[Bug 715127] Review Request: abcMIDI - ABC to/from MIDI conversion utilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=715127 --- Comment #9 from Martin Gieseking martin.giesek...@uos.de 2011-08-10 02:01:56 EDT --- OK, please also add your email address to the last two %changelog entries. In order to show an understanding of the packaging guidelines, you should do a few informal reviews of other packager's submissions. When you're added to the packager group, you are allowed to review and approve packages. Thus, you should familiarize yourself with the process and practice a little bit. This also helps to attract potential sponsors. :) For further information have a look at the following wiki pages: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 727664] Review Request: florist - Open-source implementation of IEEE Standard 1003.5b-1996
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727664 Oxana Kurysheva okurysh...@yahoo.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 727664] Review Request: florist - Open-source implementation of IEEE Standard 1003.5b-1996
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727664
--- Comment #3 from Oxana Kurysheva okurysh...@yahoo.com 2011-08-10 02:35:15
EDT ---
# MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build
produces. The output should be posted in the review.
OK
# MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
OK
# MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec
OK
# MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines (Ada packaging
guidelines)
OK
# MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines .
OK (GPL)
# MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
OK
# MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package must be included in %doc.
OK
# MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
OK
# MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
OK
# MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL.
OK
# MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture. [7]
OK
# MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch.
ATTN! Please point ExcludeArch for gnat
# MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
OK
# MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden
NA
# MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library
files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must
call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
OK
# MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
OK
# MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package.
OK
# MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates.
OK
# MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings.
OK
# MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, for example.
OK
# MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
OK
# MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
OK
# MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage
NA
# MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime
of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run
properly if it is not present.
OK
# MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
OK
# MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
NA
# MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1),
then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel
package.
OK
# MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} =
%{version}-%{release}
OK
# MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be
removed in the spec if they are built.[20]
OK
# MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file,
NA
# MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
OK
# MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [24]
OK
Please check ATTN and fix it
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 727664] Review Request: florist - Open-source implementation of IEEE Standard 1003.5b-1996
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727664 --- Comment #4 from Pavel Zhukov pa...@zhukoff.net 2011-08-10 02:41:06 EDT --- Fixed: http://landgraf.fedorapeople.org/packages/requested/florist/florist.spec http://landgraf.fedorapeople.org/packages/requested/florist/florist-2011-6.fc14.src.rpm koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3263453 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 727664] Review Request: florist - Open-source implementation of IEEE Standard 1003.5b-1996
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727664 Oxana Kurysheva okurysh...@yahoo.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Oxana Kurysheva okurysh...@yahoo.com 2011-08-10 02:44:21 EDT --- Ok. 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 727664] Review Request: florist - Open-source implementation of IEEE Standard 1003.5b-1996
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727664 Pavel Zhukov pa...@zhukoff.net changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Pavel Zhukov pa...@zhukoff.net 2011-08-10 03:06:36 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: florist Short Description: Open-source implementation of IEEE Standard 1003.5b-1996 Owners: landgraf Branches: f15 f16 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 700427] Review Request: jopt-simple - A Java command line parser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=700427
--- Comment #10 from Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com 2011-08-10
03:13:25 EDT ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x] Rpmlint output:
./jopt-simple.spec: W: invalid-url Source0:
https://download.github.com/pholser-jopt-simple-jopt-simple-3.3-0-g59a05aa.tar.gz
HTTP Error 404: Not Found
The usual github crap.
[x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines[1].
[x] Spec file name must match the base package name, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines[2].
[x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms.
[x] Buildroot definition is not present
[x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines[3,4].
[x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type: MIT
[x] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package is included in %doc.
[!] All independent sub-packages have license of their own
Javadoc is independent and misses the license
[x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines[5].
[x] Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x] File sections do not contain %defattr(-,root,root,-) unless changed with
good reason
[x] Permissions on files are set properly.
[x] Package does NOT have a %clean section which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}
(or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). (not needed anymore)
[x] Package consistently uses macros (no %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
mixing)
[x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
[x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x] Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
subpackage
[x] Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlinks)
[x] Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
[x] Javadoc subpackages have Require: jpackage-utils
[x] Package uses %global not %define
[x] If package uses tarball from VCS include comment how to re-create that
tarball (svn eport URL, git clone URL, ...)
[x] If source tarball includes bundled jar/class files these need to be
removed prior to building
[x] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
[x] Jar files are installed to %{_javadir}/%{name}.jar (see [6] for details)
[x] If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even when
building with ant
[!] pom files has correct add_maven_depmap
=== Maven ===
[x] Use %{_mavenpomdir} macro for placing pom files instead of
%{_datadir}/maven2/poms
[x] If package uses -Dmaven.test.skip=true explain why it was needed in a
comment
[-] If package uses custom depmap -Dmaven.local.depmap.file=* explain why
it's needed in a comment
[x] Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun
[x] Packages DOES NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on
jpackage-utils for %update_maven_depmap macro
=== Other suggestions ===
[x] If possible use upstream build method (maven/ant/javac)
[x] Avoid having BuildRequires on exact NVR unless necessary
[x] Package has BuildArch: noarch (if possible)
[x] Latest version is packaged.
