[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 #3 from Jens Petersen 2011-10-03 01:18:03 EDT --- Thanks - I will wait for ghc-language-c to be imported and built before continuing this 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 630206] Review Request: ghc-hledger-lib - Core types and utilities for working with hledger data
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=630206 Jens Petersen changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|needinfo?(maths...@gmail.co | |m) | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 630206] Review Request: ghc-hledger-lib - Core types and utilities for working with hledger data
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=630206 Jens Petersen changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED Status Whiteboard|not yet imported| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 713313] Review Request: msktutil - Program for interoperability with Active Directory
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=713313 --- Comment #11 from Ken Dreyer 2011-10-03 00:11:16 EDT --- Thanks for your patience. Here's -5. http://adiemus.org/~kdreyer/rpms/msktutil.spec http://adiemus.org/~kdreyer/rpms/msktutil-0.4-5.el5.src.rpm Changes: - Upstream's git master had several fixes, so I'm patching all of them in here. - Switch to using krb5-config to auto-determine the appropriate Kerberos CPPFLAGS and LIBS. - Bump Fedora version to F16 for /usr/include/et. I've confirmed this won't be necessary for F17, finally! - Use autoconf to regenerate configure script, after my patches. With these changes, the msktutil package should successfully build on all platforms. I've built on EL5 x86_64, and mocked on i686 for EL6, F14, F16, and rawhide. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 648250] Review Request: ghc-xss-sanitize - Sanitize untrusted HTML to prevent XSS attacks
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=648250 Jens Petersen changed: What|Removed |Added Status Whiteboard|NotReady| Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Jens Petersen 2011-10-02 23:38:32 EDT --- We need this package for the yesod webframework so submitting this on behalf of Ben who is away right now. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: ghc-xss-sanitize Short Description: Sanitize untrusted HTML to prevent XSS attacks Owners: mathstuf, petersen, narasim 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 742543] Review Request: perl-HTML-FormHandler - HTML forms using Moose
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=742543 --- Comment #5 from Iain Arnell 2011-10-02 23:09:52 EDT --- (In reply to comment #4) > (In reply to comment #2) > > Yes. and I understand why. But rpmlint /doesn't/ complain about all the > > automatically detected unversioned provides (this package has ~70). The > > explicit provides are consistent with those automatically detected, and > > necessary since other packages may depend on them. Versioning them would be > > a > > lie since upstream hasn't given them explicit version (and where upstream > > has > > versioned specific packages, the version numbers bear no relation to the > > overall version of the distribution itself). > > Means, we should skip rpmlint's blurb here? The output is similar to the one > before: Yes. Upstream has deliberately hidden these modules which unfortunately, also hides them from rpm's automatic dependency generator. They need to be explicitly provided, but there is no version number. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 742550] Review Request: perl-Devel-StackTrace-WithLexicals - Generate stack traces with lexical variables
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=742550 --- Comment #2 from Iain Arnell 2011-10-02 23:11:07 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: perl-Devel-StackTrace-WithLexicals Short Description: Generate stack traces with lexical variables Owners: iarnell Branches: f15 f16 InitialCC: perl-sig -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 742549] Review Request: perl-Catalyst-Authentication-Credential-HTTP - HTTP Basic and Digest authentication for Catalyst
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=742549 Iain Arnell changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 742548] Review Request: perl-Catalyst-Plugin-Session-Store-Delegate - Delegate session storage to an application model object
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=742548 --- Comment #2 from Iain Arnell 2011-10-02 23:10:37 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: perl-Catalyst-Plugin-Session-Store-Delegate Short Description: Delegate session storage to an application model object Owners: iarnell Branches: f15 f16 InitialCC: perl-sig -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 742742] Review Request: perl-strictures - Turn on strict and make all warnings fatal
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=742742 Iain Arnell changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 742552] Review Request: perl-CatalystX-InjectComponent - Inject components into your Catalyst application
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=742552 Iain Arnell changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 742549] Review Request: perl-Catalyst-Authentication-Credential-HTTP - HTTP Basic and Digest authentication for Catalyst
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=742549 --- Comment #2 from Iain Arnell 2011-10-02 23:10:56 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: perl-Catalyst-Authentication-Credential-HTTP Short Description: HTTP Basic and Digest authentication for Catalyst Owners: iarnell Branches: f15 f16 InitialCC: perl-sig -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 742548] Review Request: perl-Catalyst-Plugin-Session-Store-Delegate - Delegate session storage to an application model object
