[Bug 737574] Review Request: lis - A library for solving linear equations and eigenvalue problems
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=737574 Golo Fuchert packa...@golotop.de changed: What|Removed |Added CC||packa...@golotop.de AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|packa...@golotop.de -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 739367] New: Review Request: php-pecl-mysqlnd-qc - A query cache plugin for mysqlnd
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: php-pecl-mysqlnd-qc - A query cache plugin for mysqlnd https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=739367 Summary: Review Request: php-pecl-mysqlnd-qc - A query cache plugin for mysqlnd Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: fed...@famillecollet.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Spec URL: https://raw.github.com/remicollet/remirepo/master/php-pecl-mysqlnd-qc/php-pecl-mysqlnd-qc.spec SRPM URL: http://rpms.famillecollet.com/SRPMS/php-pecl-mysqlnd-qc-1.0.1-1.remi.src.rpm Description: The mysqlnd query result cache plugin is a mysqlnd plugin. It adds basic client side result set caching to all PHP MySQL extensions (ext/mysql, ext/mysqli, PDO_MySQL). if they are compiled to use mysqlnd. It does not change the API of the MySQL extensions and thus it operates virtually transparent for applications. Documentation : http://www.php.net/mysqlnd_qc -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 739278] Review Request: perl-HTTP-Server-Simple-Authen - Authentication plugin for HTTP::Server::Simple
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=739278 Emmanuel Seyman emmanuel.sey...@club-internet.fr changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||emmanuel.seyman@club-intern ||et.fr AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|emmanuel.seyman@club-intern ||et.fr Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Emmanuel Seyman emmanuel.sey...@club-internet.fr 2011-09-18 05:51:48 EDT --- Taking. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 739278] Review Request: perl-HTTP-Server-Simple-Authen - Authentication plugin for HTTP::Server::Simple
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=739278
Emmanuel Seyman emmanuel.sey...@club-internet.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Emmanuel Seyman emmanuel.sey...@club-internet.fr
2011-09-18 06:28:02 EDT ---
=== KEY ===
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines including the Perl specific items
[x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture.
Tested on: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3358478
[x] Rpmlint output:
perl-HTTP-Server-Simple-Authen.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
pluggable - plug gable, plug-gable, plugged
perl-HTTP-Server-Simple-Authen.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
pluggable - plug gable, plug-gable, plugged
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
[x] Package is not relocatable.
[x] Buildroot is correct
None specified, default used.
[x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type: GPL+ or Artistic
[-] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package is included in %doc.
[x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
5dc1d5206e853fb66828341d938c5544 HTTP-Server-Simple-Authen-0.04.tar.gz
[x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch
[x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[-] The spec file handles locales properly.
[-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x] Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x] Permissions on files are set properly.
[x] Package consistently uses macros.
[x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[-] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present.
[-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
[-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
[x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
[x] Latest version is packaged.
[x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
Tested on: rawhide-x86_64
[x] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
Tested on: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3358478
[?] Package functions as described.
[-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct.
[-] File based requires are sane.
[x] %check is present and the tests pass
All tests successful.
Files=1, Tests=1, 0 wallclock secs ( 0.02 usr 0.01 sys + 0.02 cusr 0.00
csys = 0.05 CPU)
Result: PASS
Note that the rm -rf %{buildroot} line at the beginning of the %install
section is no longer needed.
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 739278] Review Request: perl-HTTP-Server-Simple-Authen - Authentication plugin for HTTP::Server::Simple
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=739278 Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com 2011-09-18 06:46:53 EDT --- Thanks for the review New Package SCM Request === Package Name: perl-HTTP-Server-Simple-Authen Short Description: Authentication plugin for HTTP::Server::Simple Owners: remi Branches: f14 f15 f16 el6 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 737574] Review Request: lis - A library for solving linear equations and eigenvalue problems
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=737574 Golo Fuchert packa...@golotop.de 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 720333] Review Request: perl-Devel-CallChecker - Custom op checking attached to subroutines
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=720333 Emmanuel Seyman emmanuel.sey...@club-internet.fr changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||emmanuel.seyman@club-intern ||et.fr AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|emmanuel.seyman@club-intern ||et.fr Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Emmanuel Seyman emmanuel.sey...@club-internet.fr 2011-09-18 07:02:23 EDT --- Taking. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 737574] Review Request: lis - A library for solving linear equations and eigenvalue problems
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=737574
Golo Fuchert packa...@golotop.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Golo Fuchert packa...@golotop.de 2011-09-18 07:02:29 EDT
---
Hej Jussi,
almost nothing to complain about!
Here is the formal review:
$ rpmlint RPMS/x86_64/lis-1.2.53-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm SPECS/lis.spec
SRPMS/lis-1.2.53-1.fc15.src.rpm
lis.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US scalable - salable,
callable, calculable
lis.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/liblis.so.0.0.0
exit@GLIBC_2.2.5
lis.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US scalable - salable, callable,
calculable
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
No blocker here, upstream could be asked if the shared-lib-calls-exit is
intended
-
key:
[+] OK
[.] OK, not applicable
[X] needs work
-
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}.
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license.
BSD according to source file headers and included COPYING file
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[+] MUST: The file containing the text of the license(s) for the package must
be included in %doc.
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source.
$ md5sum lis-1.2.53.tar.gz.*
275597239e7c47ab5aadeee7b7e2c6ce lis-1.2.53.tar.gz.packaged
275597239e7c47ab5aadeee7b7e2c6ce lis-1.2.53.tar.gz.upstream
[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
[.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work ...
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.
[.] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly.
[+] MUST: Packages storing shared library files (not just symlinks) must call
ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[+] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[.] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, ...
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates.
[+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in %files.
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[+] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
Man, that is a documentation-wonderland! Kudos to upstream...
[+] MUST: Files in %doc must not affect the runtime of the application.
[+] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[.] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[+] MUST: unversioned library file (*.so) must go in the -devel package.
[+] MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned
dependency
[+] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
[.] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file
[.] MUST: .desktop files must be properly installed with
desktop-file-install/-validate in the %install section.
[+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
[+] MUST: All file names in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
[.] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file ...
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[+] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all
supported architectures.
[.] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency.
[.] SHOULD: pkgconfig(.pc) should be placed in a -devel pkg.
