- ] Compiler flags honor Fedora defaults or are justified
[ -- ] Package generates useful debuginfo packages
[ -- ] Header files are placed in devel subpackage
[ -- ] Unversioned shared libraries are placed in devel subpackage
[ -- ] Pkgconfig files are placed in devel subpackage
[ -- ] Full-versioned Requires of the base package in subpackages
[ -- ] Package calls ldconfig in post and postun sections for all
subpackages, if applicable
[ -- ] Static libraries are provided by static subpackage
[ OK ] Package contains no static executables unless approved by FESCo
[ OK ] Package does NOT bundle any system libraries
[ -- ] RPath not used for anything besides internal libraries
[ -- ] All config files are marked noreplace or justified otherwise
[ OK ] No config files are located under /usr
[ -- ] Package contains working systemd unit files and requires systemd-units
[ -- ] All systemd unit files are named according to the Guidelines
[ -- ] Package contains a SystemV-compatible initscript only as an optional
addition to systemd unit files
[ -- ] If package contains an initscript, it's placed in sysvinit subpackage
[ -- ] A GUI application installs a proper desktop file
[ -- ] All desktop files are installed by desktop-file-install or justified
otherwise
[ OK ] Package consistently uses macros
[ -- ] makeinstall macro is used only if make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot}
does NOT work
[ -- ] Macros in Summary and description are expandable at build-time
[ -- ] globals used in place of defines
[ -- ] Locales handled correctly -- package requires gettext and uses
find_lang, if applicable
[ -- ] Scriptlets are sane
[ OK ] Package is not relocatable unless justified
[ OK ] Package contains only acceptable code or content
[ OK ] Package owns all the files and directories it creates, installs and/or
uses unless those are already owned by another package
[ OK ] files sections do NOT contain duplicate files except for licenses
[ OK ] Package does NOT cause any conflicts
[ OK ] Package does NOT contain kernel modules
[ OK ] Package does NOT bundle fonts or other general purpose data
[ FAIL ] Final Requires and Provides are sane
SHOULD items:
[ OK ] The Summary does NOT end with a period
[ OK ] Package does NOT include BuildRoot tag, clean section or buildroot
removal in install section
[ OK ] Package should preserve files timestamps
[ OK ] Package does NOT explicitly BuildRequire bash, bzip2, coreutils, cpio,
diffutils, fedora-release, findutils, gawk, gcc, gcc-c++, grep, gzip, info,
make, patch, redhat-rpm-config, rpm-build, sed, shadow-utils, tar, unzip,
util-linux-ng, which or xz
[ OK ] Description does NOT consist of lines longer than 80 characters
[ -- ] Package uses parallel make
[ -- ] In case of a web application, package installs date into /usr/share
instead of /var/www
[ -- ] All patches have a comment or an upstream bug link
[ -- ] Package installs manpages for all executables
[ OK ] Package contains check section and all tests pass
[ ?? ] Package works as expected
NOTES:
--
rpmlint issues:
- incorrect FSF address; contact upstream about this
- README file contains CRLF line endings; convert it to LF-only, please
requires:
Most of the explicitly specified runtime dependencies are automatically
picked by RPM, thus adding duplicates to the runtime dependencies list.
There's also an underspecified dependency you
[Bug 727780] Review Request: qtruby - Ruby bindings for QT4
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727780 --- Comment #2 from Ngo Than 2011-08-04 06:43:27 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1) > Name: ? shouldn't we name it according ruby package naming scheme ruby-qt [1] it's not in packaging guideline, i think it's better to follow the upstream name scheme > Summary: ok just s/QT4/Qt 4 > License: invalid-license LGPLv2.1+ > Group: ok > URL: ok > Sources: ok (md5sum d17198b985f954cedd92ab669623de59) > BuildRoot: ok > Requires/BuildRequires: not ok according to Ruby packaging guideline (no ABI > specified) etc. fixed > Provides/Obsoletes: not ok, non sense to obsolete/provide same package (as it > was in kdebindings subpackage already) we need it for upgrade process. > Description: ok > Devel package: ok (but same prov/obs) > Macros usage: ok, consistent > ldconfig: ok > Other Ruby requirements: ok > Docs: ok > > qtruby.src: W: invalid-license LGPLv2.1+ fixed > qtruby.src: E: specfile-error sh: ruby: command not found > qtruby.src: E: specfile-error sh: ruby: command not found > 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings. it's rpmlint bug -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 725885] Review Request: phpMyAdmin3 - Handle the administration of MySQL over the World Wide Web
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725885 manuel wolfshant changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from manuel wolfshant 2011-08-04 06:58:30 EDT --- This package is just a slightly modified version of phpMyAdmin which is already included in Fedora. It builds fine against the php53-extras stack and works fine on Centos 5/x86_64. What I would like is to clarify the Provides section. With the proposed spec, the package now gives: [wolfy@wolfy result]$ rpm -qp --provides /var/lib/mock/epel-5-x86_64/result/phpMyAdmin3-3.4.3.2-2.el5.noarch.rpm config(phpMyAdmin3) = 3.4.3.2-2.el5 phpMyAdmin = 3.4.3.2-2.el5 phpmyadmin = 3.4.3.2-2.el5 phpMyAdmin3 = 3.4.3.2-2.el5 Is it really intended to provide both phpMyAdmin and the lowercase version of the name ? If so, why the change, as phpMyAdmin ( vers. 2.11.11) only has the following provides: config(phpMyAdmin) = 2.11.11.3-1.el5 phpmyadmin phpMyAdmin = 2.11.11.3-1.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 725885] Review Request: phpMyAdmin3 - Handle the administration of MySQL over the World Wide Web