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=742548 Iain Arnell changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 742552] Review Request: perl-CatalystX-InjectComponent - Inject components into your Catalyst application
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=742552 --- Comment #2 from Iain Arnell 2011-10-02 23:11:16 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: perl-CatalystX-InjectComponent Short Description: Inject components into your Catalyst application Owners: iarnell Branches: f15 f16 InitialCC: perl-sig -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 742742] Review Request: perl-strictures - Turn on strict and make all warnings fatal
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=742742 --- Comment #4 from Iain Arnell 2011-10-02 23:11:25 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: perl-strictures Short Description: Turn on strict and make all warnings fatal Owners: iarnell Branches: f15 f16 InitialCC: perl-sig -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 742550] Review Request: perl-Devel-StackTrace-WithLexicals - Generate stack traces with lexical variables
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=742550 Iain Arnell changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 736368] Review Request: ghc-shakespeare - Haskell compile-time templating 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=736368 Lakshmi Narasimhan changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||lakshminaras2...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|lakshminaras2...@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 662283] Review Request: hledger-web - A hledger add-on command providing a web interface
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=662283 --- Comment #5 from Jens Petersen 2011-10-02 21:33:48 EDT --- Just noting that the latest 0.16 release now works with the newest yesod-0.9.2.1. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 Jens Petersen changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Jens Petersen 2011-10-02 21:21:49 EDT --- Thank you for reviewing. :) New Package SCM Request === Package Name: ghc-wai Short Description: Web Application Interface 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 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 Jens Petersen changed: What|Removed |Added Status Whiteboard|ready | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 730560] Review Request: drupal7-ctools - CTools module for Drupal 7
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=730560 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|drupal7-ctools-1.0-0.1.rc1. |drupal7-ctools-1.0-0.1.rc1. |fc16|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 730560] Review Request: drupal7-ctools - CTools module for Drupal 7
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=730560 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System 2011-10-02 19:05:36 EDT --- drupal7-ctools-1.0-0.1.rc1.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 730559] Review Request: drupal7-date - Date content type and APIs for Drupal 7
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=730559 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|drupal7-date-2.0-0.1.alpha4 |drupal7-date-2.0-0.1.alpha4 |.el6|.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 730559] Review Request: drupal7-date - Date content type and APIs for Drupal 7
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=730559 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System 2011-10-02 18:58:41 EDT --- drupal7-date-2.0-0.1.alpha4.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 678809] Review Request: seeks - A web-search proxy that provides a meta-search engine
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=678809
--- Comment #7 from Mohamed El Morabity 2011-10-02
18:06:15 EDT ---
I provides above a patch to fix compilation issues with OpenCV. It seems latest
versions of OpenCV doesn't provide anymore cxflann.h, replaced by cv.h.
Some comments by the way:
1) About this:
# Use db2x_docbook2man, not docbook2x-man, to install doc.
Patch0: %{name}-%{version}-docbook.patch
# Change configuration
Patch1: %{name}-%{version}-datalogfiles.patch
You should not use version macros in patch references. Keeping the versions
hardwritten here allows you to reuse the patches without renaming, in case of
update, if still valid. By the way, you have a kind of history of your patches
with such a scheme.
2) Having a *-devel package without header is useless and nonsense here. I
probably already told you that when you started working on packaging seeks, but
you must clarify the status of these files with upstream:
- if they are really useful, why the headers providing the API are not
installed?
- if not, they must be removed.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 678809] Review Request: seeks - A web-search proxy that provides a meta-search engine
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=678809
--- Comment #7 from Mohamed El Morabity 2011-10-02
18:06:15 EDT ---
I provides above a patch to fix compilation issues with OpenCV. It seems latest
versions of OpenCV doesn't provide anymore cxflann.h, replaced by cv.h.
Some comments by the way:
1) About this:
# Use db2x_docbook2man, not docbook2x-man, to install doc.
Patch0: %{name}-%{version}-docbook.patch
# Change configuration
Patch1: %{name}-%{version}-datalogfiles.patch
You should not use version macros in patch references. Keeping the versions
hardwritten here allows you to reuse the patches without renaming, in case of
update, if still valid. By the way, you have a kind of history of your patches
with such a scheme.
