[Bug 613001] Review Request: Heimdal - Alternative Kerberos 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=613001 --- Comment #32 from Rok Papez 2011-09-28 02:09:53 EDT --- AFAIK systemd: - has compatibility mode for legacy SysV init scripts - needs changes in upstream source-code to handle inetd style connection passing - is not mandatory - isn't available yet on CentOS 6 / RHEL What do others think about systemd? Do we need it, prefer it or don't like 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 731972] Review Request: cab - Haskell Cabal package maintenance 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=731972 Jens Petersen changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Jens Petersen 2011-09-28 02:02:25 EDT --- Thanks for the review. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: cab Short Description: Haskell cabal wrapper program Owners: petersen Branches: f14 f15 f16 InitialCC: haskell-sig -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 741824] Review Request: libpinyin - Library to deal with pinyin
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=741824 Peng Wu changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Peng Wu 2011-09-28 01:59:29 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: libpinyin Short Description: Library to deal with pinyin Owners: pwu Branches: f15 f16 InitialCC: i18n-team petersen -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 740283] Review Request: ghc-attoparsec-enumerator - Haskell attoparsec to enumerator 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=740283 Jens Petersen changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Jens Petersen 2011-09-28 01:54:15 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: ghc-attoparsec-enumerator Short Description: Haskell attoparsec to iteree library Owners: petersen Branches: f16 f15 f14 el6 InitialCC: haskell-sig -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 741824] Review Request: libpinyin - Library to deal with pinyin
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=741824 --- Comment #2 from Peng Wu 2011-09-28 01:52:15 EDT --- Thanks for reviewing. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 731972] Review Request: cab - Haskell Cabal package maintenance 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=731972 --- Comment #3 from Lakshmi Narasimhan 2011-09-28 01:18:13 EDT --- Mail sent to upstream requesting them to include license header in each of the source files. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 741824] Review Request: libpinyin - Library to deal with pinyin
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=741824
Parag AN(पराग) changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Parag AN(पराग) 2011-09-28 01:02:15 EDT
---
Review:
+ koji build for
f16->http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3384522
+ rpmlint output is
libpinyin-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
libpinyin-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/include/libpinyin-0.3/pinyin_custom.h
libpinyin-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/include/libpinyin-0.3/novel_types.h
libpinyin-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/include/libpinyin-0.3/pinyin_base.h
libpinyin-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/include/libpinyin-0.3/pinyin.h
libpinyin-data.x86_64: W: no-documentation
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 2 warnings.
+ source verified with upstream as (sha1sum)
83e39b3b2b229970bbf6e3dcc43d0e8786f56aa8 libpinyin-0.2.99.1.tar.gz
83e39b3b2b229970bbf6e3dcc43d0e8786f56aa8 ../SOURCES/libpinyin-0.2.99.1.tar.gz
Suggestions:
1) Please ask the upstream to correct the FSF address as per reported in
rpmlint output.
2) You don't need to clean buildroot in %install. Please remove that line in
spec.
3) Good to use make command as
make %{?_smp_mflags}
4) Good to preserve timestamps with following install command
make install DESTDIR==$RPM_BUILD_ROOT INSTALL="install -p"
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 741824] Review Request: libpinyin - Library to deal with pinyin
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=741824 Peng Wu changed: What|Removed |Added CC||i18n-bugs@lists.fedoraproje ||ct.org AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|panem...@gmail.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 741824] New: Review Request: libpinyin - Library to deal with pinyin
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: libpinyin - Library to deal with pinyin https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=741824 Summary: Review Request: libpinyin - Library to deal with pinyin Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: p...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Spec URL: http://pwu.fedorapeople.org/libpinyin/libpinyin.spec SRPM URL: http://pwu.fedorapeople.org/libpinyin/libpinyin-0.2.99.1-1.fc15.src.rpm Description: The libpinyin project aims to provide the algorithms core for intelligent sentence-based Chinese pinyin input methods. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Kevin Fenzi 2011-09-27 23:38:37 EDT --- All looks good. I see no further blockers... this package is 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 739832] Review Request: django-authenticator - authentication client for django
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=739832 --- Comment #12 from Jon Ciesla 2011-09-27 22:10:50 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 732552] Review Request: nodejs - Evented I/O for V8 JavaScript
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=732552 Bug 732552 depends on bug 741481, which changed state. Bug 741481 Summary: -mtune=atom on i686 breaks nodejs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=741481 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||DEFERRED Status|NEW |CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 740283] Review Request: ghc-attoparsec-enumerator - Haskell attoparsec to enumerator 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=740283 --- Comment #4 from Jens Petersen 2011-09-27 20:30:42 EDT --- Thanks, Lakshmi, for the review. > There is a summary-too-long error. Can that be fixed? Yes, good point - let me fix that when importing. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 732480] Review Request: gofer - An extensible, light weight, universal python agent
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=732480 --- Comment #13 from Jeff Ortel 2011-09-27 19:53:08 EDT --- John, Please use the following when continuing the review: Spec URL: https://fedorahosted.org/releases/g/o/gofer/gofer.spec SRPM URL: https://fedorahosted.org/releases/g/o/gofer/gofer-0.49-3.fc14.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 736582] Review Request: ghc-primitive - Wrappers for primitive operations
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=736582 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System 2011-09-27 19:04:25 EDT --- ghc-vector-0.7.1-1.fc14, ghc-primitive-0.3.1-2.fc14 has been pushed to the Fedora 14 stable repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||lis-1.2.53-3.fc15 Resolution||ERRATA Last Closed||2011-09-27 19:05:59 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 #9 from Fedora Update System 2011-09-27 19:05:52 EDT --- lis-1.2.53-3.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 stable repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 736582] Review Request: ghc-primitive - Wrappers for primitive operations