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725885 --- Comment #2 from Robert Scheck 2011-08-04 07:06:11 EDT --- The lowercase provides exists to work around broken 3rd party software, which is mostly from 3rd party repositories. I thought the unversioned provides is fixed with the latest package in epel-testing, but I might be wrong here. The other provides are automagically generated by 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 526265] Review Request: l7-filter-userspace - Userspace version of l7-filter
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=526265 --- Comment #10 from Marcus Moeller 2011-08-04 07:16:01 EDT --- Upstream has changed to "clear foundation". There was a lack of activity in the project since then. Lately they have managed to release a new version: http://download.clearfoundation.com/l7-filter/l7-filter-userspace-0.12-beta1.tar.gz which sadly does not build. I am in contact with upstream to get it running again, and afterwards will continue to work on the package -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 728202] New: Review Request: jboss-msc - JBoss Modular Service Container
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: jboss-msc - JBoss Modular Service Container https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=728202 Summary: Review Request: jboss-msc - JBoss Modular Service Container Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: mgold...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Spec URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/jboss-msc/1/jboss-msc.spec SRPM URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/jboss-msc/1/jboss-msc-1.0.0-1.fc15.src.rpm Description: This package contains the JBoss Modular Service Container. $ rpmlint ./jboss-msc.spec ./jboss-msc.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: jboss-msc-1.0.0.GA.tar.xz 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. $ rpmlint jboss-msc-1.0.0-1.fc15.src.rpm jboss-msc.src: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US jboss-msc.src: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.jboss.org HTTP Error 403: Forbidden jboss-msc.src: W: invalid-url Source0: jboss-msc-1.0.0.GA.tar.xz 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 727559] Review Request: perl-POE-Component-Syndicator - POE component base class which implements the Observer pattern
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727559
Marcela Mašláňová changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Marcela Mašláňová 2011-08-04 07:19:31
EDT ---
- rpmlint OK
perl-POE-Component-Syndicator.src: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US
- package must be named according to Guidelines OK
- spec file name must match the base package %{name} OK
- package must meet the Packaging Guidelines OK
- package must be licensed with Fedora approved license OK
- license field must match actual license OK
- text of the license in its own file must be included in %doc OK
- sources must match the upstream source OK
- package MUST successfully compile and build OK
- architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in bugzilla OK
- build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires OK
- handle locales properly with %find_lang macro OK
- shared library files must call ldconfig in %post(un) OK
- packages must NOT bundle system libraries OK
- package must own all directories that it creates OK
- permissions on files must be set properly OK
- package must consistently use macros OK
- package must contain code, or permissable content OK
- large documentation must go in a -doc OK
- %doc must not affect the runtime of the application OK
- header files must be in a -devel package OK
- static libraries must be in a -static package OK
- library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel OK
- devel package usually require base package OK
- packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives OK
- GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file OK
- packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages OK
rpm -qp --provides
rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/perl-POE-Component-Syndicator-0.06-1.fc17.noarch.rpm
perl(POE::Component::Syndicator) = 0.06
perl-POE-Component-Syndicator = 0.06-1.fc17
[root@rawhide-marcela ~]# rpm -qp --requires
rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/perl-POE-Component-Syndicator-0.06-1.fc17.noarch.rpm
perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.14.1)
perl(Carp)
perl(Object::Pluggable)
perl(Object::Pluggable) >= 1.29
perl(Object::Pluggable::Constants)
perl(POE)
perl(POE) >= 1.311
perl(base)
perl(constant)
perl(constant)
perl(strict)
perl(warnings)
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
Please, filter non-versioned requires.