2) Having a *-devel package without header is useless and nonsense here. I
probably already told you that when you started working on packaging seeks, but
you must clarify the status of these files with upstream:
- if they are really useful, why the headers providing the API are not
installed?
- if not, they must be removed.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 678809] Review Request: seeks - A web-search proxy that provides a meta-search engine
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=678809 --- Comment #6 from Mohamed El Morabity 2011-10-02 17:57:29 EDT --- Created attachment 525960 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=525960 Fix compilation issues with OpenCV 2 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 683591] Review Request: tclap - Templatized Command Line Argument Parser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=683591 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System 2011-10-02 17:55:26 EDT --- hugin-2011.2.0-1.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/hugin-2011.2.0-1.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 683591] Review Request: tclap - Templatized Command Line Argument Parser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=683591 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System 2011-10-02 17:55:26 EDT --- hugin-2011.2.0-1.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/hugin-2011.2.0-1.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 678809] Review Request: seeks - A web-search proxy that provides a meta-search engine
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=678809 --- Comment #6 from Mohamed El Morabity 2011-10-02 17:57:29 EDT --- Created attachment 525960 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=525960 Fix compilation issues with OpenCV 2 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 683591] Review Request: tclap - Templatized Command Line Argument Parser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=683591 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |MODIFIED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 683591] Review Request: tclap - Templatized Command Line Argument Parser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=683591 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |MODIFIED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 678809] Review Request: seeks - A web-search proxy that provides a meta-search engine
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=678809 --- Comment #5 from Sébastien Willmann 2011-10-02 17:07:38 EDT --- Update to version 0.3.5a, adding licenses breakdown informations. http://wilqu.fr/rpms/seeks/seeks-0.3.5a-2.fc17.src.rpm http://wilqu.fr/rpms/seeks/seeks.spec The "a" makes part of the version number. It doesn't stand for "alpha". -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 678809] Review Request: seeks - A web-search proxy that provides a meta-search engine
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=678809 --- Comment #5 from Sébastien Willmann 2011-10-02 17:07:38 EDT --- Update to version 0.3.5a, adding licenses breakdown informations. http://wilqu.fr/rpms/seeks/seeks-0.3.5a-2.fc17.src.rpm http://wilqu.fr/rpms/seeks/seeks.spec The "a" makes part of the version number. It doesn't stand for "alpha". -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 742610] Review Request: netcdf-cxx - Legacy netCDF 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=742610
--- Comment #2 from Michael Schwendt 2011-10-02 16:14:35
EDT ---
> %package static
> ...
> Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
This makes no sense. The -static package does not need the shared library.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 739331] Rename Review: libreoffice-voikko - Finnish spellchecker and hyphenator extension for LibreOffice
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=739331 --- Comment #10 from Jussi Lehtola 2011-10-02 15:21:03 EDT --- .. but this is just a rename, isn't it? IMHO you can put it straight away in 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 739331] Rename Review: libreoffice-voikko - Finnish spellchecker and hyphenator extension for LibreOffice
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=739331 --- Comment #9 from Ville-Pekka Vainio 2011-10-02 15:08:59 EDT --- New SRPM: http://vpv.fedorapeople.org/packages/libreoffice-voikko-3.2-4.fc16.src.rpm I've removed the rpath and overridden CC_FLAGS to drop the extra -O switch. The extension works fine without the rpath. I'll ask the LibreOffice maintainers' opinion on whether to put this package into F16 too or just into rawhide. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 696249] Review Request: kupfer - an interface for quick and convenient access to applications and their documents.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=696249
--- Comment #19 from Mario Blättermann 2011-10-02 14:50:31
EDT ---
Koji scratch build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3397561
$ rpmlint -i -v *
kupfer.src: I: checking
kupfer.src: I: checking-url http://kaizer.se/wiki/kupfer/ (timeout 10 seconds)
kupfer.src: W: patch-not-applied Patch0:
%{name}-fix_non-opening_preferences.patch
A patch is included in your package but was not applied. Refer to the patches
documentation to see what's wrong.
kupfer.src: I: checking-url
http://kaizer.se/publicfiles/kupfer/kupfer-v206.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds)
kupfer.i686: I: checking
kupfer.i686: I: checking-url http://kaizer.se/wiki/kupfer/ (timeout 10 seconds)
kupfer.i686: E: no-binary
The package should be of the noarch architecture because it doesn't contain
any binaries.
kupfer.i686: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
There are only non binary files in /usr/lib so they should be in /usr/share.