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=736582 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|ghc-vector-0.7.1-1.fc15 |ghc-vector-0.7.1-1.fc14 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 736586] Review Request: ghc-vector - Efficient Arrays 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=736586 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|ghc-vector-0.7.1-1.fc15 |ghc-vector-0.7.1-1.fc14 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 736586] Review Request: ghc-vector - Efficient Arrays 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=736586 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System 2011-09-27 19:04:32 EDT --- ghc-vector-0.7.1-1.fc14, ghc-primitive-0.3.1-2.fc14 has been pushed to the Fedora 14 stable repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 736582] Review Request: ghc-primitive - Wrappers for primitive operations
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=736582 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||ghc-vector-0.7.1-1.fc15 Resolution||ERRATA Last Closed||2011-09-27 19:02:43 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 736586] Review Request: ghc-vector - Efficient Arrays 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=736586 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System 2011-09-27 19:02:37 EDT --- ghc-vector-0.7.1-1.fc15, ghc-primitive-0.3.1-2.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 stable repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 615428] Review Request: olfs - OPeNDAP Lightweight Frontend Servlet - client interface for Hyrax
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=615428 --- Comment #5 from Orion Poplawski 2011-09-27 19:03:19 EDT --- Lovely: [orion@orca logback (master)]$ cat dead.package This package was retired due to no active owner on 2011-02-23 I guess we'll need to resurrect 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 736582] Review Request: ghc-primitive - Wrappers for primitive operations
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=736582 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System 2011-09-27 19:02:31 EDT --- ghc-vector-0.7.1-1.fc15, ghc-primitive-0.3.1-2.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 stable repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 736586] Review Request: ghc-vector - Efficient Arrays 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=736586 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||ghc-vector-0.7.1-1.fc15 Resolution||ERRATA Last Closed||2011-09-27 19:02:48 Bug 736586 depends on bug 736582, which changed state. Bug 736582 Summary: Review Request: ghc-primitive - Wrappers for primitive operations https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=736582 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||ERRATA 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 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 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|perl-DynaLoader-Functions-0 |perl-DynaLoader-Functions-0 |.000-1.fc14 |.000-1.fc15 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 720327] Review Request: perl-DynaLoader-Functions - Deconstructed dynamic C library loading
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=720327 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|perl-DynaLoader-Functions-0 |perl-DynaLoader-Functions-0 |.000-1.fc14 |.000-1.fc15 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System 2011-09-27 19:03:46 EDT --- perl-DynaLoader-Functions-0.000-1.fc15, perl-Devel-CallChecker-0.003-1.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 720327] Review Request: perl-DynaLoader-Functions - Deconstructed dynamic C library loading
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=720327 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System 2011-09-27 19:03:39 EDT --- perl-DynaLoader-Functions-0.000-1.fc15, perl-Devel-CallChecker-0.003-1.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 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 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version|perl-Devel-CallChecker-0.00 |perl-DynaLoader-Functions-0 |3-1.fc17|.000-1.fc14 Resolution||ERRATA Last Closed||2011-09-27 18:57:32 Bug 720333 depends on bug 720327, which changed state. Bug 720327 Summary: Review Request: perl-DynaLoader-Functions - Deconstructed dynamic C library loading https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=720327 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||ERRATA 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 720327] Review Request: perl-DynaLoader-Functions - Deconstructed dynamic C library loading
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=720327 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version|perl-DynaLoader-Functions-0 |perl-DynaLoader-Functions-0 |.000-1.fc16 |.000-1.fc14 Resolution||ERRATA Last Closed||2011-09-27 18:57:27 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System 2011-09-27 18:57:22 EDT --- perl-DynaLoader-Functions-0.000-1.fc14, perl-Devel-CallChecker-0.003-1.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 720327] Review Request: perl-DynaLoader-Functions - Deconstructed dynamic C library loading
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=720327 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System 2011-09-27 18:57:16 EDT --- perl-DynaLoader-Functions-0.000-1.fc14, perl-Devel-CallChecker-0.003-1.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 615428] Review Request: olfs - OPeNDAP Lightweight Frontend Servlet - client interface for Hyrax
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=615428 Jon VanAlten changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jon.vanal...@redhat.com --- Comment #4 from Jon VanAlten 2011-09-27 18:25:13 EDT --- This fails to build for me on F15: error: Failed build dependencies: logback is needed by olfs-1.7.1-1.fc15.noarch $ yum search logback Loaded plugins: auto-update-debuginfo, langpacks, presto, refresh-packagekit updates/pkgtags | 50 kB 00:00 Warning: No matches found for: logback -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 727670] Review Request: simplevalidation - A simple library for retrofitting user-interface input validation to Swing applications
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727670 Jon VanAlten changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jon.vanal...@redhat.com --- Comment #4 from Jon VanAlten 2011-09-27 17:29:35 EDT --- Thanks Alex, I can (and have, I believe) assigned to myself, but since I have not yet been sponsored to the packagers group I cannot change the fedora-cvs flag. FWIW, I *do* think the package is good to go with the update posted above, assuming Omair has tested the revised spec. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 741334] Review Request: python-smmap - sliding window memory map manager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=741334 Thomas Spura changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|toms...@fedoraproject.org --- Comment #9 from Thomas Spura 2011-09-27 17:13:49 EDT --- (In reply to comment #8) > Thomas, please take ownership of Review BZs. Thanks! Sorry, 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 732480] Review Request: gofer - An extensible, light weight, universal python agent
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=732480
--- Comment #12 from Jeff Ortel 2011-09-27 17:07:32 EDT ---
Complaint: gofer.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/log/gofer 0700L has been
addressed.