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 726351] Review Request: jboss-logging - JBoss Logging Framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=726351 Marek Goldmann changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||728202 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 728158] Review Request: jboss-vfs - JBoss Virtual File System
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=728158 Marek Goldmann changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||728202 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 723875] Review Request: byteman - Java agent-based bytecode injection tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=723875 Marek Goldmann changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||728202 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 728171] Review Request: jboss-logging-tools - JBoss Logging I18n Tools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=728171 Marek Goldmann changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||728202 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 728202] Review Request: jboss-msc - JBoss Modular Service Container
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=728202 Marek Goldmann changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||652183(FE-JAVASIG) Depends on||726351, 728171, 723875, ||728158 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 728207] New: Review request: retrace-client - Client application for Retrace server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review request: retrace-client - Client application for Retrace server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=728207 Summary: Review request: retrace-client - Client application for Retrace server Product: Fedora EPEL Version: el6 Platform: Unspecified OS/Version: Unspecified Status: NEW Severity: unspecified Priority: unspecified Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: mto...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Spec URL: http://mtoman.fedorapeople.org/retrace-client.spec SRPM URL: http://mtoman.fedorapeople.org/retrace-client-1.0-1.el6.src.rpm Description: The Retrace client is a command line application providing communication with Retrace server. $ rpmlint retrace-client.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint retrace-client-1.0-1.el6.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint retrace-client-1.0-1.el6.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint retrace-client-debuginfo-1.0-1.el6.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 726351] Review Request: jboss-logging - JBoss Logging Framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=726351 Marek Goldmann changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||728208 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 728208] Review Request: jboss-threads - JBoss Threads
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=728208 Marek Goldmann changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||652183(FE-JAVASIG) Depends on||726351 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 728208] Review Request: jboss-threads - JBoss Threads
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=728208 Marek Goldmann changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||728202 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 728202] Review Request: jboss-msc - JBoss Modular Service Container
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=728202 Marek Goldmann changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||728208 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 727559] Review Request: perl-POE-Component-Syndicator - POE component base class which implements the Observer pattern
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727559 Petr Sabata changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Petr Sabata 2011-08-04 07:45:42 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: perl-POE-Component-Syndicator Short Description: POE component base class which implements the Observer pattern Owners: psabata mmaslano ppisar Branches: InitialCC: perl-sig -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 727559] Review Request: perl-POE-Component-Syndicator - POE component base class which implements the Observer pattern
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727559
--- Comment #2 from Petr Sabata 2011-08-04 07:44:05 EDT ---
Thanks, I'm going to use the SPEC with this change for the import...
--- perl-POE-Component-Syndicator.spec.orig 2011-08-02 15:04:52.0
+0200
+++ perl-POE-Component-Syndicator.spec 2011-08-04 13:37:57.123893050 +0200
@@ -14,11 +14,19 @@
BuildRequires: perl(POE) >= 1.311
# Tests
BuildRequires: perl(Test::More)
-Requires: perl(constant)
Requires: perl(Object::Pluggable) >= 1.29
Requires: perl(POE) >= 1.311
Requires: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_%(eval "`%{__perl} -V:version`"; echo
$version))
+# Underspecified dependencies filter
+# RPM 4.8 style
+%filter_from_requires /^perl(POE)$/d
+%filter_from_requires /^perl(Object::Pluggable)$/d
+%{?perl_default_filter}
+# RPM 4.9 style
+%global __requires_exclude
%{?__requires_exclude:__requires_exclude|}^perl\\(POE\\)$
+%global __requires_exclude %__requires_exclude|^perl\\(Object::Pluggable\\)$
+
%description
POE::Component::Syndicator is a base class for POE components which need to
handle a persistent resource (e.g. a connection to an IRC server) for one
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 728208] New: Review Request: jboss-threads - JBoss Threads
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: jboss-threads - JBoss Threads https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=728208 Summary: Review Request: jboss-threads - JBoss Threads Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: mgold...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Spec URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/jboss-threads/1/jboss-threads.spec SRPM URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/jboss-threads/1/jboss-threads-2.0.0-1.fc15.src.rpm Description: JBoss Threads $ rpmlint ./jboss-threads.spec ./jboss-threads.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: jboss-threads-2.0.0.GA.tar.xz 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. $ rpmlint jboss-threads-2.0.0-1.fc15.src.rpm jboss-threads.src: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US jboss-threads.src: W: invalid-url Source0: jboss-threads-2.0.0.GA.tar.xz 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 727559] Review Request: perl-POE-Component-Syndicator - POE component base class which implements the Observer pattern