kupfer.i686: E: standard-dir-owned-by-package /usr/bin
This package owns a directory that is part of the standard hierarchy, which
can lead to default directory permissions or ownerships being changed to
something non-standard.
kupfer.x86_64: I: checking
kupfer.x86_64: I: checking-url http://kaizer.se/wiki/kupfer/ (timeout 10
seconds)
kupfer.x86_64: E: no-binary
The package should be of the noarch architecture because it doesn't contain
any binaries.
kupfer.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
There are only non binary files in /usr/lib so they should be in /usr/share.
kupfer.x86_64: E: standard-dir-owned-by-package /usr/bin
This package owns a directory that is part of the standard hierarchy, which
can lead to default directory permissions or ownerships being changed to
something non-standard.
kupfer-debuginfo.i686: I: checking
kupfer-debuginfo.i686: I: checking-url http://kaizer.se/wiki/kupfer/ (timeout
10 seconds)
kupfer-debuginfo.i686: E: empty-debuginfo-package
This debuginfo package contains no files. This is often a sign of binaries
being unexpectedly stripped too early during the build, rpmbuild not being
able to strip the binaries, the package actually being a noarch one but
erratically packaged as arch dependent, or something else. Verify what the
case is, and if there's no way to produce useful debuginfo out of it, disable
creation of the debuginfo package.
kupfer-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking
kupfer-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking-url http://kaizer.se/wiki/kupfer/ (timeout
10 seconds)
kupfer-debuginfo.x86_64: E: empty-debuginfo-package
This debuginfo package contains no files. This is often a sign of binaries
being unexpectedly stripped too early during the build, rpmbuild not being
able to strip the binaries, the package actually being a noarch one but
erratically packaged as arch dependent, or something else. Verify what the
case is, and if there's no way to produce useful debuginfo out of it, disable
creation of the debuginfo package.
kupfer-plugins.i686: I: checking
kupfer-plugins.i686: I: checking-url http://kaizer.se/wiki/kupfer/ (timeout 10
seconds)
kupfer-plugins.i686: W: dangling-relative-symlink
/usr/share/Thunar/sendto/kupfer.desktop ../../applications/kupfer.desktop
The target of the symbolic link does not exist within this package or its file
based dependencies. Verify spelling of the link target and that the target is
included in a package in this package's dependency chain.
kupfer-plugins.x86_64: I: checking
kupfer-plugins.x86_64: I: checking-url http://kaizer.se/wiki/kupfer/ (timeout
10 seconds)
kupfer-plugins.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink
/usr/share/Thunar/sendto/kupfer.desktop ../../applications/kupfer.desktop
The target of the symbolic link does not exist within this package or its file
based dependencies. Verify spelling of the link target and that the target is
included in a package in this package's dependency chain.
kupfer.spec: W: patch-not-applied Patch0:
%{name}-fix_non-opening_preferences.patch
A patch is included in your package but was not applied. Refer to the patches
documentation to see what's wrong.
kupfer.spec: I: checking-url
http://kaizer.se/publicfiles/kupfer/kupfer-v206.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds)
7 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 6 warnings.
Some more issues:
The package should be noarch, because no binary file is present anywhere. This
explains why the debuginfo packages are empty.
The nautilus extension is in /usr/lib, that's OK so far, but it should also go
into a subpackage.
Please change %{_bindir} to %{_bindir}/* to let only the executable files be
owned by your package, not the folder itself.
You may remove the %defattr line from the file lists, unless you want to
provide your package for EPEL <= 5.