[.] SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin,
/usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file
instead of the file itself.
[.] SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts.
Comments: The -doc subpackage does not require the base package. This is of
course not needed. However, since the pdf's packaged in the doc subpackage
are from the source tarball, I would assume that they also fall under the
same license.
Then the doc subpackage should either require the base package or contain
a copy of the license file:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Subpackage_Licensing
So please apply one of those options or prove me
[Bug 720333] Review Request: perl-Devel-CallChecker - Custom op checking attached to subroutines
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=720333
Emmanuel Seyman emmanuel.sey...@club-internet.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Emmanuel Seyman emmanuel.sey...@club-internet.fr
2011-09-18 07:21:32 EDT ---
=== KEY ===
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines including the Perl specific items
[x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture.
Tested on: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3358510
[x] Rpmlint output:
perl-Devel-CallChecker.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cv - CV,
xv, cc
perl-Devel-CallChecker.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cv -
CV, xv, cc
3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
[x] Package is not relocatable.
[x] Buildroot is correct
None specified, default used.
[x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type: GPL+ or Artistic
[x] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package is included in %doc.
[x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
949d20ecefdab1cc7965efd6896e2b90 Devel-CallChecker-0.003.tar.gz
[x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch
[x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[-] The spec file handles locales properly.
[-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x] Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x] Permissions on files are set properly.
[x] Package consistently uses macros.
[x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[-] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present.
[-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
[-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
[x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
[x] Latest version is packaged.
[x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
Tested on: rawhide-x86_64
[x] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
Tested on: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3358510
[?] Package functions as described.
[-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct.
[-] File based requires are sane.
[x] %check is present and the tests pass
All tests successful.
Files=4, Tests=85, 0 wallclock secs ( 0.03 usr 0.01 sys + 0.72 cusr 0.10
csys = 0.86 CPU)
Result: PASS
APPROVED.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 717337] Review Request: URCU - Userspace RCU Implementation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=717337
Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mschwe...@gmail.com
--- Comment #7 from Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com 2011-09-18 08:00:59
EDT ---
Several of the findings in comment 2 have not been added to the spec file and
have not been commented on either. Please respond to reviewers' comments even
if you disagree with them.
License:LGPL v2 or later
The correct license identifier really is LGPLv2+ as pointed out in comment 2.
The related guidelines are these:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Valid_License_Short_Names
Writing this comment I noticed the linked spec file is out-of-date and doesn't
match the latest src.rpm. Hmmm... continueing with the src.rpm then:
License:LGPLv2
So, same comment as above applies. ;)
Name: liburcu
Group: Development/Libraries
Dunno whether or when RPM will get rid of these Group tags (if at all), but
library base packages typically belong into
Group: System Environment/Libraries
%description
Userspace RCU (Read-Copy-Update) Implementation from the LTTng project.
Very brief and reads more like a summary. The top lines at
http://lttng.org/urcu/ contain a somewhat more detailed description that could
be copied and modified slightly to build a more detailed description:
| This package contains liburcu, a userspace RCU (read-copy-update)
| library. This data synchronization library provides read-side access
| which scales linearly with the number of cores. It does so by allowing
| multiples copies of a given data structure to live at the same time,
| and by monitoring the data structure accesses to detect grace periods
| after which memory reclamation is possible.
What do you think?
ExclusiveArch: %ix86 x86_64 ppc ppc64 s390 s390x
Based on
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Architectures#ExcludeArch_.26_ExclusiveArch
I recommend dropping this, especially since no spec file comment gives a strong
rationale.
%package -n liburcu-devel
Requires: liburcu = %{version}-%{release}
Be aware of %{?_isa} having entered the guidelines as a MUST item:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package
autoreconf -fvi
No strong feelings here. Just know that depending on what versions of the GNU
Autotools may be required by the liburcu build files, a full autoreconf may
cause broken builds. Sometimes without terminating the RPM package build job.
make %{?_smp_mflags}
For more verbose build.log output, this one works:
V=1 make %{?_smp_mflags}
%files -n liburcu-devel
%{_prefix}/include/*
Note that %{_includedir} exists, too, and is the one set by the %configure
macro.
As convenient as wildcards may be, with some packages, it can also be
beneficial to be a little bit more specific about what file names to include,
e.g.
%{_includedir}/urcu*
or even
%{_includedir}/urcu/
%{_includedir}/urcu*.h
would implicitly protect against unexpected renames during package version
upgrades. You would learn about substantial changes below %_includedir due to
the build failing. Not mandatory, of course.
%{_libdir}/*.a
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Packaging_Static_Libraries
# rpmlint *
liburcu.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/liburcu-qsbr.so.1.0.0
exit@GLIBC_2.2.5
and several more. Please find out why/when it calls exit and whether you can
get rid of this.
liburcu-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/userspace-rcu-0.6.3/urcu/list.h
liburcu-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/urcu/rcuhlist.h
liburcu-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/urcu/rculist.h
liburcu-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/urcu/list.h
Please try to get this fixed in the upstream tarball. 0.6.4 is available, btw.
%doc README LICENSE
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 676187] Review Request: csync2 - Cluster sync tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=676187 Angus Salkeld asalk...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #25 from Angus Salkeld asalk...@redhat.com 2011-09-18 08:43:17 EDT --- Can the csync2 package be updated please? See #24 above. Thanks Angus -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 738556] Review Request: gogoc - IPv6 TSP client for gogo6
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=738556
Richard Shaw hobbes1...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hobbes1...@gmail.com
--- Comment #2 from Richard Shaw hobbes1...@gmail.com 2011-09-18 08:59:00 EDT
---
I can't sponsor you but I have some suggestions for your spec file.
1. What versions of Fedora/EPEL do you plan on building for? Depending on your
answer certain sections or commands my be unnecessary.
I see you already excluded BuildRoot so you must not be planning on building
for EPEL 5.
If you don't plan on building for EPEL at all then you can remove the whole
%clean section.
Also, rm -rf %{buildroot} is no longer needed in %install.
The packaging guidelines[1] don't specify in which Fedora/EPEL version %defattr
is no longer necessary, only pre rpm 4.4.
2. I can't remember where I read it but the use of macros for standard shell
commands (rm, make, install, etc.) is discouraged and doesn't aid readability.