Problems:
1. Missing license for javadoc
2. Use the new add_maven_depmap macro
%add_to_maven_depmap net.sf.jopt-simple %{name} %{version} JPP %{name} should
become
%add_maven_depmap JPP-%{name}.pom %{name}.jar
A lot easier and readable, isn't it ?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 713990] Review Request: bzr-fastimport - Bzr plugin for fast loading of data from other VCS 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=713990 --- Comment #2 from Dan Callaghan dcall...@redhat.com 2011-08-10 03:59:36 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1) Spec and SRPM updated: http://fedorapeople.org/~dcallagh/bzr-fastimport/bzr-fastimport.spec http://repos.fedorapeople.org/repos/dcallagh/bzr-fastimport/fedora-15/SRPMS/bzr-fastimport-0.10.0-2.fc15.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 713990] Review Request: bzr-fastimport - Bzr plugin for fast loading of data from other VCS 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=713990 Dan Callaghan dcall...@redhat.com 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 727664] Review Request: florist - Open-source implementation of IEEE Standard 1003.5b-1996
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727664 --- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2011-08-10 05:37:16 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 693037] Review Request: perl-Test-HasVersion - Check Perl modules have version numbers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=693037 --- Comment #17 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2011-08-10 05:36:39 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 693037] Review Request: perl-Test-HasVersion - Check Perl modules have version numbers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=693037 --- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-08-10 06:20:02 EDT --- perl-Test-HasVersion-0.012-3.el4 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 4. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Test-HasVersion-0.012-3.el4 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 693037] Review Request: perl-Test-HasVersion - Check Perl modules have version numbers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=693037 --- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-08-10 06:19:44 EDT --- perl-Test-HasVersion-0.012-3.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Test-HasVersion-0.012-3.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 693037] Review Request: perl-Test-HasVersion - Check Perl modules have version numbers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=693037 --- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-08-10 06:19:54 EDT --- perl-Test-HasVersion-0.012-2.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Test-HasVersion-0.012-2.el6 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 693037] Review Request: perl-Test-HasVersion - Check Perl modules have version numbers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=693037 --- Comment #21 from Paul Howarth p...@city-fan.org 2011-08-10 06:23:07 EDT --- Thanks Iain. Builds are done - can you add buildroot overrides for them with no expiry so the builds stay in the buildroot until the updates are pushed to stable? I can't do it myself as I believe buildroot overrides can only be submitted by people with commit access for the devel branch. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 463764] Package review: perl-Module-Manifest
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=463764 --- Comment #12 from Paul Howarth p...@city-fan.org 2011-08-10 06:26:27 EDT --- Hi Marcela, the EPEL builds are all done; can you add buildroot overrides for them in bodhi with no expire date please (they should expire automatically when the updates are pushed to stable I believe). I can't do it myself as I don't have commit access to the devel branch. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 463764] Package review: perl-Module-Manifest
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=463764 --- Comment #13 from Marcela Mašláňová mmasl...@redhat.com 2011-08-10 06:40:59 EDT --- Done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 693037] Review Request: perl-Test-HasVersion - Check Perl modules have version numbers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=693037 --- Comment #22 from Iain Arnell iarn...@gmail.com 2011-08-10 07:03:12 EDT --- Yeah, bodhi ticket 620. Overrides are in place 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 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 Guillermo Gómez guillermo.go...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||guillermo.go...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Guillermo Gómez guillermo.go...@gmail.com 2011-08-10 07:18:35 EDT --- I would like to review and get rails2.3.x in Fedora, could you please make SRPMS/SPEC downloadbles name (as the first click in the browser) be the same as the the actual filenames? Also remember to include rpmlint output in your review 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 529441] Review Request: pdfbox - Java PDF 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=529441 Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|akurt...@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 529441] Review Request: pdfbox - Java PDF 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=529441 Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED 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 529441] Review Request: pdfbox - Java PDF 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=529441 --- Comment #17 from Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com 2011-08-10 07:57:53 EDT --- Comments: * please update to 1.6.0 * if we don't need the depmap anymore drop it or fix the comment * ant-nodeps is merged into ant please BR ant * please use the new name apache-commons-logging not jakarta-commons-logging * buildroot definition is not needed * post/postun %update_maven_depmap are no longer needed * rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT as install first line and the clean section are no longer needed * please use the new %add_maven_depmap JPPpom ...jar instead of the old %add_to_maven_depmap * %defattr(-,root,root,-) are no longer needed * installing NOTICE.txt README.txt RELEASE-NOTES.txt in main package only should be enough * I see downloadfile: [mkdir] Created dir: /home/akurtakov/work/rpmeditor-demo/pdfbox/pdfbox-1.5.0/pdfbox/download [get] Getting: http://repo2.maven.org/maven2/com/adobe/pdf/pcfi/2010.08.09/pcfi-2010.08.09.jar [get] To: /home/akurtakov/work/rpmeditor-demo/pdfbox/pdfbox-1.5.0/pdfbox/download/pcfi-2010.08.09.jar in the build log please either patch it out to not be downloaded or stop it in some other way if not needed or whatever solution is best -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 727541] Review Request: comoonics-base-py - base libs for comoonics-cdsl-py and comoonics-cluster-py
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727541 --- Comment #7 from Nils Philippsen nphil...@redhat.com 2011-08-10 08:16:01 EDT --- Marc, as Fedora 16 is already branched away from Rawhide -- http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/Branched -- you need to request an F-16 branch for this package, then build and issue an update (of type newpackage) to get the package back in for all Fedora versions. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 728662] Review Request: python-pylibmc - Memcached client for Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=728662 --- Comment #6 from Praveen Kumar kumarpraveen.nit...@gmail.com 2011-08-10 08:22:58 EDT --- Ah sorry I have only 32 bit system so didn't see it but now fixed. Thanks for suggestion Spec URL: http://kumarpraveen.fedorapeople.org/pylibmc/python-pylibmc.spec SRPM URL: http://kumarpraveen.fedorapeople.org/pylibmc/python-pylibmc-1.2.0-3.20110805gitf01c31.fc15.src.rpm koji build : http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3263828 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 728256] Review Request: rubygem-activesupport2.3 - 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=728256 Guillermo Gómez guillermo.go...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||guillermo.go...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|guillermo.go...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Guillermo Gómez guillermo.go...@gmail.com 2011-08-10 08:30:58 EDT --- According my deps this the first pkg to review, i will take it and find sponshorship for u if possible. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 672543] Review Request: perl-Test-DistManifest - Author test that validates a package MANIFEST
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=672543 --- Comment #8 from Paul Howarth p...@city-fan.org 2011-08-10 08:31:14 EDT --- Created attachment 517591 -- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=517591 Changes for EPEL 4/5 compatibility Attached patch updates the package to be fully EPEL 4/5/6 compatible. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 675557] Review Request: matreshka - set of Ada libraries to help to develop information systems