The Patch0 is nowhere applied. You have to apply it in the %prep section:
%patch0 -p0
Please move the Thunar file into its own subpackage, as earlier
[Bug 730559] Review Request: drupal7-date - Date content type and APIs for Drupal 7
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=730559 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|drupal7-date-2.0-0.1.alpha4 |drupal7-date-2.0-0.1.alpha4 |.fc16 |.el5 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 730559] Review Request: drupal7-date - Date content type and APIs for Drupal 7
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=730559 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System 2011-10-02 14:25:41 EDT --- drupal7-date-2.0-0.1.alpha4.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 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 730559] Review Request: drupal7-date - Date content type and APIs for Drupal 7
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=730559 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|drupal7-date-2.0-0.1.alpha4 |drupal7-date-2.0-0.1.alpha4 |.el5|.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 730559] Review Request: drupal7-date - Date content type and APIs for Drupal 7
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=730559 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System 2011-10-02 14:25:54 EDT --- drupal7-date-2.0-0.1.alpha4.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 696249] Review Request: kupfer - an interface for quick and convenient access to applications and their documents.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=696249 Mario Blättermann changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mari...@freenet.de Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #18 from Mario Blättermann 2011-10-02 14:15:03 EDT --- I think we need one more subpackage here. The file /usr/share/Thunar/sendto/kupfer.desktop depends on Thunar, which isn't anywhere in the "Requires" list. It is provided by the "Thunar" package. If you would leave it as is, the folder /usr/share/Thunar/sendto/ would stay unowned after you deinstall kupfer-plugins. Please move the file to a "kupfer-thunar-sendto" subpackage. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 693198] Review Request: php-channel-bartlett - Adds bartlett channel to PEAR
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=693198 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||php-channel-bartlett-1.3-1. ||fc16 Resolution||ERRATA Last Closed||2011-10-02 14:18:49 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 693200] Review Request: php-bartlett-PHP-Reflect - Adds the ability to reverse-engineer PHP
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=693200 --- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System 2011-10-02 14:18:31 EDT --- php-bartlett-PHP-Reflect-1.0.2-2.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 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 693200] Review Request: php-bartlett-PHP-Reflect - Adds the ability to reverse-engineer PHP
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=693200 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||php-bartlett-PHP-Reflect-1. ||0.2-2.fc16 Resolution||ERRATA Last Closed||2011-10-02 14:18:36 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 693204] Review Request: php-bartlett-PHP-CompatInfo - Find out version and the extensions required for a piece of code to run
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=693204 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||php-bartlett-PHP-CompatInfo ||-2.1.0-3.fc16 Resolution||ERRATA Last Closed||2011-10-02 14:18:08 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 693204] Review Request: php-bartlett-PHP-CompatInfo - Find out version and the extensions required for a piece of code to run
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=693204 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System 2011-10-02 14:18:03 EDT --- php-bartlett-PHP-CompatInfo-2.1.0-3.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 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 693198] Review Request: php-channel-bartlett - Adds bartlett channel to PEAR
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=693198 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System 2011-10-02 14:18:44 EDT --- php-channel-bartlett-1.3-1.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 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 712567] Review Request: gnome-shell-theme-ambiance - the ambiance gnome-shell theme
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=712567 Mario Blättermann changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mari...@freenet.de AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mari...@freenet.de Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #8 from Mario Blättermann 2011-10-02 13:57:12 EDT --- Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3397410 $ rpmlint -i -v *gnome-shell-theme-ambiance.src: I: checking gnome-shell-theme-ambiance.src: I: checking-url http://half-left.deviantart.com/art/GNOME-Shell-Ubuntu-Ambience-210264151 (timeout 10 seconds) gnome-shell-theme-ambiance.src: I: checking-url http://www.deviantart.com/download/210264151/gnome_shell___ubuntu_ambiance_by_half_left-d3h6ouv.zip (timeout 10 seconds) gnome-shell-theme-ambiance.src: W: uncompressed-zip gnome_shell___ubuntu_ambiance_by_half_left-d3h6ouv.zip The zip file is not compressed. gnome-shell-theme-ambiance.noarch: I: checking gnome-shell-theme-ambiance.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.0 ['1.0-1.fc17', '1.0-1'] The latest entry in %changelog contains a version identifier that is not coherent with the epoch:version-release tuple of the package. gnome-shell-theme-ambiance.noarch: I: checking-url http://half-left.deviantart.com/art/GNOME-Shell-Ubuntu-Ambience-210264151 (timeout 10 seconds) gnome-shell-theme-ambiance.spec: I: checking-url http://www.deviantart.com/download/210264151/gnome_shell___ubuntu_ambiance_by_half_left-d3h6ouv.zip (timeout 10 seconds) 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Some issues: The changelog entry needs to be tagged with the current version number, "1.0-1" instead of "1.0". In general, you have to screw up the version number in your spec after any change you made. Currently, we are actually at version 1.0-2. The Zip file which contains the primary source is unzipped. Well, this is handled correctly during the build process. As far as I can see, there's no other source package available. Could be ignored. There's a typo in a comment line in your spec, "tradmark" instead of "trademark". You should add the -p switch to the copy command to keep time stamps. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 742536] Review Request: perl-Test-Able - xUnit with Moose
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=742536
Mario Blättermann changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||mari...@freenet.de
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mari...@freenet.de
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Mario Blättermann 2011-10-02 13:26:46
EDT ---
Koji scratch build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3397404
$ rpmlint -i -v *perl-Test-Able.noarch: I: checking
perl-Test-Able.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) xUnit -> x Unit, unit
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
perl-Test-Able.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C xUnit with Moose
Summary doesn't begin with a capital letter.