3. You don't need the extra / between %{buildroot} and the other macros,
%{_prefix} %{_bindir}, %{_sharedir}, etc. as it's already in the macros[2].
Hopefully someone will sponsor you soon. Until then it doesn't hurt to practice
reviewing other packages[3].
Richard
[1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines
[2] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:RPMMacros
[3] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 730970] Review Request: jhdf5 - Java HDF5 Object Package
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=730970 Sylvestre Ledru sylvestre.le...@scilab.org 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 735151] Review Request: rocs - Graph Theory IDE
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=735151 Clément DAVID c.davi...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||c.davi...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Clément DAVID c.davi...@gmail.com 2011-09-18 09:40:13 EDT --- Just a remark before a formal review. Building and installing is fine but launching rocs failed with : A KDE Text Editor could not be found, please, check your installation Installing kate-part solve this problem. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 735152] Review Request: step - Interactive Physics Simulator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=735152
Clément DAVID c.davi...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||c.davi...@gmail.com
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|c.davi...@gmail.com
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Clément DAVID c.davi...@gmail.com 2011-09-18 10:01:14 EDT
---
For me some points to be solved before a more formal review:
* typo on Release: 10%{?dist} for a first try :)
* is it standard to use desktop-file-validate on %check ? (I use it on %build)
koji build : http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3358761
Problems:
+ desktop-file-validate
/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/step-4.7.0-10.fc16.i386/usr/share/applications/kde4/step.desktop
/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/step-4.7.0-10.fc16.i386/usr/share/applications/kde4/step.desktop:
error: (will be fatal in the future): value Physics in key Categories in
group Desktop Entry requires another category to be present among the
following categories: Education;Science
warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/doc/HTML/en/step
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 736577] Review Request: ghc-snap-core - Snap web framework core 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=736577 Bug 736577 depends on bug 712272, which changed state. Bug 712272 Summary: Review Request: ghc-unix-compat - A portable POSIX-compatibility layer for Haskell https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=712272 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||RAWHIDE Status|ON_QA |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 712272] Review Request: ghc-unix-compat - A portable POSIX-compatibility layer for Haskell
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=712272 Lakshmi Narasimhan lakshminaras2...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE Last Closed||2011-09-18 10:07:18 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 712659] Review Request : yi - An extensible text editor written in Haskell
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=712659 Bug 712659 depends on bug 712272, which changed state. Bug 712272 Summary: Review Request: ghc-unix-compat - A portable POSIX-compatibility layer for Haskell https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=712272 What|Old Value |New Value Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA Resolution||RAWHIDE Status|ON_QA |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 630303] Review Request: yesod - Creation of type-safe, RESTful web applications
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=630303 Bug 630303 depends on bug 712272, which changed state. Bug 712272 Summary: Review Request: ghc-unix-compat - A portable POSIX-compatibility layer for Haskell https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=712272 What|Old Value |New Value Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA Resolution||RAWHIDE Status|ON_QA |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 705108] Review Request: shinken - python monitoring tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=705108 --- Comment #12 from David Hannequin david.hanneq...@gmail.com 2011-09-18 12:07:08 EDT --- Hi, New spec file and SRPM with fix : Spec URL: http://hvad.fedorapeople.org/fedora/shinken/shinken.spec SRPM URL: http://hvad.fedorapeople.org/fedora/shinken/shinken-0.6.5-1.fc15.src.rpm Best regard ps : In a few months of Shinken version 0.8 will come out with a WebUI -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 717748] Review Request: UST - LTTng Userspace Tracer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=717748
Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mschwe...@gmail.com
--- Comment #5 from Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com 2011-09-18 12:11:30
EDT ---
A first brief look:
License: LGPLv2
File 'COPYING' and the source file headers explicitly mention any later
version, so:
License: LGPLv2+
BuildRoot:%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-build
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag
Requires: liburcu = 0.6.2
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Explicit_Requires
%package -n libust-devel
...
Requires: liburcu-devel
Requires: libust = %{version}-%{release}
Requires: libustinstr-malloc = %{version}-%{release}
Requires: libustfork = %{version}-%{release}
Requires: libustconsumer = %{version}-%{release}
Requires: libustctl = %{version}-%{release}
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package
%configure --disable-silent-rules --disable-dependency-tracking
...
make CFLAGS=$RPM_OPT_FLAGS %{?_smp_mflags}
Since %configure already passes on the CFLAGS (see 'rpm --eval %configure'), is
the extra CFLAGS definition when running Make necessary?
%clean
rm -rf %buildroot
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#.25clean
%post -n ust
/sbin/ldconfig
/usr/sbin/install-info /usr/share/doc/ust.info.gz
%preun -n ust
/usr/sbin/install-info --delete /usr/share/doc/ust.info.gz
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Scriptlets
%{_libdir}/libust.a
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Packaging_Static_Libraries
%{_datadir}/info/ust.info.gz
There also is %{_infodir} which is set by %configure, too.
%files
Sometimes you use -n to explicitly specify the full package name (e.g. %post -n
ust), here you don't. Then you also omit the -n for the base package's %post,
%preun and %postun scriptlet sections for consistency.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Documentation
Files COPYING, README and TODO could be included.