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=675557 --- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-08-10 08:45:48 EDT --- florist-2011-6.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/florist-2011-6.fc16 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 675557] Review Request: matreshka - set of Ada libraries to help to develop information systems
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=675557 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 727664] Review Request: florist - Open-source implementation of IEEE Standard 1003.5b-1996
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727664 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 727664] Review Request: florist - Open-source implementation of IEEE Standard 1003.5b-1996
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727664 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-08-10 08:49:42 EDT --- florist-2011-6.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/florist-2011-6.fc16 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 675557] Review Request: matreshka - set of Ada libraries to help to develop information systems
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=675557 Pavel Zhukov pa...@zhukoff.net changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ASSIGNED --- Comment #21 from Pavel Zhukov pa...@zhukoff.net 2011-08-10 08:52:12 EDT --- I'm sorry for this confusion. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 727664] Review Request: florist - Open-source implementation of IEEE Standard 1003.5b-1996
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727664 Pavel Zhukov pa...@zhukoff.net changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2011-08-10 08:53:16 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 728662] Review Request: python-pylibmc - Memcached client for Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=728662 Ankur Sinha sanjay.an...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #7 from Ankur Sinha sanjay.an...@gmail.com 2011-08-10 09:00:12 EDT --- Hello, Issues are fixed. This package is XXX APPROVED XXX Please build it and we can jump to the django-pylibmc review :D Thanks, Ankur -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 729649] New: Review Request: perl-DateTime-Format-XSD - Format DateTime according to xsd:dateTime
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: perl-DateTime-Format-XSD - Format DateTime according to xsd:dateTime https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=729649 Summary: Review Request: perl-DateTime-Format-XSD - Format DateTime according to xsd:dateTime Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: steve.tray...@cern.ch QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Spec URL: http://cern.ch/straylen/rpms/perl-DateTime-Format-XSD/perl-DateTime-Format-XSD.spec SRPM URL: http://cern.ch/straylen/rpms/perl-DateTime-Format-XSD/perl-DateTime-Format-XSD-0.2-1.fc15.src.rpm Description: XML Schema defines a usage profile which is a subset of the ISO8601 profile. This profile defines that the following is the only possible representation for a dateTime, despite all other options ISO provides. F16 Scratch: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3263868 rpmlint is clean. (Note to self, this is not required for review but bug #729644 to be resolved before EPEL can be done.) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 --- Comment #2 from Emanuel Rietveld codehot...@gmail.com 2011-08-10 09:10:03 EDT --- Thank you Guillermo Gómez, I am sorry, I do not know how to configure git web to offer to save the files as the actual filenames. I will look into it. Meanwhile, here for your copy and pasting convenience: curl -o rubygem-actionmailer2.3.spec http://xls01.freecult.org/pkg/?p=pkg.git;a=blob_plain;f=SPECS/rubygem-actionmailer2.3.spec;hb=refs/heads/rails23; curl -o rubygem-actionmailer2.3.12-1.fc15.src.rpm 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; Current rpmlint output: Many warnings, most of which were present in the original package 2.3.8 in F14. A few new ones include wrong-end-of-line warnings. I'm wary of fixing these because of the comment in actionpack2.3.spec from mmorsi: he tried to fix it and something broke. I'm not sure if it's a good idea to try to fix it. The files are not text files, anyway; they are ri files: binary documentation files like a libreoffice writer document. $ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-15-x86_64/result/*.rpm rubygem-actionmailer2.3.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/actionmailer-2.3.12/ri/TMail/Mail/multipart%3f-i.ri %3f rubygem-actionmailer2.3.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/actionmailer-2.3.12/ri/Text/Format/split_rules-i.ri rubygem-actionmailer2.3.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/actionmailer-2.3.12/ri/TMail/ContentDispositionHeader/disposition%3d-i.ri %3d rubygem-actionmailer2.3.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/actionmailer-2.3.12/ri/TMail/MailFlags/flagged%3f-i.ri %3f rubygem-actionmailer2.3.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/actionmailer-2.3.12/ri/ActionMailer/Base/deliver%21-i.ri %21 rubygem-actionmailer2.3.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/actionmailer-2.3.12/ri/TMail/Mail/disposition_is_attachment%3f-i.ri %3f rubygem-actionmailer2.3.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/actionmailer-2.3.12/ri/Text/Format/format_style-i.ri rubygem-actionmailer2.3.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/actionmailer-2.3.12/ri/TMail/Mail/reply_to_addrs%3d-i.ri %3d rubygem-actionmailer2.3.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/actionmailer-2.3.12/ri/Text/Format/justify%3f-i.ri %3f rubygem-actionmailer2.3.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/actionmailer-2.3.12/ri/TMail/Mail/enforced_message_id%3d-i.ri %3d rubygem-actionmailer2.3.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/actionmailer-2.3.12/ri/TMail/AddressGroup/%3d%3d-i.ri %3d rubygem-actionmailer2.3.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/actionmailer-2.3.12/ri/TMail/AddressGroup/%3d%3d-i.ri %3d rubygem-actionmailer2.3.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/actionmailer-2.3.12/ri/TMail/HeaderField/illegal%3f-i.ri %3f rubygem-actionmailer2.3.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/actionmailer-2.3.12/ri/TMail/Attachment/quoted%3f-i.ri %3f rubygem-actionmailer2.3.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/actionmailer-2.3.12/ri/TMail/Mail/has_attachments%3f-i.ri %3f rubygem-actionmailer2.3.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/actionmailer-2.3.12/ri/TMail/UnstructuredHeader/body%3d-i.ri %3d rubygem-actionmailer2.3.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/actionmailer-2.3.12/ri/TMail/ReceivedHeader/date%3d-i.ri %3d rubygem-actionmailer2.3.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/actionmailer-2.3.12/ri/TMail/Mail/from%3d-i.ri %3d rubygem-actionmailer2.3.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/actionmailer-2.3.12/ri/TMail/EncryptedHeader/encrypter%3d-i.ri %3d rubygem-actionmailer2.3.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/actionmailer-2.3.12/ri/Text/Format/first_indent%3d-i.ri %3d rubygem-actionmailer2.3.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/actionmailer-2.3.12/ri/TMail/Mail/transfer_encoding%3d-i.ri %3d rubygem-actionmailer2.3.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/actionmailer-2.3.12/ri/TMail/Mail/message_id%3d-i.ri %3d rubygem-actionmailer2.3.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/actionmailer-2.3.12/ri/TMail/Mail/bcc_addrs%3d-i.ri %3d rubygem-actionmailer2.3.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/actionmailer-2.3.12/ri/TMail/AddressGroup/empty%3f-i.ri %3f rubygem-actionmailer2.3.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/actionmailer-2.3.12/ri/TMail/MailFlags/replied%3f-i.ri %3f rubygem-actionmailer2.3.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/actionmailer-2.3.12/ri/TMail/Mail/reply_to%3d-i.ri %3d rubygem-actionmailer2.3.noarch: W:
[Bug 729651] New: Review Request: nafees-naskh-fonts - Nafees naskh font for writing Urdu in the Naskh script with full aerab support