Spec URL: https://fedorahosted.org/releases/g/o/gofer/gofer.spec
SRPM URL: https://fedorahosted.org/releases/g/o/gofer/gofer-0.49-2.fc14.src.rpm
No rpmlint errors:
gofer.src:83: W: libdir-macro-in-noarch-package (main package)
%{_libdir}/%{name}/plugins/builtin.*
gofer.src:105: W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes %{name}-lib
gofer.src:171: W: libdir-macro-in-noarch-package gofer-system
%{_libdir}/%{name}/plugins/system.*
gofer.src:193: W: libdir-macro-in-noarch-package gofer-watchdog
%{_libdir}/%{name}/plugins/watchdog.*
gofer.src:215: W: libdir-macro-in-noarch-package gofer-virt
%{_libdir}/%{name}/plugins/virt.*
gofer.noarch: W: log-files-without-logrotate /var/log/gofer
gofer.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary goferd
gofer.noarch: W: service-default-enabled /etc/init.d/goferd
gofer.noarch: W: no-reload-entry /etc/init.d/goferd
python-gofer.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided gofer-lib
gofer-system.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
gofer-watchdog.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
gofer-virt.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) virtualization ->
actualization, visualization, contextualization
gofer-virt.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) plugin -> plug in, plug-in,
plugging
gofer-virt.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US virtualization ->
actualization, visualization, contextualization
gofer-virt.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US plugin -> plug in,
plug-in, plugging
gofer-virt.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libvirt -> liberty,
Liberty, librate
gofer-virt.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 18 warnings.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 732480] Review Request: gofer - An extensible, light weight, universal python agent
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=732480
--- Comment #11 from Jeff Ortel 2011-09-27 16:40:29 EDT ---
I moved the journal back to /var/lib/gofer/journal/watchdog with permissions
acceptable to rpmlint. Also notice that 0.49 has a few more sub-packages.
Spec URL: https://fedorahosted.org/releases/g/o/gofer/gofer.spec
SRPM URL: https://fedorahosted.org/releases/g/o/gofer/gofer-0.49-1.fc14.src.rpm
Looks rpmlint has the opposite issue with /var/log/gofer. This directory is
closed down to owner (root) only because sensitive data is logged.
gofer.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/log/gofer 0700L
I can probably deal with this the same was as the journal directory.
rpmlint on all packages:
gofer.src:83: W: libdir-macro-in-noarch-package (main package)
%{_libdir}/%{name}/plugins/builtin.*
gofer.src:104: W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes %{name}-lib
gofer.src:170: W: libdir-macro-in-noarch-package gofer-system
%{_libdir}/%{name}/plugins/system.*
gofer.src:192: W: libdir-macro-in-noarch-package gofer-watchdog
%{_libdir}/%{name}/plugins/watchdog.*
gofer.src:214: W: libdir-macro-in-noarch-package gofer-virt
%{_libdir}/%{name}/plugins/virt.*
gofer.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/log/gofer 0700L
gofer.noarch: W: log-files-without-logrotate /var/log/gofer
gofer.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary goferd
gofer.noarch: W: service-default-enabled /etc/init.d/goferd
gofer.noarch: W: no-reload-entry /etc/init.d/goferd
python-gofer.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided gofer-lib
gofer-system.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
gofer-watchdog.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
gofer-virt.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) virtualization ->
actualization, visualization, contextualization
gofer-virt.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) plugin -> plug in, plug-in,
plugging
gofer-virt.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US virtualization ->
actualization, visualization, contextualization
gofer-virt.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US plugin -> plug in,
plug-in, plugging
gofer-virt.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libvirt -> liberty,
Liberty, librate
gofer-virt.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 18 warnings.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 728691] Review Request: django-registration - A user-registration application for Django
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=728691 --- Comment #14 from Matthias Runge 2011-09-27 16:23:07 EDT --- (In reply to comment #13) > Praveen, ping. Please forget this comment. I must have missed pkgb emails. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 728691] Review Request: django-registration - A user-registration application for Django
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=728691 --- Comment #13 from Matthias Runge 2011-09-27 16:20:02 EDT --- Praveen, ping. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 739832] Review Request: django-authenticator - authentication client for django
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=739832 Matthias Runge changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #11 from Matthias Runge 2011-09-27 16:17:27 EDT --- Thank you for the review. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: django-authenticator Short Description: authentication client for django Owners: mrunge Branches: EL6 f15 f16 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 542580] Review Request: statusnet - Open Source microblogging platform
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=542580 Matěj Cepl changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||741761 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 731972] Review Request: cab - Haskell Cabal package maintenance 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=731972
Lakshmi Narasimhan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Lakshmi Narasimhan 2011-09-27
15:04:24 EDT ---
[+]MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
the review.
rpmlint -i *.rpm ../cab.spec
cab.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ghc -> chg
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
cab.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cab
Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page.
cab.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ghc -> chg
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
[+]MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+]MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec
[+]MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
Naming-Yes
Version-release - Matches
No prebuilt external bits - OK
Spec legibity - OK
Package template - OK
Arch support - OK
Libexecdir - OK
rpmlint - yes
changelogs - OK
Source url tag - OK, validated.
Build Requires list - OK
Summary and description - OK
API documentation - OK, none available
[+]MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines .
License is BSD
[+]MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[+]MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package must be included in %doc.
LICENSE file is included
[+]MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+]MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+]MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream
source,as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task.
md5sum cab-0.1.6-1.fc15.src/cab-0.1.6.tar.gz
2b595a8413e31a7d34cfd10761caa636 cab-0.1.6-1.fc15.src/cab-0.1.6.tar.gz
md5sum cab-0.1.6.tar.gz
2b595a8413e31a7d34cfd10761caa636 cab-0.1.6.tar.gz
[+]MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture.
Built on i686.
[+]MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch.
[+]MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.
[NA]MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly using the %find_lang macro
[NA]MUST: Packages stores shared library files must call ldconfig in %post and
%postun.
[+]MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
Checked with rpmquery --list
[NA]MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review.
[+]MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates.
Checked with rpmquery --whatprovides
[+]MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file's %files listings.
[+]MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
Checked with ls -lR
[+]MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[+]MUST: The package must contain code, or permissible content.
[NA]MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
[+]MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application.
[NA]MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[NA]MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[NA]MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix
(e.g.libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must
go in a -devel package.
[NA]MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned
dependency: Requires: {name} = %{version}-%{release}
[NA]MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be
removed in the spec if they are built.
[NA]MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the
%install section
[+]MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
[+]MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
Should items
[+]SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[+]SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described.
Installed the package. No issues.Ran the program "cab". No issues.