It seems the test suite currently cannot be run. If it could be run during the
build process, it would make sense to create a %check section for 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 739398] New: Review Request: openblas - An optimized BLAS library based on GotoBLAS2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: openblas - An optimized BLAS library based on GotoBLAS2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=739398
Summary: Review Request: openblas - An optimized BLAS library
based on GotoBLAS2
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Platform: All
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: medium
Priority: medium
Component: Package Review
AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org
ReportedBy: jussi.leht...@iki.fi
QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: nott...@redhat.com,
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Classification: Fedora
Story Points: ---
Type: ---
Spec URL:
http://theory.physics.helsinki.fi/~jzlehtol/rpms/openblas.spec
SRPM URL:
http://theory.physics.helsinki.fi/~jzlehtol/rpms/openblas-0.1-1.alpha2.4.fc15.src.rpm
Upstream url:
https://github.com/xianyi/OpenBLAS/
Description:
OpenBLAS is an optimized BLAS library based on GotoBLAS2 1.13 BSD version. The
project is supported by the Lab of Parallel Software and Computational Science,
ISCAS. http://www.rdcps.ac.cn
rpmlint output:
openblas.src:11: W: macro-in-comment %{version}
openblas.src:11: W: macro-in-comment %{alpha}
openblas.src:12: W: macro-in-comment %{version}
openblas.src:12: W: macro-in-comment %{alpha}
openblas.src:113: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{buildroot}/usr/lib/libopen*
openblas.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
xianyi-OpenBLAS-v0.1alpha2.4-0-gfe7a932.tar.gz
openblas.x86_64: W: no-soname /usr/lib64/libopenblas-r0.1alpha2.4.so
openblas.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit
/usr/lib64/libopenblas-r0.1alpha2.4.so exit@GLIBC_2.2.5
openblas.x86_64: W: no-documentation
openblas-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
openblas-openmp.x86_64: W: no-soname /usr/lib64/libopenblaso-r0.1alpha2.4.so
openblas-openmp.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit
/usr/lib64/libopenblaso-r0.1alpha2.4.so exit@GLIBC_2.2.5
openblas-openmp.x86_64: W: no-documentation
openblas-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation
openblas-threads.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) pthreads - threads,
p threads, thread
openblas-threads.x86_64: W: no-soname /usr/lib64/libopenblasp-r0.1alpha2.4.so
openblas-threads.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit
/usr/lib64/libopenblasp-r0.1alpha2.4.so exit@GLIBC_2.2.5
openblas-threads.x86_64: W: no-documentation
7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 17 warnings.
I've contacted upstream about the soname issue. The no-documentation warnings
can be ignored, so can the shared-lib-calls-exit and macro-in-comment stuff.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 737574] Review Request: lis - A library for solving linear equations and eigenvalue problems
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=737574 Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi 2011-09-18 12:29:54 EDT --- Thanks for the review! I've added COPYING to -doc. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: lis Short Description: A library for solving linear equations and eigenvalue problems Owners: jussilehtola Branches: EL-5 EL-6 F-15 F-16 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 739398] Review Request: openblas - An optimized BLAS library based on GotoBLAS2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=739398 --- Comment #1 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi 2011-09-18 12:37:23 EDT --- There is one slight problem with the package: -devel picks up a dependency on libopenblaso.so()(64bit), which isn't provided by any package. I'd appreciate if someone can point out why this happens.. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 737308] Review Request: gdlmm - C++ bindings for the gdl 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=737308 Dodji Seketeli do...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|do...@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 730324] Review Request: telepathy-kde-accounts-kcm-plugins - Plugins for protocol-specific UI's in the Telepathy Accounts KCM
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=730324 Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE Last Closed||2011-09-18 13:39:10 --- Comment #8 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu 2011-09-18 13:39:10 EDT --- imported -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 730332] Review Request: telepathy-kde-text-ui - Telepathy text chat handler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=730332 Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE Last Closed||2011-09-18 13:43:34 --- Comment #6 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu 2011-09-18 13:43:34 EDT --- imported. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 730326] Review Request: telepathy-kde-contact-list - Telepathy contact list application
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=730326 Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE Last Closed||2011-09-18 13:40:31 --- Comment #6 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu 2011-09-18 13:40:31 EDT --- imported -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 730327] Review Request: telepathy-kde-filetransfer-handler - Telepathy file transfer handler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=730327 Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE Last Closed||2011-09-18 13:41:31 --- Comment #6 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu 2011-09-18 13:41:31 EDT --- imported. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 730331] Review Request:telepathy-kde-send-file - A File manager plugin to launch a file transfer job with a specified contact
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=730331 Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE Last Closed||2011-09-18 13:42:31 --- Comment #6 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu 2011-09-18 13:42:31 EDT --- imported. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 735151] Review Request: rocs - Graph Theory IDE
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=735151 --- Comment #2 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu 2011-09-18 13:49:12 EDT --- http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/kdeedu/rocs.specSpec URL: SRPM URL: http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/kdeedu/rocs-4.7.1-1.fc15.src.rpm %changelog * Sun Sep 18 2011 Rex Dieter rdie...@fedoraproject.org 4.7.1-1 - Requires: kate-part - 4.7.1 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 735152] Review Request: step - Interactive Physics Simulator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=735152 --- Comment #2 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu 2011-09-18 14:07:50 EDT --- I personally prefer using desktop-file-* in either %install or %check. Anyway, as that is still (currently) non-fatal, let's not block the review on it (though I will poke upstream to get it fixed properly). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 684312] Review Request: grib_def - ECWMF encoding/decoding definition 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=684312 Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|505154(FE-SCITECH) | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 694651] Review Request: IBSimu - Ion beam simulator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=694651 Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|505154(FE-SCITECH) | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 573910] Review Request: dcmtk - Offis DICOM Toolkit
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=573910 Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|505154(FE-SCITECH) | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 542759] Review Request: mpqc - Ab-initio chemistry 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=542759 Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|505154(FE-SCITECH) | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 676159] Review Request: crlibm - Correctly Rounded mathematical 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=676159 Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|505154(FE-SCITECH) | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 575541] Review Request: xcalc - Scientific Calculator X11 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=575541 Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|505154(FE-SCITECH) | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 542990] Review Request: root - Numerical data analysis 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=542990 Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|505154(FE-SCITECH) | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 622314] Review request: 3Depict- Valued point cloud visualisation and analysis
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=622314 Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|505154(FE-SCITECH) | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 739398] Review Request: openblas - An optimized BLAS library based on GotoBLAS2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=739398 Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||505154(FE-SCITECH) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 627936] Review Request: bowtie - An ultrafast, memory-efficient short read aligner
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=627936 Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|505154(FE-SCITECH) | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 666572] Review Request: zyGrib - Visualization of meteo data from files in GRIB Format
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=666572 Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|505154(FE-SCITECH) | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 540885] Review Request: CableSwig - Create interfaces to interpreted languages for templated code
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=540885 Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|505154(FE-SCITECH) | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 523715] Review Request: logiweb - a system for electronic distribution of mathematics
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=523715 Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|505154(FE-SCITECH) | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 542767] Review Request: ghemical - Molecular mechanics and quantum mechanics frontend for GNOME
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=542767 Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|505154(FE-SCITECH) | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 542765] Review Request: libghemical - Libraries for the Ghemical chemistry package
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=542765 Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|505154(FE-SCITECH) | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 570318] Review Request: gnuplot44 - A program for plotting mathematical expressions and data
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=570318 Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|505154(FE-SCITECH) | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 659896] Review Request: cp2k - A molecular dynamics engine capable of classical and Car-Parrinello simulations
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=659896 Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|505154(FE-SCITECH) | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 505154] Tracker: Review Requests for Science and Technology related packages
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=505154 Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on|523715, 540885(cableswig), |739398 |542759, 542765, 542767, | |542990, 570318(gnuplot44), | |573910(dcmtk), | |575541(xcalc), 622314, | |627936, 659896(cp2k), | |666572, 676159, 684312, | |694651 | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 739331] Review Request: libreoffice-voikko - Finnish spellchecker and hyphenator extension for LibreOffice
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=739331 Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jussi.leht...@iki.fi --- Comment #1 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi 2011-09-18 14:25:08 EDT --- Since you seem to be actually compiling something, you need to build it in %build, and install in %install. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 737308] Review Request: gdlmm - C++ bindings for the gdl 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=737308
--- Comment #1 from Dodji Seketeli do...@redhat.com 2011-09-18 14:46:18 EDT
---
I have reviewed this package, successfully built it[1], installed it,
built the Nemiver debugger against it, and could see test the package
by using Nemiver.