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727559 --- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla 2011-08-04 08:04:47 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 #5 from Guillermo Gómez 2011-08-04 08:12:13 EDT --- (In reply to comment #4) > Hi guys, why don't you spend time bringing Redmine to Rails 3.x instead of > archaeology? If Redmine don't get updated to Rails 3.x it will become soon > abandoned as well as Rails 2x.x and there are other competitors [1] So on the same reasoning, why dont you go first and invest your time and package teambox instead on questioning others people interest on archaelogy? (i guess u have your reasons, so do we to be interested in redmine as it is right now and to make it available to our users) I dont think redmine will be abandoned and yes they are working on rails 3 support [2] (u can work on that too) Also it will be so much quicker to have rails2.3 stack available for a year or so and that would eventually empower other webapss without tweaking rubygems stack in Fedora, not only Redmine (there are many webapps that probably will not migrate to rails3 on the mid term) What about epel scenario? > One of commitments of Fedora is "First", i.e. to bring the newest, bleeding > edge technologies, but that are not Rails 2.x. There is no new development, no > new features, anything. It just brings in potential problems with version > conflicts, e.g. some package will be updated for newer Rails but will be > incompatible with Rails 2.x, security, etc. This is not about Rails 2.x vs Rails 3.x this is about webapps that are usefull to our users that do not work now in Fedora as it is. Redmine even running under Rails 2.x, does not mean they can not get new features and from my standing point of view, Redmine is probably the best project management web application available today, and used by many (but of course im biased). Im a regular redmine user and i really dont care about what's behind it (talking as a user) and i keep seeing new features and developing in it. [3] Actually we, as Fedora, are indebted with our community because the lack of redmine availability ! I just feel we should not wait, and also, yes, bring teambox to the game ! :) > [1] https://github.com/teambox/teambox [2] http://www.redmine.org/issues/4796 [3] http://www.redmine.org/projects/redmine/activity -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 226383] Merge Review: rwall
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226383 Peter Schiffer changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Peter Schiffer 2011-08-04 08:24:13 EDT --- Checked srpm: $ sha256sum rwall-0.17-33.fc17.src.rpm 6278ae1712bf818a17e1b38fe7c9f984ab2f169a376a300bbd58b8a238a7c4cc rwall-0.17-33.fc17.src.rpm YES source files match upstream: $ sha256sum netkit-rwall-0.17.tar.gz netkit-rwall-0.17.tar.gz.1 97bd59f787d19bc3dff633d35eeb627176574aa7adf65b64a6a4d8dc08f752ed netkit-rwall-0.17.tar.gz 97bd59f787d19bc3dff633d35eeb627176574aa7adf65b64a6a4d8dc08f752ed netkit-rwall-0.17.tar.gz.1 INFO clean section is not present, buildroot section is. YES latest version is being packaged. YES BuildRequires are proper. YES rpmlint is silent. $ rpmlint rwall.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint rwall-0.17-33.fc17.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint rwall-0.17-33.fc17.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint rwall-server-0.17-33.fc17.x86_64.rpm rwall-server.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang /lib/systemd/system/rwalld.service - false positive 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint rwall-debuginfo-0.17-33.fc17.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Additional comments: * URL tag should be in upper-case * %build section could be simplified by removing perl None of these comments is blocking the approval -> APPROVED. -- 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 526263] Review Request: l7-protocols - Protocol definitions files for l7-filter
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=526263 --- Comment #15 from Marcus Moeller 2011-08-04 08:25:03 EDT --- Updated package, to not include tests as they are not needed. http://www.marcusmoeller.ch/share/build/l7-protocols/20090528-6/l7-protocols.spec http://www.marcusmoeller.ch/share/build/l7-protocols/20090528-6/l7-protocols-20090528-6.fc14.src.rpm This is also in line with the Debian package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 725885] Review Request: phpMyAdmin3 - Handle the administration of MySQL over the World Wide Web
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725885 --- Comment #4 from manuel wolfshant 2011-08-04 08:32:45 EDT --- Created attachment 516696 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=516696 normal install output from yum install phpMyAdmin -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 725885] Review Request: phpMyAdmin3 - Handle the administration of MySQL over the World Wide Web
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725885 --- Comment #3 from manuel wolfshant 2011-08-04 08:31:24 EDT --- You are correct, the unversioned provides no longer exists in 2.11.11.3-2. My installed version was the one from stable. I had/have no objections about providing both the lowercase and uppercase versions of the name, I just wanted to be sure that this in intended and not an oversight. What I foresee as an issue is the fact that both phpMyAdmin and phpMyAdmin3 will both provide phpMyAdmin. And according to my local tests, the following happen (please also see the 2 attached logs): [root@pc68 ~]# yum provides --showduplicates phpMyAdmin --enablerepo=epel-testing Loaded plugins: fastestmirror Loading mirror speeds from cached hostfile * base: ftp.ines.lug.ro * epel: ftp.ines.lug.ro * epel-testing: ftp.ines.lug.ro * extras: ftp.ines.lug.ro * updates: ftp.ines.lug.ro epel-testing | 3.7 kB 00:00 epel-testing/primary_db | 234 kB 00:00 phpMyAdmin-2.11.11.3-1.el5.noarch : Web based MySQL browser written in php Repo: epel Matched from: phpMyAdmin3-3.4.3.2-2.el5.noarch : Handle the administration of MySQL over the World Wide Web Repo: nobugcustom Matched from: Other : phpMyAdmin phpMyAdmin-2.11.11.3-2.el5.noarch : Handle the administration of MySQL over the World Wide Web Repo: epel-testing Matched from: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 725885] Review Request: phpMyAdmin3 - Handle the administration of MySQL over the World Wide Web