[+]SHOULD: If scriptlets are used,
[Bug 734531] Review Request: unison240 - File synchronisation 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=734531 --- Comment #15 from Gregor Tätzner 2011-09-27 14:56:08 EDT --- (In reply to comment #12) > (In reply to comment #4) > > really have no idea how to pass the rpm optflags. make > > CFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS" > > doesnt't work: > > "/usr/bin/ocamlopt: unknown option `-O2'." ... > > Crazy idea here... Maybe you set CFLAGS to $RPM_OPT_FLAGS but use sed to > remove > the minimum number of options that makes ocamlopt happy... No good idea, not a single option is compatible. > The question I have is: Is this package required to use the standard compiler > flags? I don't think so -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 740283] Review Request: ghc-attoparsec-enumerator - Haskell attoparsec to enumerator 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=740283
Lakshmi Narasimhan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Lakshmi Narasimhan 2011-09-27
14:47:00 EDT ---
[+]MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
the review.
ghc-attoparsec-enumerator.i686: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Haskell ->
Gaskell, Gaitskell, Skellum
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ghc-attoparsec-enumerator.i686: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) iteree ->
iterate, iterator, iterative
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ghc-attoparsec-enumerator.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US iteree
-> iterate, iterator, iterative
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ghc-attoparsec-enumerator.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Haskell ->
Gaskell, Gaitskell, Skellum
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ghc-attoparsec-enumerator.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) iteree ->
iterate, iterator, iterative
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ghc-attoparsec-enumerator.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US iteree
-> iterate, iterator, iterative
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ghc-attoparsec-enumerator-devel.i686: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) iteree
-> iterate, iterator, iterative
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ghc-attoparsec-enumerator-devel.i686: E: summary-too-long C Development files
for Haskell library to convert an attoparsec parser to an iteree
The "Summary:" must not exceed 80 characters.
ghc-attoparsec-enumerator-devel.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
iteree -> iterate, iterator, iterative
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 8 warnings.
[+]MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+]MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec
[+]MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
Naming-Yes
Version-release - Matches
No prebuilt external bits - OK
Spec legibity - OK
Package template - OK
Arch support - OK
Libexecdir - OK
rpmlint - yes
changelogs - OK
Source url tag - OK, validated.
Build Requires list - OK
Summary and description - OK
API documentation - OK, in devel package
[+]MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines.
MIT license
[+]MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[+]MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package must be included in %doc.
license.txt file contains the actual license
[+]MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+]MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+]MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream
source,as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task.
md5sum
ghc-attoparsec-enumerator-0.2.0.4-1.fc15.src/attoparsec-enumerator-0.2.0.4.tar.gz
59153f3fa18a87bb4fbe7bcc359d8ac6
ghc-attoparsec-enumerator-0.2.0.4-1.fc15.src/attoparsec-enumerator-0.2.0.4.tar.gz
md5sum attoparsec-enumerator-0.2.0.4.tar.gz
59153f3fa18a87bb4fbe7bcc359d8ac6 attoparsec-enumerator-0.2.0.4.tar.gz
[+]MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture.
Built on i686.
[+]MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch.
[+]MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.
[NA]MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly using the %find_lang macro
[NA]MUST: Packages stores shared library files must call ldconfig in %post and
%postun.
[+]MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
Checked with rpmquery --list
[NA]MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review.
[+]MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates.
Checked with rpmquery --whatprovides
[+]MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file's %files listings.
[+]MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
Checked with ls -lR
[+]MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[+]MUST: The package must contain code, or permissible con
[Bug 735705] Review Request: xs - Shell supporting functional programming
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=735705 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|xs-0.1-2.git9c19777.fc15|xs-0.1-2.git9c19777.el6 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 735705] Review Request: xs - Shell supporting functional programming
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=735705 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System 2011-09-27 14:28:51 EDT --- xs-0.1-2.git9c19777.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 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 728506] Review Request: rubygem-i18n_data - Country/language names and 2-letter-code pairs, in 85 languages
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=728506 --- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla 2011-09-27 14:13:08 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 734531] Review Request: unison240 - File synchronisation 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=734531 Jussi Lehtola changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: unison -|Review Request: unison240 - |File synchronisation tool |File synchronisation tool --- Comment #14 from Jussi Lehtola 2011-09-27 14:07:16 EDT --- Okay, the title of the review request was just wrong. 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 734531] Review Request: unison - File synchronisation 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=734531 --- Comment #13 from Gregor Tätzner 2011-09-27 14:02:54 EDT --- SPEC: http://brummbq.fedorapeople.org/unison240.spec SRPM: http://brummbq.fedorapeople.org/unison240-2.40.63-3.fc15.src.rpm (In reply to comment #11) > Using --vendor fedora has been obsolete for many years. Please remove it. Thanks, fixed. > Since IIRC Unison is not upwards or backwards compatible, I'm thinking that > this package should be unison240. This isn't exactly what I'm doing? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 734531] Review Request: unison - File synchronisation 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=734531
--- Comment #12 from Richard Shaw 2011-09-27 13:46:21
EDT ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> little update
> SPEC: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/4023668/unison240.spec
> SRPM: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/4023668/unison240-2.40.63-2.fc15.src.rpm
>
> why I have to post both the SPEC and SRPM?
This makes it easier to check out the spec file without having to download the
whole SRPM.
> really have no idea how to pass the rpm optflags. make CFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS"
> doesnt't work:
> "/usr/bin/ocamlopt: unknown option `-O2'." ...
Crazy idea here... Maybe you set CFLAGS to $RPM_OPT_FLAGS but use sed to remove
the minimum number of options that makes ocamlopt happy...
The question I have is: Is this package required to use the standard compiler
flags?
The guidelines[1] say:
"For C, C++, and Fortran code, the %{optflags} macro contains these flags."
I'm not familier with ocmal... Is it considered a standard C,C++, etc.
compiler?