This package is OK to get into F17, as far as I can tell.
Please find below the formal review.
* rpmlint outputs
$ rpmlint SRPMS/gdlmm-3.1.90-1.fc16.src.rpm -i
RPMS/x86_64/gdlmm-3.1.90-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm
RPMS/x86_64/gdlmm-devel-3.1.90-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm
RPMS/noarch/gdlmm-doc-3.1.90-1.fc15.noarch.rpm gdlmm gdlmm-devel
(none): E: no installed packages by name SRPMS/gdlmm-3.1.90-1.fc16.src.rpm
(none): E: no installed packages by name -i
(none): E: no installed packages by name
RPMS/x86_64/gdlmm-3.1.90-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm
(none): E: no installed packages by name
RPMS/x86_64/gdlmm-devel-3.1.90-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm
(none): E: no installed packages by name
RPMS/noarch/gdlmm-doc-3.1.90-1.fc15.noarch.rpm
gdlmm.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) gdl - gel, gal, godly
gdlmm.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gdl - gel, gal, godly
gdlmm.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/libgdlmm-3.0.so.0.0.0
gdlmm.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libgdlmm-3.0.so.0.0.0 /usr/lib64/libgdkmm-3.0.so.1
gdlmm.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libgdlmm-3.0.so.0.0.0 /usr/lib64/libgiomm-2.4.so.1
gdlmm.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libgdlmm-3.0.so.0.0.0 /usr/lib64/libpangomm-1.4.so.1
gdlmm.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libgdlmm-3.0.so.0.0.0 /usr/lib64/libcairomm-1.0.so.1
gdlmm.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libgdlmm-3.0.so.0.0.0 /usr/lib64/libgdk-3.so.0
gdlmm.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libgdlmm-3.0.so.0.0.0 /usr/lib64/libatk-1.0.so.0
gdlmm.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libgdlmm-3.0.so.0.0.0 /lib64/libgio-2.0.so.0
gdlmm.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libgdlmm-3.0.so.0.0.0 /usr/lib64/libpangoft2-1.0.so.0
gdlmm.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libgdlmm-3.0.so.0.0.0 /usr/lib64/libpangocairo-1.0.so.0
gdlmm.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libgdlmm-3.0.so.0.0.0 /usr/lib64/libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0
gdlmm.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libgdlmm-3.0.so.0.0.0 /usr/lib64/libpng12.so.0
gdlmm.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libgdlmm-3.0.so.0.0.0 /usr/lib64/libcairo-gobject.so.2
gdlmm.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libgdlmm-3.0.so.0.0.0 /usr/lib64/libpango-1.0.so.0
gdlmm.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libgdlmm-3.0.so.0.0.0 /usr/lib64/libfreetype.so.6
gdlmm.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libgdlmm-3.0.so.0.0.0 /usr/lib64/libfontconfig.so.1
gdlmm.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libgdlmm-3.0.so.0.0.0 /lib64/libgmodule-2.0.so.0
gdlmm.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libgdlmm-3.0.so.0.0.0 /usr/lib64/libcairo.so.2
gdlmm.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libgdlmm-3.0.so.0.0.0 /lib64/libgthread-2.0.so.0
gdlmm.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libgdlmm-3.0.so.0.0.0 /lib64/librt.so.1
gdlmm.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libgdlmm-3.0.so.0.0.0 /lib64/libm.so.6
gdlmm-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 24 warnings.
$
The only warning I'd care about are the unused-direct-shlib-dependency
one. I believe this is because the gdlmm upstream tarball lacks
-Wl,-as-needed linker option. This is not an error. It'll merely
cause a slower-to-load library. My recommendation would be to report
this upstream, but I wouldn't block this package because of that.
* MUST items
- [X] rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the
build produces. The output should be posted in the review.
- [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.
- [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. Reviewers
[Bug 737308] Review Request: gdlmm - C++ bindings for the gdl 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=737308 Dodji Seketeli do...@seketeli.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||do...@seketeli.org AssignedTo|do...@redhat.com|do...@seketeli.org -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 737308] Review Request: gdlmm - C++ bindings for the gdl 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=737308 Dodji Seketeli do...@seketeli.org changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 737735] Review Request: google-authenticator - One-time passcode support using open standards
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=737735 Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ke...@scrye.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com 2011-09-18 15:10:38 EDT --- I'll look at reviewing this this afternoon. Look for a full review in a bit. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 737735] Review Request: google-authenticator - One-time passcode support using open standards
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=737735
--- Comment #2 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com 2011-09-18 15:58:51 EDT ---
OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines
OK - Spec file matches base package name.
OK - Spec has consistant macro usage.
OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines.
See below - License
OK - License field in spec matches
See below - License file included in package
OK - Spec in American English
OK - Spec is legible.
OK - Sources match upstream md5sum:
OK - BuildRequires correct
OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good.
OK - Package has a correct %clean section.
OK - Package has correct buildroot
OK - Package is code or permissible content.
OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime.