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: nafees-naskh-fonts - Nafees naskh font for writing Urdu in the Naskh script with full aerab support https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=729651 Summary: Review Request: nafees-naskh-fonts - Nafees naskh font for writing Urdu in the Naskh script with full aerab support Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: Unspecified OS/Version: Unspecified Status: NEW Severity: unspecified Priority: unspecified Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: psatp...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- SPEC URL: http://pravins.fedorapeople.org/nafees-naskh-fonts.spec SRPM URL : http://pravins.fedorapeople.org/nafees-naskh-fonts-2.01-1.fc15.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 728662] Review Request: python-pylibmc - Memcached client for Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=728662 --- Comment #8 from Praveen Kumar kumarpraveen.nit...@gmail.com 2011-08-10 09:16:24 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-pylibmc Short Description: Memcached client for Python Owners: sundaram pjp kumarpraveen Branches: el6 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 704239] Review Request: python-yolk - Command-line tool querying PyPI and Python packages installed on your 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=704239 --- Comment #13 from Pierre-YvesChibon pin...@pingoured.fr 2011-08-10 09:16:15 EDT --- ping ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 728662] Review Request: python-pylibmc - Memcached client for Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=728662 --- Comment #9 from Praveen Kumar kumarpraveen.nit...@gmail.com 2011-08-10 09:19:41 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-pylibmc Short Description: Memcached client for Python Owners: sundaram pjp kumarpraveen Branches: f14 f15 el6 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 729651] Review Request: nafees-naskh-fonts - Nafees naskh font for writing Urdu in the Naskh script with full aerab support
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=729651 Pravin Satpute psatp...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||i18n-bugs@lists.fedoraproje ||ct.org, panem...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 728662] Review Request: python-pylibmc - Memcached client for Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=728662 Praveen Kumar kumarpraveen.nit...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 729653] Review Request: perl-Pod-Wordlist-hanekomu - Add words for spell checking POD
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=729653 Paul Howarth p...@city-fan.org changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||672543 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 672543] Review Request: perl-Test-DistManifest - Author test that validates a package MANIFEST
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=672543 Paul Howarth p...@city-fan.org changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||729653 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 729653] New: Review Request: perl-Pod-Wordlist-hanekomu - Add words for spell checking POD
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: perl-Pod-Wordlist-hanekomu - Add words for spell checking POD https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=729653 Summary: Review Request: perl-Pod-Wordlist-hanekomu - Add words for spell checking POD Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: p...@city-fan.org QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Spec URL: http://subversion.city-fan.org/repos/cfo-repo/perl-Pod-Wordlist-hanekomu/branches/fedora/perl-Pod-Wordlist-hanekomu.spec SRPM URL: http://www.city-fan.org/~paul/extras/perl-Pod-Wordlist-hanekomu/perl-Pod-Wordlist-hanekomu-1.110090-3.fc17.src.rpm perl-Pod-Wordlist-hanekomu Description: This module, when loaded, adds stopwords for POD spell checking, that is, words that should be ignored by the spell check. Some of the dependencies for this package (Test::HasVersion, Test::Vars, Module::Manifest) are currently working their way through QA but are present as buildroot overrides in koji already. I'm still waiting on perl-Test-DistManifest to be branched and built for older releases (Bug #672543). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 728757] Review Request: gnumed - The gnumed client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=728757
--- Comment #3 from Miroslav Lichvar mlich...@redhat.com 2011-08-10 09:38:50
EDT ---
Review follows.
MUST items:
- rpmlint output is ok
gnumed.noarch: W: name-repeated-in-summary C gnumed
gnumed.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sebastian - Sebastian
gnumed.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hilbert - Hilbert,
filbert, Dilbert
gnumed.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gmx - gm, gm x
gnumed.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US karsten - Kirsten
gnumed.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/share/doc/gnumed-0.9.9/GnuPublicLicense.txt
gnumed.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary C gnumed
gnumed.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US wxpython - python, Python
gnumed.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sebastian - Sebastian
gnumed.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hilbert - Hilbert,
filbert, Dilbert
gnumed.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gmx - gm, gm x
gnumed.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US karsten - Kirsten
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 11 warnings.
Please ask upstream to update the FSF address and consider expanding the
summary a bit. Not blockers.
- package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
- the spec file name matches the base package %{name}
? the package meets the Packaging Guidelines
- some Requires seem odd, are aspell, file, mx, kdepim, texlive really
needed?
- is there a point in installing man pages for binaries that are not
packaged?
? the license is GPL, but the version is unclear. The sources only mention GPL.
Please ask upstream to add a README file to clarify under which GPL version
it's licensed or include an email with their response, as stated in the Fedora
Licensing Guidelines.
- the package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines (GPLv?)
? the License field in the package spec file may not match the actual license
(unknown yet)
- file containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in
%doc
- the spec file is written in American English
- the spec file for the package is legible
- I'd suggest to wrap the installation of locales in a for loop
- the source used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL
ec0abfd95dcf8b5cfbca5368dcfcc99d gnumed-client.0.9.9.tgz
- the package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
primary architecture (x86_64)
- all build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are
listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines
- the spec file handles locales properly
- the package doesn't bundle copies of system libraries
- the package owns all directories that it creates or depends on packages that
provide them
- the package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files
listings
- permissions on files are set properly
- the package consistently uses macros
- the package contains code, or permissable content
- all filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8
SHOULD items:
- the package builds in mock
- the package contains man pages for binaries/scripts
- I've not tested whether the package functions as described
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 692069] Review Request: pps-tools - LinuxPPS user-space 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=692069 --- Comment #5 from Miroslav Lichvar mlich...@redhat.com 2011-08-10 09:42:59 EDT --- I think relative symlinks are preferred for this. Thanks for the review! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 692069] Review Request: pps-tools - LinuxPPS user-space 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=692069 Miroslav Lichvar mlich...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Miroslav Lichvar mlich...@redhat.com 2011-08-10 09:45:44 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: pps-tools Short Description: LinuxPPS user-space tools Owners: mlichvar Branches: f15 f16 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 729666] New: Review Request: nafees-nastaleeq-fonts - Nafees nastaleeq font for writing Urdu in the Nastaleeq script
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: nafees-nastaleeq-fonts - Nafees nastaleeq font for writing Urdu in the Nastaleeq script https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=729666 Summary: Review Request: nafees-nastaleeq-fonts - Nafees nastaleeq font for writing Urdu in the Nastaleeq script Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: Unspecified OS/Version: Unspecified Status: NEW Severity: unspecified Priority: unspecified Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: psatp...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- SPEC URL: http://pravins.fedorapeople.org/nafees-nastaleeq-fonts.spec SRPM URL : http://pravins.fedorapeople.org/nafees-nastaleeq-fonts-1.02-1.fc15.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 729666] Review Request: nafees-nastaleeq-fonts - Nafees nastaleeq font for writing Urdu in the Nastaleeq script
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=729666 Pravin Satpute psatp...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||i18n-bugs@lists.fedoraproje ||ct.org, panem...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 729669] Review Request: nafees-tehreer-naskh-fonts - Nafees tehreer naskh font for writing Urdu in the naskh script
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=729669 Pravin Satpute psatp...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||i18n-bugs@lists.fedoraproje ||ct.org, panem...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 729669] New: Review Request: nafees-tehreer-naskh-fonts - Nafees tehreer naskh font for writing Urdu in the naskh script