Richard
[1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Compiler_flags
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 613001] Review Request: Heimdal - Alternative Kerberos 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=613001 --- Comment #31 from Orion Poplawski 2011-09-27 13:41:56 EDT --- Note also that a number of changes will need to be done for systemd in Fedora 15+. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 728506] Review Request: rubygem-i18n_data - Country/language names and 2-letter-code pairs, in 85 languages
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=728506 Vít Ondruch changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Vít Ondruch 2011-09-27 13:36:33 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: rubygem-i18n_data Short Description: Country/language names and 2-letter-code pairs, in 85 languages Owners: vondruch Branches: 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 452427] Review Request: awesome - Extremely fast, small, dynamic and awesome floating and tiling window manager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=452427 --- Comment #121 from Jim Meyering 2011-09-27 13:34:44 EDT --- Yes, exactly. Thank you. However, when I try to update, I get this: --> Finished Dependency Resolution Error: Package: awesome-3.4.10-2.fc16.i686 (fedora-awesome) Requires: xsri You could try using --skip-broken to work around the problem You could try running: rpm -Va --nofiles --nodigest ... There's probably a way to tell yum to ignore that requirement (which is just fine, afaict), but I don't know it. Or maybe there's another source for the now-missing-in-F16 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 737379] Review Request: drupal7-views - Provides a method for Drupal designers to control content presentation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=737379 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System 2011-09-27 13:33:19 EDT --- drupal7-views-3.0-0.1.rc1.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 testing repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 741433] Review Request: libpgf - PGF (Progressive Graphics File) 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=741433 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System 2011-09-27 13:32:01 EDT --- libpgf-6.11.24-1.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 testing repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 613001] Review Request: Heimdal - Alternative Kerberos 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=613001 --- Comment #30 from Rok Papez 2011-09-27 13:32:06 EDT --- I'm currently building with a version from GIT (would be 1.5.1). Need to fix some more things with the merge from Orions changes. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 730317] Review Request: jboss-logmanager-log4j - JBoss LogManager Log4j Compatibility 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=730317 --- Comment #6 from Jaromír Cápík 2011-09-27 13:05:16 EDT --- One more issue is present ... apidocs are copied with the apidocs directory, please fix that ... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 727171] Review Request: jboss-dmr - JBoss DMR
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727171 --- Comment #4 from Jaromír Cápík 2011-09-27 13:04:56 EDT --- One more issue is present ... apidocs are copied with the apidocs directory, please fix that ... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 452427] Review Request: awesome - Extremely fast, small, dynamic and awesome floating and tiling window manager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=452427 --- Comment #120 from Thomas Moschny 2011-09-27 12:41:27 EDT --- (In reply to comment #119) > Thomas, any chance of a refresh? > I see that there's a new cairo out. > If you had an i686 repository, I'd use it ;-) You mean f16? I recently updated my repository, please give it a try. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 727171] Review Request: jboss-dmr - JBoss DMR
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727171
--- Comment #3 from Jaromír Cápík 2011-09-27 12:40:34 EDT
---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[?] Rpmlint output:
$ rpmlint jboss-dmr-1.0.0-1.fc15.src.rpm
jboss-dmr.src: W: invalid-url Source0: jboss-dmr-1.0.0.Final.tar.xz
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
NOTE : RPMs not available, can't test them.
[x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines[1].
[x] Spec file name must match the base package name, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines[2].
[!] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms.
Build failed!
NOTE : Mock result attached
[x] Buildroot definition is not present
[x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines[3,4].
[x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type: LGPLv2+
[x] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package is included in %doc.
[-] All independent sub-packages have license of their own
[x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
MD5SUM this package : 5dec1bf1f21f0c8973f314fc2ce93520
MD5SUM upstream package : not relevant -> svn export
NOTE: directory diff was empty -> sources match
[?] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines[5].
[x] Package must own all directories that it creates.
[-] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x] File sections do not contain %defattr(-,root,root,-) unless changed with
good reason
[?] Permissions on files are set properly.
[x] Package does NOT have a %clean section which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}
(or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). (not needed anymore)
[x] Package consistently uses macros (no %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
mixing)
[x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
[x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[?] Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
subpackage
[x] Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlinks)
[x] Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
[x] Javadoc subpackages have Require: jpackage-utils
[x] Package uses %global not %define
[x] If package uses tarball from VCS include comment how to re-create that
tarball (svn export URL, git clone URL, ...)
[-] If source tarball includes bundled jar/class files these need to be
removed prior to building
[x] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
[x] Jar files are installed to %{_javadir}/%{name}.jar (see [6] for details)
[x] If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even when
building with ant
[x] pom files has correct add_maven_depmap
=== Maven ===
[x] Use %{_mavenpomdir} macro for placing pom files instead of
%{_datadir}/maven2/poms
[x] If package uses "-Dmaven.test.skip=true" explain why it was needed in a
comment
[-] If package uses custom depmap "-Dmaven.local.depmap.file=*" explain why
it's needed in a comment
[x] Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun
[x] Packages DOES NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on
jpackage-utils for %update_maven_depmap macro
=== Other suggestions ===
[x] If possible use upstream build method (maven/ant/javac)
[x] Avoid having BuildRequires on exact NVR unless necessary
[x] Package has BuildArch: noarch (if possible)
[x] Latest version is packaged.
[!] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
Tested on: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Build failed!
NOTE : Mock result attached
=== Issues ===
1. Package can't be built with mock -> can't verify missing deps
=== Final Notes ===
1. Remove that empty %doc in the %files section
Please, fix the build and let me know.
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines
[2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines
[3] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines
[4] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main
[5] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2
[6] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Filenames
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail becaus
[Bug 741706] New: Review Request: ttyrec - tty recorder
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: ttyrec - tty recorder https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=741706 Summary: Review Request: ttyrec - tty recorder Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: unspecified Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: jmar...@learningobjects.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Spec URL: http://gio.rupture.net/ttyrec.spec SRPM URL: http://gio.rupture.net/ttyrec-1.0.8-2.src.rpm Description: ttyrec can record any terminal session and be replayed later. Unlike the script command, it has no problem recording vi sessions, or any other programs that run in a terminal. Recorded data can be played back with the included ttyplay command. This is my first package and I need a sponsor. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 718681] Review Request: luajit - Just-In-Time Compiler for Lua
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=718681
--- Comment #6 from john5342 2011-09-27 12:15:42 EDT ---
Just a few initial notes looking at the spec file:
The actual shared library (libluajit-5.1.so.2.*) is in the main package as it
should be but libluajit-5.1.so should only be used for linking against and
should therefore be in the devel package.