OK - Package has rm -rf RPM_BUILD_ROOT at top of %install
OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch.
OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files.
See below - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own.
OK - Package owns all the directories it creates.
OK - Package obey's FHS standard (except for 2 exceptions)
See below - No rpmlint output.
See below - final provides and requires are sane.
SHOULD Items:
OK - Should build in mock.
OK - Should build on all supported archs
OK - Should function as described.
OK - Should have dist tag
OK - Should package latest version
OK - Should not use file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or
/usr/sbin
Issues:
1. You might re-word the summary some to note that this package is the pam
module and
command line tool, not any of the mobile applications? Also, is it worth
excluding the
mobile apps source from the checkout since it's not ever used?
2. Might ask upstream to ship a copy of the ASL with the project.
3. Can you please add a spec comment on how to generate the Source0?
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Using_Revision_Control
4. rpmlint says:
google-authenticator.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) passcode - pass
code, pass-code, postcode
google-authenticator.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US passcode -
pass code, pass-code, postcode
google-authenticator.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pluggable -
plug gable, plug-gable, plugged
google-authenticator.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US passcodes -
pass codes, pass-codes, compasses
google-authenticator.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
google-authenticator-0.20110830.hgd525a9bab875.tar.gz
google-authenticator.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) passcode - pass
code, pass-code, postcode
google-authenticator.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US passcode
- pass code, pass-code, postcode
google-authenticator.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pluggable
- plug gable, plug-gable, plugged
google-authenticator.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US passcodes
- pass codes, pass-codes, compasses
google-authenticator.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary google-authenticator
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 10 warnings.
All are bogus. A man page would be nice, but clearly not a blocker.
5. You shouldn't own
/%{_lib}/security
as thats owned by pam.
6. you should Require pam? I guess it dlopens, but for the above directory, and
just to be usable? ;)
7. Worth running pam_google_authenticator_unittest in %check?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 739331] Review Request: libreoffice-voikko - Finnish spellchecker and hyphenator extension for LibreOffice
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=739331
--- Comment #2 from Ville-Pekka Vainio vpvai...@iki.fi 2011-09-18 16:34:12
EDT ---
New SRPM:
http://vpv.fedorapeople.org/packages/libreoffice-voikko-3.2-2.fc16.src.rpm
Changes:
- Build in the build section, install in the install section
- Add the _isa macro to all dependencies
- Update libvoikko dependencies to = 3.0
I need to source %{libo_sdk}/setsdkenv_unix.sh in both %build and %install
because the Makefile uses environment variables which get defined by that shell
script.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 739331] Review Request: libreoffice-voikko - Finnish spellchecker and hyphenator extension for LibreOffice
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=739331 --- Comment #3 from Ville-Pekka Vainio vpvai...@iki.fi 2011-09-18 16:59:04 EDT --- I just noticed that the BuildRequires are broken, libo_version isn't used as a macro. I'll fix this soon, until then, please don't review this package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 722709] Review Request: mbrowse - GUI SNMP MIB browser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=722709 --- Comment #7 from Kevin Kofler ke...@tigcc.ticalc.org 2011-09-18 17:41:58 EDT --- The Group tag is not necessary in current Fedora, it is necessary in EPEL though, and it doesn't hurt in Fedora either. (In fact, RPM can and will still process it, it just won't complain anymore if it's not there, and just fill in Unspecified.) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 739398] Review Request: openblas - An optimized BLAS library based on GotoBLAS2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=739398 --- Comment #2 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi 2011-09-18 18:13:13 EDT --- I ran a series of matrix diagonalization benchmarks, and on my Intel i7-2600 at work OpenBLAS is 9.6% faster than ATLAS, which is rather notable. Furthermore, OpenBLAS also can thread more operations than ATLAS such as diagonalization, which makes it 42% faster when using 4 threads. (Yes, this is bad scaling.) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 739416] Review Request: php-php-gettext - Gettext emulation in PHP
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=739416 Robert Scheck redhat-bugzi...@linuxnetz.de changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||727000 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 739417] Review Request: php53-php-gettext - Gettext emulation in PHP
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=739417 Robert Scheck redhat-bugzi...@linuxnetz.de changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||727000 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 739416] New: Review Request: php-php-gettext - Gettext emulation in PHP
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: php-php-gettext - Gettext emulation in PHP https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=739416 Summary: Review Request: php-php-gettext - Gettext emulation in PHP Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: Unspecified OS/Version: Unspecified Status: NEW Severity: unspecified Priority: unspecified Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: redhat-bugzi...@linuxnetz.de QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, da...@gnsa.us, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Spec URL: http://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/php-php-gettext.spec SRPM URL: http://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/php-php-gettext-1.0.11-3.src.rpm Description: This library provides PHP functions to read MO files even when gettext is not compiled in or when appropriate locale is not present on the system. Is is a re-review request, because of the facts mentioned in bug #727000. And please note, that this package is not providing php-gettext to avoid conflicts with other RPM packages that just require php-gettext and could get this one instead of the correct one provided by the php core package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 739417] New: Review Request: php53-php-gettext - Gettext emulation in PHP