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725885 --- Comment #5 from manuel wolfshant 2011-08-04 08:33:59 EDT --- Created attachment 516697 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=516697 forced install of phpMyAdmin3 output of yum install phpMyAdmin3 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 #6 from Vít Ondruch 2011-08-04 08:35:50 EDT --- Just to remind you, Redmine was already submitted for a review a long time ago [1] and the review was never finished in times when Rails 2.3 was standard. Apparently there was not high enough demand, otherwise somebody would finish that. [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=499959 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 727559] Review Request: perl-POE-Component-Syndicator - POE component base class which implements the Observer pattern
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727559 --- Comment #5 from Petr Sabata 2011-08-04 08:57:30 EDT --- (In reply to comment #4) > Git done (by process-git-requests). Thanks, Jon. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 727780] Review Request: qtruby - Ruby bindings for QT4
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727780 --- Comment #3 from Vít Ondruch 2011-08-04 09:00:06 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2) > (In reply to comment #1) > > Name: ? shouldn't we name it according ruby package naming scheme ruby-qt > > [1] > it's not in packaging guideline, i think it's better to follow the upstream > name scheme For Ruby packages you should follow Ruby packaging guidelines [1]. Of course they specify also the mentioned "ruby-" prefix [2] which is clearly the case for QT binding. > > Summary: ok just s/QT4/Qt 4 > > License: invalid-license LGPLv2.1+ > > Group: ok > > URL: ok > > Sources: ok (md5sum d17198b985f954cedd92ab669623de59) > > BuildRoot: ok > > Requires/BuildRequires: not ok according to Ruby packaging guideline (no ABI > > specified) etc. > fixed Here [3] is the guideline. > > Provides/Obsoletes: not ok, non sense to obsolete/provide same package (as > > it > > was in kdebindings subpackage already) > we need it for upgrade process. > > > Description: ok > > Devel package: ok (but same prov/obs) > > Macros usage: ok, consistent > > ldconfig: ok > > Other Ruby requirements: ok > > Docs: ok > > > > > qtruby.src: W: invalid-license LGPLv2.1+ > fixed > > > qtruby.src: E: specfile-error sh: ruby: command not found > > qtruby.src: E: specfile-error sh: ruby: command not found > > 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings. > > it's rpmlint bug You probably don't have ruby installed on your machine. [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby#Naming_Guidelines [3] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby#Ruby_Packaging_Guidelines -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 178922] Review Request: asterisk - The Open Source PBX
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=178922 --- Comment #168 from Jeffrey C. Ollie 2011-08-04 09:01:17 EDT --- Asterisk is already in EPEL6, and RHEL5 still has speex 1.0.5. -- 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 727559] Review Request: perl-POE-Component-Syndicator - POE component base class which implements the Observer pattern
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727559 Petr Sabata changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Fixed In Version||perl-POE-Component-Syndicat ||or-0.06-1.fcf17 Resolution||RAWHIDE Last Closed||2011-08-04 09:05:57 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 226145] Merge Review: mkbootdisk
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226145 Peter Schiffer changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Peter Schiffer 2011-08-04 09:04:00 EDT --- Checked srpm: $ sha256sum mkbootdisk-1.5.5-3.fc17.src.rpm 09a64ea55c2ae301588ed836a55ac2fda3177e63c73f8d0c366ece786c3d156d mkbootdisk-1.5.5-3.fc17.src.rpm YES License text included in package. NO rpmlint is silent - but all errors and warnings can be ignored. $ rpmlint mkbootdisk.spec mkbootdisk.spec: W: no-%build-section mkbootdisk.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: mkbootdisk-1.5.5.tar.xz 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. $ rpmlint mkbootdisk-1.5.5-3.fc17.src.rpm mkbootdisk.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US filesystem -> file system, file-system, systematic mkbootdisk.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US fstab -> stab, f stab, fiesta mkbootdisk.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ramdisk -> ram disk, ram-disk, rammish mkbootdisk.src: W: no-url-tag mkbootdisk.src: W: no-%build-section mkbootdisk.src: W: invalid-url Source0: mkbootdisk-1.5.5.tar.xz 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. $ rpmlint mkbootdisk-1.5.5-3.fc17.x86_64.rpm mkbootdisk.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US filesystem -> file system, file-system, systematic mkbootdisk.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US fstab -> stab, f stab, fiesta mkbootdisk.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ramdisk -> ram disk, ram-disk, rammish mkbootdisk.x86_64: W: no-url-tag mkbootdisk.x86_64: E: no-binary 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings. Additional comments: * rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT in %install section is not needed any more. None of these comments is blocking the approval -> APPROVED. -- 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 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
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Martin Gieseking 2011-08-04
09:15:29 EDT ---
The package looks good now. I just recommend to add INSTALL='install -p' to
"make install" in order to preserve the timestamps of the header files. That's
not a blocker, though.
$ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-15-i386/result/*.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: spelling-error %description -l en_US sed -> tied,
ed, seed
spatialindex-devel.i686: W: no-documentation
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
The spelling errors are false positive and can be ignored.