perl-Test-Able.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xUnit -> x Unit,
unit
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
perl-Test-Able.noarch: I: checking-url http://search.cpan.org/dist/Test-Able/
(timeout 10 seconds)
perl-Test-Able.src: I: checking
perl-Test-Able.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) xUnit -> x Unit, unit
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
perl-Test-Able.src: W: summary-not-capitalized C xUnit with Moose
Summary doesn't begin with a capital letter.
perl-Test-Able.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xUnit -> x Unit,
unit
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
perl-Test-Able.src: I: checking-url http://search.cpan.org/dist/Test-Able/
(timeout 10 seconds)
perl-Test-Able.src: I: checking-url
http://www.cpan.org/authors/id/J/JD/JDV/Test-Able-0.10.tar.gz (timeout 10
seconds)
perl-Test-Able.spec: I: checking-url
http://www.cpan.org/authors/id/J/JD/JDV/Test-Able-0.10.tar.gz (timeout 10
seconds)
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings.
The summary doesn't begin with a capitalized letter. But "xUnit" is a term we
can't capitalize actually. That's why, the issues from rpmlint are ignorable.
-
key:
[+] OK
[.] OK, not applicable
[X] needs work
-
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}.
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license.
GPL+ or Artistic
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[.] MUST: The file containing the text of the license(s) for the package must
be included in %doc.
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source.
$ md5sum *
33fb8a6ad1427151e277d588d5fecd72 Test-Able-0.10.tar.gz
33fb8a6ad1427151e277d588d5fecd72 Test-Able-0.10.tar.gz.packaged
[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
- Succesful Koji build available.
[.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, ...
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.
[.] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly.
[.] MUST: If a package installs files below %{_datadir}/icons, the icon cache
must be updated.
[.] MUST: Packages storing shared library files (not just symlinks) must call
ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[.] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[.] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, ...
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates.
[+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in %files.
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
[+] MUST: Packages must not provide RPM dependency information when that
information is not global in nature, or are otherwise handled.
[.] MUST: When filtering automatically generated RPM dependency information,
the filtering system implemented by Fedora must be used.
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[.] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
[+] MUST: Files in %doc must not affect the runtime of the application.
[.] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[.] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[.] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g.
libfoo.so.1.1), ...
[.] MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned
dependency.
[.] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
[.
[Bug 742742] Review Request: perl-strictures - Turn on strict and make all warnings fatal
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=742742
Mario Blättermann changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||mari...@freenet.de
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mari...@freenet.de
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Mario Blättermann 2011-10-02 13:12:53
EDT ---
$ rpmlint -i -v *perl-strictures.src: I: checking
perl-strictures.src: I: checking-url http://search.cpan.org/dist/strictures/
(timeout 10 seconds)
perl-strictures.src: I: checking-url
http://www.cpan.org/authors/id/M/MS/MSTROUT/strictures-1.002002.tar.gz (timeout
10 seconds)
perl-strictures.noarch: I: checking
perl-strictures.noarch: I: checking-url http://search.cpan.org/dist/strictures/
(timeout 10 seconds)
perl-strictures.spec: I: checking-url
http://www.cpan.org/authors/id/M/MS/MSTROUT/strictures-1.002002.tar.gz (timeout
10 seconds)
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
No issues.
-
key:
[+] OK
[.] OK, not applicable
[X] needs work
-
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}.
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license.
GPL+ or Artistic
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[.] MUST: The file containing the text of the license(s) for the package must
be included in %doc.
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source.
$ md5sum *
adf0840ec52cab21545a4903bdc2ee58 strictures-1.002002.tar.gz
adf0840ec52cab21545a4903bdc2ee58 strictures-1.002002.tar.gz.packaged
[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
- Succesful Koji build available.
[.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, ...
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.
[.] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly.
[.] MUST: If a package installs files below %{_datadir}/icons, the icon cache
must be updated.
[.] MUST: Packages storing shared library files (not just symlinks) must call
ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[.] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[.] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, ...