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: php53-php-gettext - Gettext emulation in PHP https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=739417 Summary: Review Request: php53-php-gettext - Gettext emulation in PHP Product: Fedora EPEL Version: el5 Platform: Unspecified OS/Version: Unspecified Status: NEW Severity: unspecified Priority: unspecified Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: redhat-bugzi...@linuxnetz.de QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Spec URL: http://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/php53-php-gettext.spec SRPM URL: http://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/php53-php-gettext-1.0.11-3.src.rpm Description: This library provides PHP functions to read MO files even when gettext is not compiled in or when appropriate locale is not present on the system. RHEL 5 is shipping the RPM packages php-5.1.x and php53-5.3.x. This package is intended only for RHEL 5. See bug #739416 for the php-php-gettext package where this one is derived from. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 697326] Review Request: libisoburn - Library to enable creation and expansion of ISO-9660 filesystems
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=697326 --- Comment #9 from Robert Scheck redhat-bugzi...@linuxnetz.de 2011-09-18 18:49:52 EDT --- libburn.so.4.65.0 - libburn.so.4.67.0 (libburn 1.1.0 - 1.1.4) for example. If this is not enough, we still can add an explicit versioned requirement, so let me know. Somebody interested in doing a formal 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 712272] Review Request: ghc-unix-compat - A portable POSIX-compatibility layer for Haskell
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=712272 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version||ghc-unix-compat-0.2.1.3-1.f ||c15 Resolution|RAWHIDE |ERRATA -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 658420] Review Request: zorba - General purpose XQuery processor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=658420 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||zorba-2.0.2-1.fc15 Resolution||ERRATA Last Closed||2011-09-18 18:56:21 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 658420] Review Request: zorba - General purpose XQuery processor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=658420 --- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-09-18 18:56:12 EDT --- zorba-2.0.2-1.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 stable repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 712272] Review Request: ghc-unix-compat - A portable POSIX-compatibility layer for Haskell
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=712272 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-09-18 18:58:35 EDT --- ghc-unix-compat-0.2.1.3-1.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 stable repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 702103] Review Request: python-osmgpsmap - Python bindings for osm-gps-map GTK+ widget
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=702103 --- Comment #26 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-09-18 18:57:53 EDT --- gramps-3.3.0-1.fc15, python-osmgpsmap-0.7.3-5.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 702103] Review Request: python-osmgpsmap - Python bindings for osm-gps-map GTK+ widget
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=702103 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||gramps-3.3.0-1.fc15 Resolution||ERRATA Last Closed||2011-09-18 18:58:04 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 712272] Review Request: ghc-unix-compat - A portable POSIX-compatibility layer for Haskell
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=712272 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|ghc-unix-compat-0.2.1.3-1.f |ghc-unix-compat-0.2.1.3-1.f |c15 |c14 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 712272] Review Request: ghc-unix-compat - A portable POSIX-compatibility layer for Haskell
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=712272 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-09-18 19:00:59 EDT --- ghc-unix-compat-0.2.1.3-1.fc14 has been pushed to the Fedora 14 stable repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 739323] Review Request: mozilla-https-everywhere - HTTPS/HSTS enforcement extension for Mozilla browsers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=739323 Al Reay alre...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||alre...@gmail.com --- Comment #2 from Al Reay alre...@gmail.com 2011-09-18 19:40:01 EDT --- Hi Russell, I'm not a proven packager so I can't sponsor or approve your package but I'll cheerfully do an informal review for you. * just a niggle, the srpm link isn't fully formed with respect to the https certificate, to avoid wget/curl download errors make sure that it's got a 'www' prefix to match the servername as per the cert. * I think your use of explicit 'requires' tag is OK here because automatic dependency resolution by RPM won't work as you're using it only to see if a directory structure exists (as opposed to using a library or binary) Nice simple package, I think you'll have no problems getting this one through. Good luck Al -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 739323] Review Request: mozilla-https-everywhere - HTTPS/HSTS enforcement extension for Mozilla browsers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=739323 --- Comment #3 from Russell Golden niveusl...@niveusluna.org 2011-09-18 20:14:24 EDT --- Huh. On my machine, neither wget nor curl complains about my cert. When I made it, I was under the impression the cert would work for both my SLD and the subdomain www. I only entered the subdomain because StartCom wouldn't give me a cert otherwise. Thanks for the informal 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 737574] Review Request: lis - A library for solving linear equations and eigenvalue problems
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=737574 --- Comment #3 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2011-09-18 21:42:37 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 676187] Review Request: csync2 - Cluster sync tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=676187 --- Comment #26 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2011-09-18 21:41:06 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 739278] Review Request: perl-HTTP-Server-Simple-Authen - Authentication plugin for HTTP::Server::Simple
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=739278 --- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2011-09-18 21:44:41 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 738525] Review Request: perl-ExtUtils-H2PM - Automatically generate perl modules to wrap C header 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=738525
--- Comment #2 from Mathieu Bridon boche...@fedoraproject.org 2011-09-18
23:13:46 EDT ---
Spec URL: http://bochecha.fedorapeople.org/packages/perl-ExtUtils-H2PM.spec
SRPM URL:
http://bochecha.fedorapeople.org/packages/perl-ExtUtils-H2PM-0.08-1.fc14.src.rpm
(In reply to comment #1)
MUST
- spelling-error need to be fixed
Fixed.
- issue with %optimize
[... snip ...]
I think you could probably remove it, except if you think you need it, if this
case, you must set it.
So, I had never seen this macro either, but cpanspec was setting it so I
trusted it.
Digging a bit, here is what I get when I run the following:
$ cpanspec ExtUtils::H2PM
[... snip ...]
%{__perl} Build.PL installdirs=vendor optimize=$RPM_OPT_FLAGS
[... snip ...]
$ cpanspec -m ExtUtils::H2PM
[... snip ...]
%{__perl} Build.PL installdirs=vendor optimize=%{optimize}
[... snip ...]
But then, as you observed:
$ rpm --eval %{optimize}
%{optimize}
Is that a bug in cpanspec?
For this particular package, should I remove it completely or replace it by
$RPM_OPT_FLAGS?
SHOULD
- package latest version 0.08, released yesterday... ;)
Done.
Note that this fixes the incorrect FSF address in license.