-
key:
[+] OK
[.] OK, not applicable
[X] needs work
-
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}.
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license.
- LGPLv2+ according to source file headers
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[+] MUST: The file containing the text of the license(s) for the package must
be included in %doc.
- file COPYING packaged
[+] 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 spatialindex-src-1.6.1.tar.bz2*
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.
[+] 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: Each package must consistently use macros.
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[.] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
[+] MUST: Files in %doc must not affect the runtime of the application.
[+] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[.] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[+] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix, then .so (without
suffix) must go in a -devel package.
[+] MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned
dependency.
[+] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
[.] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file.
[+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
[+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
EPEL <= 5 only:
[X] 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.
[X] SHOULD: Timestamps of files should be preserved.
- think about adding INSTALL='install -p' to "make install" in order to
preserve the timestamps of the header files
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described.
- bundled regression test binaries seem to work as expected
[+] 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.
[.] SH
[Bug 727780] Review Request: qtruby - Ruby bindings for QT4
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727780 --- Comment #4 from Vít Ondruch 2011-08-04 09:21:28 EDT --- BTW the package does not build in Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3251955 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 226145] Merge Review: mkbootdisk
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226145 Jaroslav Škarvada changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE Last Closed||2011-08-04 09:20:39 --- Comment #4 from Jaroslav Škarvada 2011-08-04 09:20:39 EDT --- Thanks. -- 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 727087] Review Request: perl-Alien-SDL - Building, finding and using SDL binaries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727087 --- Comment #2 from Marcela Mašláňová 2011-08-04 09:20:00 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1) > Package: perl-Alien-SDL > Version: 1.428 > Release: 1.fc14 > Sources: Alien-SDL-1.428.tar.gz > Patches: > -- > NOTES: > -- > rpmlint issues: > - incorrect FSF address; contact upstream about this They have broken bz, but hopefully, they will regenerate their package once. > - README file contains CRLF line endings; convert it to LF-only, please Fixed. > > requires: > Most of the explicitly specified runtime dependencies are automatically > picked by RPM, thus adding duplicates to the runtime dependencies list. > There's also an underspecified dependency you should filter out. > Please, remove perl(Capture::Tiny), perl(File::Spec), perl(File::Temp), and > perl(File::Which) (this one is not used at all) from Requires. > In addition, perl(File::Path) >= 2.08, perl(File::Fetch) >= 0.24, and > perl(Text::Patch) >= 1.4 should be required and their underspecified deps > filtered out... > Removed. > buildrequires: > perl(File::Spec::Functions) dependency is missing. Added. > Moreover, many of the listed build-time dependencies aren't used at all. > They're just mentioned in the META files (e.g. Archive::* stuff). But maybe > I'm just missing something. > They are in inc directory. > > Not approving at the moment. Please, approve now. http://mmaslano.fedorapeople.org/review/perl-Alien-SDL-1.428-1.fc17.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 643140] Review Request: autokey - A desktop automation utility
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=643140 --- Comment #28 from Raghu Udiyar 2011-08-04 09:31:14 EDT --- Thank you! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 727087] Review Request: perl-Alien-SDL - Building, finding and using SDL binaries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727087 Petr Sabata changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Petr Sabata 2011-08-04 09:38:38 EDT --- Okay, it looks better now. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 727780] Review Request: qtruby - Ruby bindings for QT4
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727780
--- Comment #5 from Jaroslav Reznik 2011-08-04 09:42:50
EDT ---
Good spot Vit, thanks,
Than, please add %{?_kde4_macros_api:Requires: kde4-macros(api) =
%{_kde4_macros_api} } to the spec file so cmake_kde4 is brought in.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 #6 from Jameson 2011-08-04 09:45:51 EDT --- Looks good. You said I could ditch the %clean section, also, right? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 718479] Review Request: wmwave - Statistics about a current wireless Ethernet connection
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=718479 --- Comment #7 from Mario Blättermann 2011-08-04 09:44:28 EDT --- OK, the license is now GPLv2+ again. Release number has not been bumped, the file links are still valid. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 718479] Review Request: wmwave - Statistics about a current wireless Ethernet connection