The buildroot tag is not one of the standard ones so far as i remember but
either way it has not been needed for some time now and is ignored on our build
system.
The hotfix patch (which is obviously upstream) should be provided as a full URL
just like the source package.
%{optflags} must always be used. Adding CFLAGS="%{optflags}" to the build
commandline should do the trick according to the in Makefile documentation.
All build output should be in verbose mode to aid in debugging failed builds as
well as verifying that correct flags are used. I don't know of an easy way with
these hand written Makefiles but it certainly should be investigated.
A quick build and rpmlint of the resulting output:
$ rpmlint luajit-*.rpm
luajit.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libluajit-5.1.so.2.0.0
exit@GLIBC_2.2.5
Can probably be ignored since it is required to implement os.exit()
luajit.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary luajit-2.0.0-beta8
Not ideal but upstream don't provide one.
luajit-debuginfo.x86_64: E: empty-debuginfo-package
This is an error. Not sure if it is because it's failing to pick up the debug
options in %{optflags} or something else but difficult to tell without knowing
what commands are run.
luajit-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
devel requires the main package which does contain docs
luajit-static.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libluajit ->
liberality
Ignore
luajit-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation
Same as above
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 5 warnings.
If these things are sorted i can probably do a proper review when i get some
time.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 727171] Review Request: jboss-dmr - JBoss DMR
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727171 --- Comment #2 from Jaromír Cápík 2011-09-27 12:17:41 EDT --- Created attachment 525164 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=525164 Mock result -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 734531] Review Request: unison - File synchronisation 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=734531 Jussi Lehtola changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jussi.leht...@iki.fi --- Comment #11 from Jussi Lehtola 2011-09-27 12:17:21 EDT --- Using --vendor fedora has been obsolete for many years. Please remove it. Since IIRC Unison is not upwards or backwards compatible, I'm thinking that this package should be unison240. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 718681] Review Request: luajit - Just-In-Time Compiler for Lua
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=718681 --- Comment #7 from john5342 2011-09-27 12:16:48 EDT --- Apologies. I can't do the review. Didn't spot the FE-NEEDSPONSOR but the above points still apply. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 727171] Review Request: jboss-dmr - JBoss DMR
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727171 Jaromír Cápík changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||jca...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jca...@redhat.com --- Comment #1 from Jaromír Cápík 2011-09-27 11:45:50 EDT --- I'll do this one. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 727171] Review Request: jboss-dmr - JBoss DMR
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727171 Jaromír Cápík 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 734531] Review Request: unison - File synchronisation 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=734531 Gregor Tätzner changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 673589] Review Request: UpTools - C++ library for hpc, networking, db, memory, etc.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=673589 --- Comment #61 from Fedora Update System 2011-09-27 10:52:39 EDT --- UpTools-8.6.1-1.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/UpTools-8.6.1-1.fc14 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 673589] Review Request: UpTools - C++ library for hpc, networking, db, memory, etc.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=673589 --- Comment #60 from Fedora Update System 2011-09-27 10:40:25 EDT --- UpTools-8.6.1-1.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/UpTools-8.6.1-1.fc15 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 720857] Review Request: datalog - A Lightweight Deductive Database using Datalog
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=720857 Michel Alexandre Salim changed: What|Removed |Added CC||michel+...@sylvestre.me --- Comment #13 from Michel Alexandre Salim 2011-09-27 10:34:04 EDT --- Tim, by all means do the review; just Cc:ing myself to follow this review process -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 591332] Review Request: debconf - Debian configuration management system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=591332
--- Comment #6 from Miroslav Suchý 2011-09-27 10:24:28 EDT
---
In description: s/debian/Debian/
build root is not needed any more (unless you plan to do epel build)
%{_prefix}/lib/python2.* - this is bad. you should use python_sitelib macro
Pass smp macro to make:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Parallel_make
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 591332] Review Request: debconf - Debian configuration management system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=591332 Miroslav Suchý changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo?(kanarip@kanarip.c ||om) --- Comment #5 from Miroslav Suchý 2011-09-27 10:17:36 EDT --- I got this error during rpmbuild: ... + install -m 644 doc/man/gen/debconf-mergetemplate.ru.1 /home/msuchy/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/debconf-1.5.32-4.fc15.x86_64//usr/share/man/ru/man1/debconf-mergetemplate.1 + test -f doc/man/gen/debconf-mergetemplate.1 + install -m 644 doc/man/gen/debconf-mergetemplate.1 /home/msuchy/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/debconf-1.5.32-4.fc15.x86_64//usr/share/man/man1/debconf-mergetemplate.1 + /usr/lib/rpm/find-debuginfo.sh --strict-build-id /home/msuchy/rpmbuild/BUILD/debconf find: `debug': No such file or directory + /usr/lib/rpm/check-buildroot + /usr/lib/rpm/redhat/brp-compress + /usr/lib/rpm/redhat/brp-strip-static-archive /usr/bin/strip + /usr/lib/rpm/brp-python-bytecompile /usr/bin/python 1 Bytecompiling .py files below /home/msuchy/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/debconf-1.5.32-4.fc15.x86_64/usr/lib/python2.6/ using /usr/bin/python2.6 /usr/lib/rpm/brp-python-bytecompile: line 44: /usr/bin/python2.6: No such file or directory error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.R9QchK (%install) Can you please tune it for Fedora 17? Or Fedora 16? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 591332] Review Request: debconf - Debian configuration management system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=591332 Miroslav Suchý changed: What|Removed |Added CC||msu...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|msu...@redhat.com --- Comment #4 from Miroslav Suchý 2011-09-27 10:11:41 EDT --- taking I assume correct url is now: http://mirror.kolabsys.com/pub/fedora/apt-utils/f15/SRPMS/debconf-1.5.32-4.fc13.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 556128] Review Request: ff-utils - Utilities to test force feedback of input device
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=556128 --- Comment #14 from Miroslav Suchý 2011-09-27 10:05:49 EDT --- ping? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 673589] Review Request: UpTools - C++ library for hpc, networking, db, memory, etc.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=673589 --- Comment #59 from Fedora Update System 2011-09-27 09:50:53 EDT --- UpTools-8.6.1-1.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/UpTools-8.6.1-1.fc16 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 741334] Review Request: python-smmap - sliding window memory map manager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=741334 --- Comment #8 from Jon Ciesla 2011-09-27 09:49:21 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests). Thomas, please take ownership of Review BZs. Thanks! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 673589] Review Request: UpTools - C++ library for hpc, networking, db, memory, etc.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=673589 --- Comment #58 from Fedora Update System 2011-09-27 09:32:43 EDT --- UpTools-8.5.5-5.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/UpTools-8.5.5-5.fc15 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 720857] Review Request: datalog - A Lightweight Deductive Database using Datalog