- make %file more exclicite (I personally hate to wide joker)
Fixed.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 738153] Review Request: ipset - Manage Linux IP sets
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=738153 Mathieu Bridon boche...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2011-09-18 23:13:53 --- Comment #6 from Mathieu Bridon boche...@fedoraproject.org 2011-09-18 23:13:53 EDT --- Pushed and built, thanks PY and Jon. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 738554] Review Request: perl-Test-HexString - Test binary strings with hex dump diagnostics
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=738554 --- Comment #2 from Mathieu Bridon boche...@fedoraproject.org 2011-09-18 23:28:13 EDT --- Spec URL: http://bochecha.fedorapeople.org/packages/perl-Test-HexString.spec SRPM URL: http://bochecha.fedorapeople.org/packages/perl-Test-HexString-0.03-1.fc16.src.rpm (In reply to comment #1) Should - package latest version 0.03, released yesterday... ;) Done. - make %file more exclicite (I personally hate to wide joker) Fixed. No blocker, Do you want me to approve 0.02 or do you prefer to update the spec ? (I prefer to have the latest version in the repo) Me too. :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 693198] Review Request: php-channel-bartlett - Adds bartlett channel to PEAR
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=693198 Mathieu Bridon boche...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||boche...@fedoraproject.org AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|boche...@fedoraproject.org Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Mathieu Bridon boche...@fedoraproject.org 2011-09-18 23:44:38 EDT --- Taking. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 693198] Review Request: php-channel-bartlett - Adds bartlett channel to PEAR
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=693198
--- Comment #3 from Mathieu Bridon boche...@fedoraproject.org 2011-09-19
00:30:23 EDT ---
[x] package passes
[-] not applicable
[!] package fails
== MUST ==
[x] rpmlint output
$ rpmlint ./php-channel-bartlett*
php-channel-bartlett.noarch: W: no-documentation
php-channel-bartlett.src:23: W: unversioned-explicit-provides
php-channel(%{channel})
./php-channel-bartlett.spec:23: W: unversioned-explicit-provides
php-channel(%{channel})
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
= The unversioned-explicit-provides php-channel(%{channel}) is conform to
the packaging guidelines:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:PHP#Packages_for_CHANNEL_.28repository.29_configuration
[x] The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
[x] The spec file name must match the base package %{name}
[x] The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines
[x] The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license
[!] The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
= Your spec says BSD, but I can't find any information on the license,
either in the channel file or on the upstream web site
[-] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file 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
$ sha1sum channel.xml
8041d033a8634aa0b071f569c3235129c7d435a7 channel.xml
[x] The package '''MUST''' successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture
= http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3359442
[-] The spec file MUST handle locales properly
[-] 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
[-] Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries
[-] If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this
fact in the request for review
[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
[x] Each package must consistently use macros
[x] The package must contain code, or permissable content
[-] Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage
[-] If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of
the application
[-] Header files must be in a -devel package
[-] Static libraries must be in a -static package
[-] 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
[-] Subpackages requiring the base package
[x] Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed
in the spec if they are built
[-] Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file,
and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the
%install section
[x] Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages
[x] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8
== SHOULD ==
[!] If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it
[x] If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane
[-] Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using
a fully versioned dependency
[-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and this is
usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg
[-] If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin,
/usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file
instead of the file itself
[-] your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts
== To fix ==
I'm probably missing something, can you confirm where you found that the
license for the channel is BSD?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 693198] Review Request: php-channel-bartlett - Adds bartlett channel to PEAR
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=693198 --- Comment #4 from Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com 2011-09-19 00:56:22 EDT --- AS you have noticed, the source is only a very simple file. We have choose (FPC meeting, but I don't find any record of this), as for the others php-channel-package to use - license = used for the packages in the channel - version = rest version provided by the channel -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 738554] Review Request: perl-Test-HexString - Test binary strings with hex dump diagnostics
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=738554 Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com 2011-09-19 01:13:14 EDT --- APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 738525] Review Request: perl-ExtUtils-H2PM - Automatically generate perl modules to wrap C header 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=738525 --- Comment #3 from Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com 2011-09-19 01:10:25 EDT --- For this particular package, should I remove it completely or replace it by $RPM_OPT_FLAGS? This won't have any sense for a noarch package. Simply drop this option. Is that a bug in cpanspec? It seems, and should probably be reported.. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 693198] Review Request: php-channel-bartlett - Adds bartlett channel to PEAR
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=693198 Mathieu Bridon boche...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Mathieu Bridon boche...@fedoraproject.org 2011-09-19 01:37:42 EDT --- Ok, I'm new to PHP packaging so I didn't know about that FPC decision. Package is thus APPROVED. Note: if you could find a reference about this FPC decision and add a comment in the spec just above the License tag, it would probably make it easier for future newbie reviewers like me to find a precedent. :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 693200] Review Request: php-bartlett-PHP-Reflect - Adds the ability to reverse-engineer PHP
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=693200
Mathieu Bridon boche...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||boche...@fedoraproject.org
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|boche...@fedoraproject.org
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Comment #7 from Mathieu Bridon boche...@fedoraproject.org 2011-09-19
01:35:23 EDT ---
[x] package passes
[-] not applicable
[!] package fails
[?] question raised
== MUST ==
[x] rpmlint output
$ rpmlint php-bartlett-PHP-Reflect*
php-bartlett-PHP-Reflect.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
html - HTML, ht ml, ht-ml
php-bartlett-PHP-Reflect.src: W: unexpanded-macro %description -l C
%{pear_docdir}
php-bartlett-PHP-Reflect.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
docdir - doc dir, doc-dir, Doctor
php-bartlett-PHP-Reflect.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US html
- HTML, ht ml, ht-ml
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
= All those can be ignored.
[x] The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
[x] The spec file name must match the base package %{name}
[x] The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines
[x] The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license
[!] The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
= The following files are GPL-licensed:
docs/js/asciidoc-xhtml11.js
docs/js/asciidoc.js
[!] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file must be included in %doc
= There is a LICENSE file, it is not installed as %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
$ sha1sum PHP_Reflect-1.0.2.tgz
b99c85937e21e0a36f3e60b50aa0caddc946f581 PHP_Reflect-1.0.2.tgz
[x] The package '''MUST''' successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture
= Tested in mock, I can't build it in Koji as it has a BR on
php-channel-bartlett which is not yet packaged in Fedora.
[-] The spec file MUST handle locales properly
[-] 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
[-] If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this
fact in the request for review
[?] 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.
= Should /usr/share/pear/Bartlett be owned by php-channel-bartlett or is
PHP like Perl where modules all own top-level module folders?
[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
[x] Each package must consistently use macros
[x] The package must contain code, or permissable content
[x] Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage
$ rpm2cpio php-bartlett-PHP-Reflect-1.0.2-1.fc16.noarch.rpm | cpio -ivd
5957 blocks
$ du -sh usr/share/doc/pear/PHP_Reflect
364K usr/share/doc/pear/PHP_Reflect
= The doc is not in a subpackage, which is ok as it's still small.
[x] If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of
the application
[-] Header files must be in a -devel package
[-] Static libraries must be in a -static package
[-] 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
[-] Subpackages requiring the base package
[-] Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed
in the spec if they are built
[-] Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file,
and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the
%install section
[x] Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages
[x] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8
== SHOULD ==
[-] If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it
[x] If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane
[-] Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using
a fully versioned dependency
[-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and this is
usually for development purposes, so should