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=718479 --- Comment #8 from Martin Gieseking 2011-08-04 09:50:00 EDT --- The package currently doesn't build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3252006 This is because library libiw is not linked. Add -liw to variable LIBS (line 11) in the Makefile to fix this. Alternatively, you can also add the definition of LIBS to the make statement in %build. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 728242] New: Review Request: rubygem-actionmailer2.3 - 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. Summary: Review Request: rubygem-actionmailer2.3 - rails 2 alongside rails 3 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=728242 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-actionmailer2.3 - rails 2 alongside rails 3 Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: unspecified Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: codehot...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Spec URL: http://xls01.freecult.org/pkg/?p=pkg.git;a=blob_plain;f=SPECS/rubygem-actionmailer2.3.spec;hb=refs/heads/rails23 SRPM URL: http://xls01.freecult.org/pkg/?p=pkg.git;a=blob_plain;f=SRPMS/rubygem-actionmailer2.3-2.3.12-1.fc15.src.rpm;hb=refs/heads/rails23 Changelog: http://xls01.freecult.org/pkg/?p=pkg.git;a=log;h=refs/heads/rails23 Description: rubygem-actionmailer2.3 is a dependency of rails 2.3. (another dependency is rubygem-rdoc, which was built for Fedora 16 by mmorsi. See http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=254306 ) Although rails 3 was released, and Fedora 15 has moved to rails 3, there are still rails projects working with rails 2.3 series. Rails 3 is not backwards compatible and some key features are not yet working in rails 3. One notable project still on rails 2.3 is the issue tracker redmine: http://www.redmine.org. Since rails 2 and rails 3 are perfectly parallel installable, I would like to maintain rails 2.3 series in Fedora until it really becomes obsolete. I have built these rails 2.3.12 packages starting from the rails 2.3.8 rpms already in Fedora 14. This is my first time packaging for Fedora and I am welcoming feedback. Thank you for your time. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 #7 from Guillermo Gómez 2011-08-04 09:52:19 EDT --- (In reply to comment #6) > Just to remind you, Redmine was already submitted for a review a long time ago > [1] and the review was never finished in times when Rails 2.3 was standard. > Apparently there was not high enough demand, otherwise somebody would finish > that. Perhaps, maybe the demand was just solved using others method (that's what i did). Or maybe was not just me ... (just speculations). Appearances can be deceiving and that's not a reason to say there was not a high demand or use (maybe not in Fedora, but again we are just speculating here). Ruby/Rails community gets along with or without rpms from Fedora... If this gets too complicated, i will abandon it too and keep using pure gems approach. > > [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=499959 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 728248] Review Request: rubygem-actionpack2.3 - 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=728248 Emanuel Rietveld changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 728242] Review Request: rubygem-actionmailer2.3 - 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=728242 Emanuel Rietveld changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 728249] Review Request: rubygem-activerecord2.3 - 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=728249 Emanuel Rietveld changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 728248] Review Request: rubygem-actionpack2.3 - 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=728248 Emanuel Rietveld changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |rubygem-actionpack2.3 - |rubygem-actionpack2.3 - ||rails 2 alongside rails 3 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 728249] New: Review Request: rubygem-activerecord2.3 - 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. Summary: Review Request: rubygem-activerecord2.3 - rails 2 alongside rails 3 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=728249 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-activerecord2.3 - rails 2 alongside rails 3 Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: unspecified Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: codehot...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Spec URL: http://xls01.freecult.org/pkg/?p=pkg.git;a=blob_plain;f=SPECS/rubygem-activerecord2.3.spec;hb=refs/heads/rails23 SRPM URL: http://xls01.freecult.org/pkg/?p=pkg.git;a=blob_plain;f=SRPMS/rubygem-activerecord2.3-2.3.12-1.fc15.src.rpm;hb=refs/heads/rails23 Changelog: http://xls01.freecult.org/pkg/?p=pkg.git;a=log;h=refs/heads/rails23 Description: rubygem-activerecord2.3 is a dependency of rails 2.3. (another dependency is rubygem-rdoc, which was built for Fedora 16 by mmorsi. See http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=254306 ) Although rails 3 was released, and Fedora 15 has moved to rails 3, there are still rails projects working with rails 2.3 series. Rails 3 is not backwards compatible and some key features are not yet working in rails 3. One notable project still on rails 2.3 is the issue tracker redmine: http://www.redmine.org. Since rails 2 and rails 3 are perfectly parallel installable, I would like to maintain rails 2.3 series in Fedora until it really becomes obsolete. I have built these rails 2.3.12 packages starting from the rails 2.3.8 rpms already in Fedora 14. This is my first time packaging for Fedora and I am welcoming feedback. Thank you for your time. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 728248] New: Review Request: rubygem-actionpack2.3 -
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-actionpack2.3 - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=728248 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-actionpack2.3 - Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: unspecified Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: codehot...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Spec URL: http://xls01.freecult.org/pkg/?p=pkg.git;a=blob_plain;f=SPECS/rubygem-actionpack2.3.spec;hb=refs/heads/rails23 SRPM URL: http://xls01.freecult.org/pkg/?p=pkg.git;a=blob_plain;f=SRPMS/rubygem-actionpack2.3-2.3.12-1.fc15.src.rpm;hb=refs/heads/rails23 Changelog: http://xls01.freecult.org/pkg/?p=pkg.git;a=log;h=refs/heads/rails23 Description: rubygem-actionpack2.3 is a dependency of rails 2.3. (another dependency is rubygem-rdoc, which was built for Fedora 16 by mmorsi. See http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=254306 ) Although rails 3 was released, and Fedora 15 has moved to rails 3, there are still rails projects working with rails 2.3 series. Rails 3 is not backwards compatible and some key features are not yet working in rails 3. One notable project still on rails 2.3 is the issue tracker redmine: http://www.redmine.org. Since rails 2 and rails 3 are perfectly parallel installable, I would like to maintain rails 2.3 series in Fedora until it really becomes obsolete. I have built these rails 2.3.12 packages starting from the rails 2.3.8 rpms already in Fedora 14. This is my first time packaging for Fedora and I am welcoming feedback. Thank you for your time. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 727087] Review Request: perl-Alien-SDL - Building, finding and using SDL binaries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727087 Marcela Mašláňová changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Marcela Mašláňová 2011-08-04 10:01:27 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: perl-Alien-SDL Short Description: Building, finding and using SDL binaries Owners: mmaslano ppisar psabata Branches: F-16 InitialCC: perl-sig -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 727887, which changed state. Bug 727887 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-childprocess - A simple and reliable gem for controlling external programs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727887 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2011-08-04 10:02:47 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 727780] Review Request: qtruby - Ruby bindings for QT4
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727780 --- Comment #6 from Ngo Than 2011-08-04 10:01:43 EDT --- ruby-qt-4.7.0-1.src.rpm , ruby-qt.spec ware uploaded. all issues should be fixed in this new package. 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 727780] Review Request: ruby-qt - Ruby bindings for QT4
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727780 Ngo Than changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: qtruby -|Review Request: ruby-qt - |Ruby bindings for QT4 |Ruby bindings for QT4 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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
--- Comment #3 from Chris Lalancette 2011-08-04 10:01:41
EDT ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Issues:
> [!] : MUST - Rpmlint output is silent.
> - as noted above, this doesn't seem to be regarded as a problem
Yeah, that happens with all ruby packages, due to the way that rdoc builds
documentation files. This can be ignored.
>
> - Overall, it looks okay to me but there seem to be some discrepancies with
> the
> Ruby-specific guidelines at:
>
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Ruby
>
> e.g. it doesn't own %{gemdir}/gems/%{gemname}-%{version}/ and %prep isn't
> empty
>
> - this may just be a matter of individual style
Actually, it does own %{gemdir}/gems/%{gemname}-%{version}; it's just that we
use the macro %{geminstdir} to do that. %prep not being empty is due to the
Fedora guidelines being out of date; the unofficial way we have been doing pure
ruby rubygems lately is to put everything into %prep and %install. If you
think about it, that makes sense; doing an "rpmbuild -bp " will then get
you a tree that you can look at, even if it is hidden beneath a directory tree.
If the above all makes sense to you, can you set this to fedora-review+ ?
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 728255] Review Request: rubygem-activeresource2.3 - 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=728255 Emanuel Rietveld changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 727780] Review Request: qt-ruby - Ruby bindings for Qt 4
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727780 Jaroslav Reznik changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: ruby-qt - |Review Request: qt-ruby - |Ruby bindings for QT4 |Ruby bindings for Qt 4 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 728207] Review request: retrace-client - Client application for Retrace server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=728207 Miroslav Lichvar changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mlich...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mlich...@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 728255] New: Review Request: rubygem-activeresource2.3 - 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. Summary: Review Request: rubygem-activeresource2.3 - rails 2 alongside rails 3 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=728255 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-activeresource2.3 - rails 2 alongside rails 3 Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: unspecified Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: codehot...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Spec URL: http://xls01.freecult.org/pkg/?p=pkg.git;a=blob_plain;f=SPECS/rubygem-activeresource2.3.spec;hb=refs/heads/rails23 SRPM URL: http://xls01.freecult.org/pkg/?p=pkg.git;a=blob_plain;f=SRPMS/rubygem-activeresource2.3-2.3.12-1.fc15.src.rpm;hb=refs/heads/rails23 Changelog: http://xls01.freecult.org/pkg/?p=pkg.git;a=log;h=refs/heads/rails23 Description: rubygem-activeresource2.3 is a dependency of rails 2.3. (another dependency is rubygem-rdoc, which was built for Fedora 16 by mmorsi. See http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=254306 ) Although rails 3 was released, and Fedora 15 has moved to rails 3, there are still rails projects working with rails 2.3 series. Rails 3 is not backwards compatible and some key features are not yet working in rails 3. One notable project still on rails 2.3 is the issue tracker redmine: http://www.redmine.org. Since rails 2 and rails 3 are perfectly parallel installable, I would like to maintain rails 2.3 series in Fedora until it really becomes obsolete. I have built these rails 2.3.12 packages starting from the rails 2.3.8 rpms already in Fedora 14. This is my first time packaging for Fedora and I am welcoming feedback. Thank you for your time. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 728248] Review Request: rubygem-actionpack2.3 - 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=728248 Emanuel Rietveld changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||726690 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 728242] Review Request: rubygem-actionmailer2.3 - 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=728242 Emanuel Rietveld changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||726690 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 728249] Review Request: rubygem-activerecord2.3 - 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=728249 Emanuel Rietveld changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||726690 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