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: nafees-tehreer-naskh-fonts - Nafees tehreer naskh font for writing Urdu in the naskh script https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=729669 Summary: Review Request: nafees-tehreer-naskh-fonts - Nafees tehreer naskh font for writing Urdu in the naskh script Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: Unspecified OS/Version: Unspecified Status: NEW Severity: unspecified Priority: unspecified Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: psatp...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- SPEC URL: http://pravins.fedorapeople.org/nafees-tehreer-naskh-fonts.spec SRPM URL : http://pravins.fedorapeople.org/nafees-tehreer-naskh-fonts-1.0-1.fc15.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 729671] New: Review Request: nafees-riqa-fonts - Nafees riqa font for writing Urdu in the Riqa script
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: nafees-riqa-fonts - Nafees riqa font for writing Urdu in the Riqa script https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=729671 Summary: Review Request: nafees-riqa-fonts - Nafees riqa font for writing Urdu in the Riqa script Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: Unspecified OS/Version: Unspecified Status: NEW Severity: unspecified Priority: unspecified Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: psatp...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- SPEC URL: http://pravins.fedorapeople.org/nafees-riqa-fonts.spec SRPM URL : http://pravins.fedorapeople.org/nafees-riqa-fonts-1.0-1.fc15.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 728256] Review Request: rubygem-activesupport2.3 - 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=728256 --- Comment #2 from Emanuel Rietveld codehot...@gmail.com 2011-08-10 09:58:57 EDT --- Created attachment 517615 -- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=517615 rpmlint output Pushed new package to replace incorrect Rakefile version in .src.rpm. Full rpmlint output (233 warnings) attached. There are many warnings related to 'unexpanded macro' which are actually escaped characters, like %3f, in the filenames of the ri documentation. The previous version of the package, activesupport-2.3.8 in F14, had these warnings as well. $ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-15-x86_64/result/*.rpm | grep -v unexpanded-macro rubygem-activesupport2.3.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/activesupport-2.3.12/ri/MemCache/failover-i.ri rubygem-activesupport2.3.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/activesupport-2.3.12/ri/MemCache/namespace-i.ri rubygem-activesupport2.3.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/activesupport-2.3.12/ri/TZInfo/TimezonePeriod/end_transition-i.ri rubygem-activesupport2.3.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/activesupport-2.3.12/ri/MemCache/logger-i.ri rubygem-activesupport2.3.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/activesupport-2.3.12/ri/MemCache/timeout-i.ri rubygem-activesupport2.3.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/activesupport-2.3.12/ri/MemCache/Server/host-i.ri rubygem-activesupport2.3.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/activesupport-2.3.12/ri/MemCache/Server/retry-i.ri rubygem-activesupport2.3.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/activesupport-2.3.12/ri/MemCache/no_reply-i.ri rubygem-activesupport2.3.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/activesupport-2.3.12/ri/MemCache/Server/port-i.ri rubygem-activesupport2.3.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/activesupport-2.3.12/ri/MemCache/multithread-i.ri rubygem-activesupport2.3.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/activesupport-2.3.12/ri/MemCache/Server/weight-i.ri rubygem-activesupport2.3.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/activesupport-2.3.12/ri/cache.ri rubygem-activesupport2.3.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/activesupport-2.3.12/ri/MemCache/Server/status-i.ri rubygem-activesupport2.3.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/activesupport-2.3.12/ri/TZInfo/TimezonePeriod/offset-i.ri rubygem-activesupport2.3.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/activesupport-2.3.12/ri/TZInfo/TimezonePeriod/start_transition-i.ri rubygem-activesupport2.3.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/activesupport-2.3.12/ri/MemCache/servers-i.ri rubygem-activesupport2.3.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/activesupport-2.3.12/ri/ActiveSupport/CoreExtensions/Numeric/Time/since-i.ri rubygem-activesupport2.3.src: W: invalid-url Source2: activesupport-23-tests.tgz rubygem-activesupport2.3.src: W: file-size-mismatch Rakefile = 5371, https://raw.github.com/rails/rails/v2.3.12/activesupport/Rakefile = 1 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 233 warnings. If ignoring the unexpanded-macro warnings of the ri documentation, there are several warnings left. First a list of 'wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding'. I am reluctant to fix these, because stripping \r from actionpack files has been known to break rails before - see comment of mmorsi in that spec file. Besides, the files are not plain text files, but binary documentation files. It is unclear what the effect of stripping \r characters out of a binary file will be. Of course, I am open to a difference of opinion. Next one, invalid-url, is to be expected. For some reason the tests are not packaged in the upstream source gem, so the activesupport-23-tests.tgz source is created from git. The procedure for reproducing activesupport-23-tests.tgz is documented in the spec file. Finally, however, I do not understand the file-size-mismatch at all. curl -O https://raw.github.com/rails/rails/v2.3.12/activesupport/Rakefile results in a file with size of 5371 which is in every respect identical to the file in the source rpm. What is rpmlint complaining about here? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 729671] Review Request: nafees-riqa-fonts - Nafees riqa font for writing Urdu in the Riqa script
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=729671 Pravin Satpute psatp...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||i18n-bugs@lists.fedoraproje ||ct.org, panem...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 675587] Review Request: pytest - Simple powerful testing with Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=675587
Pierre-YvesChibon pin...@pingoured.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|pin...@pingoured.fr
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Comment #10 from Pierre-YvesChibon pin...@pingoured.fr 2011-08-10
10:06:45 EDT ---
[X] rpmlint must be run on every package.
pytest.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US py - pt, p, y
pytest.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US py - pt, p, y
pytest.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary py.test-2.7
pytest.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary py.test
python3-pytest.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US py -
pt, p, y
[ ... bunch a rpmlint error related to python3 as discussed in
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=675588]
python3-pytest.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary py.test-3.2
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 64 errors, 6 warnings.
[X] The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[X] The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
[X] The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[X] The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines.
[X] The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
License is MIT
[X] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for
the package must be included in %doc.
[X] The spec file must be written in American English.
[X] The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[X] The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
source from the src.rpm: d9593ccb603a246918ee651cd7d71fdfd7fbfc33
rpmbuild/SOURCES/pytest-2.1.0.zip
source from upstream:d9593ccb603a246918ee651cd7d71fdfd7fbfc33
Downloads/pytest-2.1.0.zip
[X] The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture.
Built on Fedora 15 x86_64
- Some of the tests are currently failing, I believe you have seen it.
[NA] If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch.
[X] All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional.
[NA] The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
[NA] Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library
files(not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths,
must call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[X] Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[X] If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker.
[X] A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create
a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
create that directory.
[X] A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings.
[X] Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with
executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
%defattr(...) line.