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=720857 --- Comment #12 from John D. Ramsdell 2011-09-27 09:27:30 EDT --- (In reply to comment #11) > I'll take this review as I have some Lua background and I'm familiar with the > topic. Thank you for taking this on. I really need help from someone with Lua experience. > Please consider renaming the package to lua-datalog I don't mind renaming the Fedora package > (and naming the software itself datalog-lua would be a little more to the > point). but, the software has been called datalog since 2004, and I am loath to go through that kind of name change. Even its SourceForge site is http://datalog.sf.net. As a follower of Lua, you might be interested in a little history. You may recall that I posted patches to Lua that replace all floating point operations with integer ones. The reason is I wanted to run Lua in a tiny Xen VM build in Mini-OS, and Mini-OS had no support for saving FP registers during a context switch. The program we wanted to run within the tiny VM was Datalog. http://lists.xensource.com/archives/html/xen-devel/2006-04/msg01159.html -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 741626] New: Review Request: packmol - Packing optimization for molecular dynamics simulations
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: packmol - Packing optimization for molecular dynamics
simulations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=741626
Summary: Review Request: packmol - Packing optimization for
molecular dynamics simulations
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/packmol.spec
SRPM URL:
http://theory.physics.helsinki.fi/~jzlehtol/rpms/packmol-1.1.1.258-1.fc15.src.rpm
Upstream URL:
http://www.ime.unicamp.br/~martinez/packmol/
Description:
Packmol creates an initial point for molecular dynamics simulations by
packing molecules in defined regions of space. The packing guarantees
that short range repulsive interactions do not disrupt the
simulations.
The great variety of types of spatial constraints that can be
attributed to the molecules, or atoms within the molecules, makes it
easy to create ordered systems, such as lamellar, spherical or tubular
lipid layers.
The user must provide only the coordinates of one molecule of each
type, the number of molecules of each type and the spatial constraints
that each type of molecule must satisfy.
The package is compatible with input files of PDB, TINKER, XYZ and
MOLDY formats.
rpmlint output:
packmol.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lamellar -> Carmella,
Mallarme, Marcella
packmol.src:58: W: macro-in-comment %{buildroot}
packmol.src:58: W: macro-in-comment %{_bindir}
packmol.src:68: W: macro-in-comment %{_bindir}
packmol.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lamellar -> Carmella,
Mallarme, Marcella
packmol.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary packmol
packmol.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary packmol_solvate
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 531605] Review Request: packmol - Packing Optimization for Molecular Dynamics 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=531605 Jussi Lehtola changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||DUPLICATE Last Closed||2011-09-27 09:13:38 --- Comment #18 from Jussi Lehtola 2011-09-27 09:13:38 EDT --- Closing due to submitter inactivity. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 741626 *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 741334] Review Request: python-smmap - sliding window memory map manager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=741334 Jesse Keating changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Jesse Keating 2011-09-27 09:13:33 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-smmap Short Description: Sliding window memory map manager Owners: jkeating Branches: f16 f15 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 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 Bug 505154 depends on bug 531605, which changed state. Bug 531605 Summary: Review Request: packmol - Packing Optimization for Molecular Dynamics Simulations https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=531605 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||DUPLICATE Status|NEW |CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 741626] Review Request: packmol - Packing optimization for molecular dynamics 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=741626 Jussi Lehtola changed: What|Removed |Added CC||marbolan...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Jussi Lehtola 2011-09-27 09:13:38 EDT --- *** Bug 531605 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 720857] Review Request: datalog - A Lightweight Deductive Database using Datalog
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=720857 Tim Niemueller changed: What|Removed |Added CC||t...@niemueller.de AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|t...@niemueller.de --- Comment #11 from Tim Niemueller 2011-09-27 08:46:28 EDT --- John contacted me by private mail, If no one objects, I'll take this review as I have some Lua background and I'm familiar with the topic. Please consider renaming the package to lua-datalog (and naming the software itself datalog-lua would be a little more to the point). It is not the canonical datalog implementation, but just a particular one in Lua. I'll reply to your mail to answer the rest. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 730317] Review Request: jboss-logmanager-log4j - JBoss LogManager Log4j Compatibility 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=730317 Jaromír Cápík changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Jaromír Cápík 2011-09-27 08:15:09 EDT --- I thought You would like to attach the fixed spec file ... probably misunderstanding. --- [x] Rpmlint output: $ rpmlint jboss-logmanager-log4j-1.0.0-1.fc17.src.rpm jboss-logmanager-log4j.src: W: invalid-url Source0: jboss-logmanager-log4j-1.0.0.GA.tar.xz 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. $ rpmlint jboss-logmanager-log4j-1.0.0-1.fc17.noarch.rpm jboss-logmanager-log4j.noarch: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. $ rpmlint jboss-logmanager-log4j-javadoc-1.0.0-1.fc17.noarch.rpm jboss-logmanager-log4j-javadoc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Javadocs -> Java docs, Java-docs, Avocados 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms. [x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines[5]. [x] Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc subpackage [x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. Tested on: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 *** 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 720857] Review Request: datalog - A Lightweight Deductive Database using Datalog
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=720857 John D. Ramsdell changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | --- Comment #10 from John D. Ramsdell 2011-09-27 07:44:03 EDT --- (In reply to comment #9) > My sponsor is Tom "spot" Callaway. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=683127#c33 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 728158] Review Request: jboss-vfs - JBoss Virtual File System
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=728158
--- Comment #2 from Tomas Radej 2011-09-27 07:25:25 EDT ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x] Rpmlint output: jboss-vfs.noarch: W: no-documentation
jboss-vfs.src: W: invalid-url Source0: jboss-vfs-3.0.1.GA.tar.xz
jboss-vfs-javadoc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Javadocs -> Java
docs, Java-docs, Avocados
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
[x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines[1].
[x] Spec file name must match the base package name, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[!] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines[2]. << See Issues
[x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms.
[x] Buildroot definition is not present
[!] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines[3,4]. << See Issues
[x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type: LGPLv2+
[-] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package is included in %doc.
[-] All independent sub-packages have license of their own
[x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines[5].
[x] Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x] File sections do not contain %defattr(-,root,root,-) unless changed with
good reason
[x] Permissions on files are set properly.
[x] Package does NOT have a %clean section which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}
(or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). (not needed anymore)
[x] Package consistently uses macros (no %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
mixing)
[x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
[x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[!] Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
subpackage << Folder copied in %doc is apidocs, should be apidocs/*
[x] Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlinks)
[x] Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
[x] Javadoc subpackages have Require: jpackage-utils
[x] Package uses %global not %define
[x] If package uses tarball from VCS include comment how to re-create that
tarball (svn export URL, git clone URL, ...)
[!] If source tarball includes bundled jar/class files these need to be
removed prior to building << JAR files present in src/test/resources
[x] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
[x] Jar files are installed to %{_javadir}/%{name}.jar (see [6] for details)
[x] If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even when
building with ant
[x] pom files has correct add_maven_depmap
=== Maven ===
[x] Use %{_mavenpomdir} macro for placing pom files instead of
%{_datadir}/maven2/poms
[x] If package uses "-Dmaven.test.skip=true" explain why it was needed in a
comment
[-] If package uses custom depmap "-Dmaven.local.depmap.file=*" explain why
it's needed in a comment
[x] Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun
[x] Packages DOES NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on
jpackage-utils for %update_maven_depmap macro
=== Other suggestions ===
[x] If possible use upstream build method (maven/ant/javac)
[x] Avoid having BuildRequires on exact NVR unless necessary
[x] Package has BuildArch: noarch (if possible)
[x] Latest version is packaged.
*** ISSUES ***
- The JAR file zipeinit.jar in src/test/resources/vfs/test contains
software from Microsoft, whose licensing terms are incompatible with
Fedora Licensing Guidelines, therefore this JAR may not be included
even in the source package of the software. Please repack, preferably
with all JARs removed.
- JAR files are present in src/test/resources
- Folder copied in javadoc's %doc is apidocs, should be apidocs/*
*** NOTES ***
- not sure if the empty %doc macro is necessary
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 530688] Review Request: ghc-language-c - Haskell language-c 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=530688 Jens Petersen changed: What|Removed |Added Status Whiteboard||Ready --- Comment #18 from Jens Petersen 2011-09-27 06:31:26 EDT --- http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3381031 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 736602] Review Request: ghc-wai - Web Application Interface 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=736602 --- Comment #3 from Jens Petersen 2011-09-27 06:24:17 EDT --- Update to latest upstream release: Spec: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ghc-wai/ghc-wai.spec SRPM: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ghc-wai/ghc-wai-0.4.2-1.fc15.src.rpm Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3381014 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 737228] Review Request: ghc-data-default - A class for types with a default value
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=737228 Jens Petersen changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|peter...@redhat.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Jens Petersen 2011-09-27 06:10:26 EDT --- http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3380247 Looks fine to me. Will post a review soon. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 737228] Review Request: ghc-data-default - A class for types with a default value
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=737228 Jens Petersen changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 727670] Review Request: simplevalidation - A simple library for retrofitting user-interface input validation to Swing applications
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727670 --- Comment #3 from Alexander Kurtakov 2011-09-27 05:56:37 EDT --- Jon, When you start a review you should change its status to assigned and the fedora-cvs flag to ?. Once you think the package is good to go you should set the fedora-cvs flag to + . -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 727670] Review Request: simplevalidation - A simple library for retrofitting user-interface input validation to Swing applications
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727670 Alexander Kurtakov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||akurt...@redhat.com Blocks||652183(FE-JAVASIG) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 --- Comment #5 from Jens Petersen 2011-09-27 05:48:00 EDT --- Thanks Michel, I think it is better to wait for the other deps. Unfortunately those still need to be resubmitted, but I am hoping to do that soon if someone else doesn't beat me to 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 736801] Review Request: pure-gen - A Pure C bindings generator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=736801 --- Comment #2 from Michel Alexandre Salim 2011-09-27 05:19:28 EDT --- All fixed; thanks! http://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/funpl/pure-gen-0.13-1.fc15.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 --- Comment #4 from Michel Alexandre Salim 2011-09-27 05:10:56 EDT --- Jens, would you rather I review this based on the latest available unpackaged dependencies, or would you rather I wait until those are reviewed? I can do either. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 679980] Review Request: octopuslb - TCP/IP Load Balancer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=679980 --- Comment #17 from Al Reay 2011-09-27 04:43:10 EDT --- Hi David, Thanks for the comprehensive review there. The packages I have informally review are as below https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=739323 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=736717 I'm going to get the F16 RC3 candidate tomorrow and get testing on that too. Cheers 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 741334] Review Request: python-smmap - sliding window memory map manager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=741334 Thomas Spura changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag||fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Thomas Spura 2011-09-27 04:16:49 EDT --- Review: Good: - license ok - name ok - source match upstream: a35b64bbb7068b7a3f2e0651b72646b2 smmap-0.8.1.tar.gz - noarch ok - rpmlint clean - BR ok - %files ok - no libs - no *.la - %check there - R ok Note: - I'd remove the test directory, because after testing in mock, you are unlikely to need it anymore. __ 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