[X] Each package must consistently use macros.
[X] The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[NA] Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
[X] If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime
of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run
properly if it is not present.
[NA] Header files must be in a -devel package.
[NA] Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[NA] If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1),
then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel
package.
[NA] In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release}.
[NA] Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed
in the
[Bug 729674] Review Request: nafees-pakistani-naskh-fonts - Nafees pakistani naskh font for writing Urdu in the Naskh script
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=729674 Pravin Satpute psatp...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||i18n-bugs@lists.fedoraproje ||ct.org, panem...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 729674] New: Review Request: nafees-pakistani-naskh-fonts - Nafees pakistani naskh font for writing Urdu in the Naskh script
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: nafees-pakistani-naskh-fonts - Nafees pakistani naskh font for writing Urdu in the Naskh script https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=729674 Summary: Review Request: nafees-pakistani-naskh-fonts - Nafees pakistani naskh font for writing Urdu in the Naskh script Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: Unspecified OS/Version: Unspecified Status: NEW Severity: unspecified Priority: unspecified Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: psatp...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- SPEC URL: http://pravins.fedorapeople.org/nafees-pakistani-naskh-fonts.spec SRPM URL : http://pravins.fedorapeople.org/nafees-pakistani-naskh-fonts-2.01-1.fc15.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 729681] New: Review Request: maven-reporting-exec - classes managing report plugin execution
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: maven-reporting-exec - classes managing report plugin execution https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=729681 Summary: Review Request: maven-reporting-exec - classes managing report plugin execution Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: tra...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Spec URL: http://tradej.fedorapeople.org/maven-reporting-exec.spec SRPM URL: http://tradej.fedorapeople.org/maven-reporting-exec-1.0.1-1.src.rpm Description: Classes to manage report plugin executions with Maven 3. Contains classes for managing and configuring reports and their execution. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 729681] Review Request: maven-reporting-exec - classes managing report plugin execution
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=729681 Tomas Radej tra...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||652183(FE-JAVASIG) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 705372] Review Request: perl-Unicode-LineBreak - UAX #14 Unicode Line Breaking Algorithm
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=705372 Emmanuel Seyman emmanuel.sey...@club-internet.fr changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo? --- Comment #6 from Emmanuel Seyman emmanuel.sey...@club-internet.fr 2011-08-10 10:22:03 EDT --- (In reply to comment #5) I can't seem to get rid off of the useless-provides perl(Unicode::LineBreak). After running /usr/lib/rpm/rpmdeps -P by hand on the buildroot (kids, don't try this at home, I am a trained professional), I've noted that both Unicode/LineBreak/Constants.pm and Unicode/LineBreak/Defaults.pm.sample provide perl(Unicode::LineBreak). It turns out that both files start with the line package Unicode::LineBreak;. Xavier, you need to patch the code so that : * Unicode/LineBreak/Constants.pm provides perl(Unicode::LineBreak::Constants) * Unicode/LineBreak/Defaults.pm.sample provides perl(Unicode::LineBreak::Defaults) You then need to filter that last one out since your package doesn't actually provide it. a new package with better filtering anyway : http://www.bachelot.org/fedora/SPECS/perl-Unicode-LineBreak.spec Huh ? We're talking about provides and this spec file filters requires. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 672543] Review Request: perl-Test-DistManifest - Author test that validates a package MANIFEST
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=672543 Marcela Mašláňová mmasl...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #9 from Marcela Mašláňová mmasl...@redhat.com 2011-08-10 10:32:44 EDT --- Package Change Request == Package Name: perl-Test-DistManifest New Branches: el4 el5 el6 Owners: pghmcfc InitialCC: perl-sig [As a commaintainer of this package I opened git request. ] -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 672543] Review Request: perl-Test-DistManifest - Author test that validates a package MANIFEST
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=672543 --- Comment #10 from Paul Howarth p...@city-fan.org 2011-08-10 10:35:18 EDT --- Thanks Marcela. Could you also request branches for F-14 and F-15 please? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 675588] Review Request: pycmd - Tools for managing/searching Python related files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=675588 Pierre-YvesChibon pin...@pingoured.fr changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|pin...@pingoured.fr 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 714328] Review Request: xmedcon - A medical image conversion utility and 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=714328 Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #13 from Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com 2011-08-10 10:47:28 EDT --- Nice work. 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 675587] Review Request: pytest - Simple powerful testing with Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=675587 Thomas Moschny thomas.mosc...@gmx.de changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #11 from Thomas Moschny thomas.mosc...@gmx.de 2011-08-10 10:48:15 EDT --- Many thanks to pingou for the final review, and tflink for his comments! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: pytest Short Description: Simple powerful testing with Python Owners: thm Branches: f16 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 705372] Review Request: perl-Unicode-LineBreak - UAX #14 Unicode Line Breaking Algorithm
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=705372 Xavier Bachelot xav...@bachelot.org changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|needinfo? | --- Comment #7 from Xavier Bachelot xav...@bachelot.org 2011-08-10 10:46:19 EDT --- (In reply to comment #6) (In reply to comment #5) I can't seem to get rid off of the useless-provides perl(Unicode::LineBreak). After running /usr/lib/rpm/rpmdeps -P by hand on the buildroot (kids, don't try this at home, I am a trained professional), I've noted that both Unicode/LineBreak/Constants.pm and Unicode/LineBreak/Defaults.pm.sample provide perl(Unicode::LineBreak). It turns out that both files start with the line package Unicode::LineBreak;. Great trick, I didn't know about it. Thanks :-) Xavier, you need to patch the code so that : * Unicode/LineBreak/Constants.pm provides perl(Unicode::LineBreak::Constants) * Unicode/LineBreak/Defaults.pm.sample provides perl(Unicode::LineBreak::Defaults) You then need to filter that last one out since your package doesn't actually provide it. Will do, thanks for the help. a new package with better filtering anyway : http://www.bachelot.org/fedora/SPECS/perl-Unicode-LineBreak.spec Huh ? We're talking about provides and this spec file filters requires. I was talking about the fedora and epel 6 filtering, but you're right the epel 5 filtering is most probably broken. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 672543] Review Request: perl-Test-DistManifest - Author test that validates a package MANIFEST
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=672543 --- Comment #11 from Marcela Mašláňová mmasl...@redhat.com 2011-08-10 10:50:09 EDT --- Package Change Request == Package Name: perl-Test-DistManifest New Branches: f14 f15 Owners: pghmcfc mmaslano psabata ppisar InitialCC: perl-sig [I'd like f14 and f15 with these maintainers, el5 and el6 will be just pghmcfc.] -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 704544] Review Request: perl-Dancer - Lightweight yet powerful web application 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=704544 Marcela Mašláňová mmasl...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||729504 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 704544] Review Request: perl-Dancer - Lightweight yet powerful web application 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=704544 Marcela Mašláňová mmasl...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Marcela Mašláňová mmasl...@redhat.com 2011-08-10 10:55:53 EDT --- Package Change Request == Package Name: perl-Dancer New Branches: f15 el6 Owners: mmaslano psabata ppisar jpo InitialCC: perl-sig [Request from jpo in #729504] -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 714328] Review Request: xmedcon - A medical image conversion utility and 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=714328 Ankur Sinha sanjay.an...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #14 from Ankur Sinha sanjay.an...@gmail.com 2011-08-10 10:57:30 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: xmedcon Short Description: A medical image conversion utility and library Owners: ankursinha Branches: f14 f15 f16 InitialCC: susmit mrceresa -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 675588] Review Request: pycmd - Tools for managing/searching Python related files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=675588
Pierre-YvesChibon pin...@pingoured.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review?, |fedora-review+
|needinfo?(nobody@fedoraproj |
|ect.org)|
--- Comment #11 from Pierre-YvesChibon pin...@pingoured.fr 2011-08-10
10:57:18 EDT ---
[X] rpmlint must be run on every package.
pycmd.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary py.svnwcrevert-2.7
pycmd.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary py.countloc
pycmd.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary py.lookup-2.7
pycmd.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary py.convert_unittest-2.7
pycmd.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary py.lookup
pycmd.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary py.countloc-2.7
pycmd.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary py.which
pycmd.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary py.cleanup-2.7
pycmd.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary py.which-2.7
pycmd.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary py.cleanup
pycmd.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary py.svnwcrevert
pycmd.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary py.convert_unittest
[... bunch of python3 related error as discussed on this bug]
python3-pycmd.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary py.convert_unittest-3.2
python3-pycmd.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary py.lookup-3.2
python3-pycmd.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary py.svnwcrevert-3.2
python3-pycmd.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary py.countloc-3.2
python3-pycmd.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary py.cleanup-3.2
python3-pycmd.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary py.which-3.2
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 14 errors, 18 warnings.
[X] The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[X] The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
[X] The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[X] The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines.
[X] The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
License is MIT
[X] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for
the package must be included in %doc.
[X] The spec file must be written in American English.
[X] The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[X] The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
source from the src.rpm: a8cd93030e4cea9f4c5fe5da555ce8ae56d03165
rpmbuild/SOURCES/pycmd-1.0.zip
source from upstream:a8cd93030e4cea9f4c5fe5da555ce8ae56d03165
Downloads/pycmd-1.0.zip
[X] The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture.
Built successfully on F15 x86_64 but fails on koji due to the dependency on
python-py
[NA] If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch.
[X] All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional.
[NA] The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
[NA] Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library
files(not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths,
must call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[X] Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[X] If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker.
[X] A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create
a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
create that directory.
[X] A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings.
[X] Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with
executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
%defattr(...) line.
[X] Each package must consistently use macros.
[X] The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[NA] Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
[X] If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime
of the
[Bug 710203] Review Request: gambas3 - IDE based on a basic interpreter with object extensions
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=710203 --- Comment #11 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2011-08-10 11:02:44 EDT --- Created attachment 517637 -- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=517637 rpmlint, phase 2, in which Doris gets her oats. Ah, much better then. Next iteration. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 672543] Review Request: perl-Test-DistManifest - Author test that validates a package MANIFEST
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=672543 --- Comment #12 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2011-08-10 11:05:09 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 675588] Review Request: pycmd - Tools for managing/searching Python related files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=675588 Thomas Moschny thomas.mosc...@gmx.de changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #12 from Thomas Moschny thomas.mosc...@gmx.de 2011-08-10 11:02:32 EDT --- Again many thanks to pingou for the final review, and tflink for his comments! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: pycmd Short Description: Tools for managing/searching Python related files Owners: thm Branches: f16 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 675587] Review Request: pytest - Simple powerful testing with Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=675587 --- Comment #12 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2011-08-10 11:05:38 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 675588] Review Request: pycmd - Tools for managing/searching Python related files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=675588 --- Comment #13 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2011-08-10 11:09:32 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 672543] Review Request: perl-Test-DistManifest - Author test that validates a package MANIFEST
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=672543 --- Comment #13 from Paul Howarth p...@city-fan.org 2011-08-10 11:11:02 EDT --- I think you'll need to ask for the EPEL branches again Marcela. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 725200] Review Request: raptor2 - RDF Parser Toolkit for Redland
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725200 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |MODIFIED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 692069] Review Request: pps-tools - LinuxPPS user-space 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=692069 --- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2011-08-10 11:09:59 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 704544] Review Request: perl-Dancer - Lightweight yet powerful web application 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=704544 --- Comment #8 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2011-08-10 11:11:31 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 714328] Review Request: xmedcon - A medical image conversion utility and 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=714328 --- Comment #15 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2011-08-10 11:13:20 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests). Please take ownership of review BZs. 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 728662] Review Request: python-pylibmc - Memcached client for Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=728662 --- Comment #10 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2011-08-10 11:13:51 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 672543] Review Request: perl-Test-DistManifest - Author test that validates a package MANIFEST
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=672543 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-08-10 11:28:50 EDT --- perl-Test-DistManifest-1.011-3.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Test-DistManifest-1.011-3.fc15 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 726210] Review Request: freewrl - X3D / VRML visualization program
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=726210 --- Comment #8 from Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com 2011-08-10 11:30:52 EDT --- Splitting out the browser plugin into its own subpackage makes sense. Not sure why I didn't do that from the beginning. New SRPM: http://spot.fedorapeople.org/freewrl-1.22.12-0.3.pre2.fc15.src.rpm New SPEC: http://spot.fedorapeople.org/freewrl.spec As to your segfault, I cannot reproduce it on my system using only FOSS drivers: [spot@pterodactyl master]$ freewrl http://cic.nist.gov/vrml/nistlogo.wrl opengl version=2.1 Mesa 7.11-devel --2011-08-10 10:50:44-- http://cic.nist.gov/vrml/nistlogo.wrl Resolving cic.nist.gov... 129.6.13.45 Connecting to cic.nist.gov|129.6.13.45|:80... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK Length: 9767 (9.5K) [model/vrml] Saving to: “/tmp/freewAyqW7D” 100%[=] 9,767 --.-K/s in 0.1s 2011-08-10 10:50:44 (65.0 KB/s) - “/tmp/freewAyqW7D” saved [9767/9767] I suspect strongly that your crash is -ENVIDIA. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 672543] Review Request: perl-Test-DistManifest - Author test that validates a package MANIFEST
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=672543 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-08-10 11:28:41 EDT --- perl-Test-DistManifest-1.011-3.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Test-DistManifest-1.011-3.fc14 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 669910] Review Request: todo.txt_cli - A simple and extensible shell script for managing your todo.txt file
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=669910
Pierre-YvesChibon pin...@pingoured.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|pin...@pingoured.fr
--- Comment #4 from Pierre-YvesChibon pin...@pingoured.fr 2011-08-10 11:39:48
EDT ---
If you are still interesting in getting this into the repo, there are my
comments
[X] rpmlint must be run on every package.
todo.txt_cli.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) todo - too, dodo, to do
todo.txt_cli.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) txt - text, ext, tit
todo.txt_cli.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US todo - too,
dodo, to do
todo.txt_cli.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US txt - text, ext,
tit
todo.txt_cli.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) todo - too, dodo, to
do
todo.txt_cli.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) txt - text, ext, tit
todo.txt_cli.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US todo - too,
dodo, to do
todo.txt_cli.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US txt - text,
ext, tit
todo.txt_cli.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary todo.sh
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings.
These warnings can be safely ignored
[X] The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[X] The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
[X] The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[X] The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines.
[X] The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
License is GPL
[NA] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for
the package must be included in %doc.
[X] The spec file must be written in American English.
[X] The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[X] The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
source from the src.rpm : f0e45040633a1fb15eae9a47733f8aed03b8f7f9
rpmbuild/SOURCES/todo.txt_cli-2.7.tar.gz
source downloaded : f0e45040633a1fb15eae9a47733f8aed03b8f7f9
Downloads/todo.txt_cli-2.7.tar.gz
[X] The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture.
Built successfully on Fedora 15 x86_64
[NA] If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch.
[NA] All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional.
[NA] The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
[NA] Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library
files(not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths,
must call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[X] Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[NA] If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker.
[NA] A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create
a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
create that directory.
[X] A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings.
[X] Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with
executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
%defattr(...) line.
[X] Each package must consistently use macros.
[X] The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[NA] Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
[X] If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime
of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run
properly if it is not present.
[NA] Header files must be in a -devel package.
[NA] Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[NA] If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1),
then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel
package.
[NA] In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
[Bug 669910] Review Request: todo.txt_cli - A simple and extensible shell script for managing your todo.txt file
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=669910 --- Comment #5 from Magnus Tuominen magnus.tuomi...@gmail.com 2011-08-10 11:58:31 EDT --- Thank you for your review. You make some good points, but sadly I have lost interest in this package and haven't used it since January nor kept up with their development. If anybody wants to pick up the slack from where I am leaving it, please feel free to do so. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 669910] Review Request: todo.txt_cli - A simple and extensible shell script for managing your todo.txt file
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=669910 Pierre-YvesChibon pin...@pingoured.fr changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||WONTFIX Last Closed||2011-08-10 12:12:23 --- Comment #6 from Pierre-YvesChibon pin...@pingoured.fr 2011-08-10 12:12:23 EDT --- Then we should close it so that other person may submit a new review-request if they wish :) Thanks for saying it. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 672543] Review Request: perl-Test-DistManifest - Author test that validates a package MANIFEST
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=672543 Paul Howarth p...@city-fan.org changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #16 from Paul Howarth p...@city-fan.org 2011-08-10 13:03:06 EDT --- Package Change Request == Package Name: perl-Test-DistManifest New Branches: el4 el5 el6 Owners: pghmcfc InitialCC: perl-sig This is a resubmission of Marcela's request from Comment #9, which was missed due to the addition of Comment #11. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 672543] Review Request: perl-Test-DistManifest - Author test that validates a package MANIFEST
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=672543 --- Comment #17 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2011-08-10 13:10:55 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 714328] Review Request: xmedcon - A medical image conversion utility and 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=714328 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 714328] Review Request: xmedcon - A medical image conversion utility and 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=714328 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-08-10 13:27:59 EDT --- xmedcon-0.10.7-4.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/xmedcon-0.10.7-4.fc14 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 714328] Review Request: xmedcon - A medical image conversion utility and 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=714328 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-08-10 13:27:51 EDT --- xmedcon-0.10.7-4.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/xmedcon-0.10.7-4.fc15 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 697680] Review Request: surf-geometry - visualizer for real algebraic geometry
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=697680 Marcus Moeller marcus.moel...@gmx.ch changed: What|Removed |Added CC||marcus.moel...@gmx.ch --- Comment #11 from Marcus Moeller marcus.moel...@gmx.ch 2011-08-10 13:29:31 EDT --- +1, really would like to see this package in 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 666726] Review Request: amide - A Medical Image Data Examiner:
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=666726 Bug 666726 depends on bug 714328, which changed state. Bug 714328 Summary: Review Request: xmedcon - A medical image conversion utility and library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=714328 What|Old Value |New Value Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED Resolution||CURRENTRELEASE Status|MODIFIED|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 714328] Review Request: xmedcon - A medical image conversion utility and 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=714328 Ankur Sinha sanjay.an...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Resolution||CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed||2011-08-10 13:49:02 --- Comment #19 from Ankur Sinha sanjay.an...@gmail.com 2011-08-10 13:49:02 EDT --- Hello, Build for f14,15,16 and rawhide. Closing. Thank you for the review spot :) Ankur -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 697680] Review Request: surf-geometry - visualizer for real algebraic geometry
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=697680 --- Comment #12 from Mario Blättermann mari...@freenet.de 2011-08-10 13:51:55 EDT --- (In reply to comment #11) +1, really would like to see this package in Fedora ;) Yes, and I could review surfer, which depends on surf-geometry... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 666726] Review Request: amide - A Medical Image Data Examiner:
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=666726 --- Comment #21 from Ankur Sinha sanjay.an...@gmail.com 2011-08-10 13:51:17 EDT --- Hello, xmedcon has been packaged in fedora. Susmit, would you continue with this package? If you don't want to, please close this ticket. I shall open a fresh ticket. Thanks, Ankur -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 672543] Review Request: perl-Test-DistManifest - Author test that validates a package MANIFEST
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=672543 --- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-08-10 14:07:02 EDT --- perl-Test-DistManifest-1.011-4.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Test-DistManifest-1.011-4.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 672543] Review Request: perl-Test-DistManifest - Author test that validates a package MANIFEST
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=672543 --- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-08-10 14:07:18 EDT --- perl-Test-DistManifest-1.011-4.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Test-DistManifest-1.011-4.el6 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