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates.
[+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in %files.
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
[+] MUST: Packages must not provide RPM dependency information when that
information is not global in nature, or are otherwise handled.
[.] MUST: When filtering automatically generated RPM dependency information,
the filtering system implemented by Fedora must be used.
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[.] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
[+] MUST: Files in %doc must not affect the runtime of the application.
[.] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[.] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[.] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g.
libfoo.so.1.1), ...
[.] MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned
dependency.
[.] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
[.] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file
[.] MUST: .desktop files must be properly installed with desktop-file-install
in the %install section.
[+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
[+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
[.] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream...
[+] SHOULD: Timestamps of files should be preserved.
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
See Koji build above (which uses mock anyway)
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described.
I assume the packager has tested it. Don't know how to test it on my
system.
[+] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane.
[.] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency.
[.] SHOULD: pkgconfig(.pc
[Bug 742552] Review Request: perl-CatalystX-InjectComponent - Inject components into your Catalyst application
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=742552
Iain Arnell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||742557
Blocks||742560
Mario Blättermann changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||mari...@freenet.de
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mari...@freenet.de
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Mario Blättermann 2011-10-02 12:38:39
EDT ---
$ rpmlint -i -v *perl-CatalystX-InjectComponent.noarch: I: checking
perl-CatalystX-InjectComponent.noarch: I: checking-url
http://search.cpan.org/dist/CatalystX-InjectComponent/ (timeout 10 seconds)
perl-CatalystX-InjectComponent.src: I: checking
perl-CatalystX-InjectComponent.src: I: checking-url
http://search.cpan.org/dist/CatalystX-InjectComponent/ (timeout 10 seconds)
perl-CatalystX-InjectComponent.src: I: checking-url
http://www.cpan.org/authors/id/R/RK/RKRIMEN/CatalystX-InjectComponent-0.024.tar.gz
(timeout 10 seconds)
perl-CatalystX-InjectComponent.spec: I: checking-url
http://www.cpan.org/authors/id/R/RK/RKRIMEN/CatalystX-InjectComponent-0.024.tar.gz
(timeout 10 seconds)
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
No issues.
-
key:
[+] OK
[.] OK, not applicable
[X] needs work
-
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}.
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license.
GPL+ or Artistic
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[.] MUST: The file containing the text of the license(s) for the package must
be included in %doc.
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source.
$ md5sum *
9e6aa756ed402b9397c6d8023033e36b CatalystX-InjectComponent-0.024.tar.gz
9e6aa756ed402b9397c6d8023033e36b
CatalystX-InjectComponent-0.024.tar.gz.packaged
[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
- Succesful Koji build available.
[.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, ...
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.
[.] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly.
[.] MUST: If a package installs files below %{_datadir}/icons, the icon cache
must be updated.
[.] MUST: Packages storing shared library files (not just symlinks) must call
ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[.] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[.] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, ...
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates.
[+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in %files.
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
[+] MUST: Packages must not provide RPM dependency information when that
information is not global in nature, or are otherwise handled.
[.] MUST: When filtering automatically generated RPM dependency information,
the filtering system implemented by Fedora must be used.
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[.] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
[+] MUST: Files in %doc must not affect the runtime of the application.
[.] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[.] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[.] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g.
libfoo.so.1.1), ...
[.] MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned
dependency.
[.] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
[.] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file
[.] MUST: .desktop files must be properly installed with desktop-file-install
in the %install section.
[+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
[+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
[.] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream...
[+] SHOULD: Timestamps of files should be preserved.
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package
[Bug 742550] Review Request: perl-Devel-StackTrace-WithLexicals - Generate stack traces with lexical variables
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=742550
Iain Arnell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||742556(perl-Carp-REPL)
Mario Blättermann changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||mari...@freenet.de
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mari...@freenet.de
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Mario Blättermann 2011-10-02 12:30:24
EDT ---
$ rpmlint -i -v *
perl-Devel-StackTrace-WithLexicals.noarch: I: checking
perl-Devel-StackTrace-WithLexicals.noarch: I: checking-url
http://search.cpan.org/dist/Devel-StackTrace-WithLexicals/ (timeout 10 seconds)
perl-Devel-StackTrace-WithLexicals.src: I: checking
perl-Devel-StackTrace-WithLexicals.src: I: checking-url
http://search.cpan.org/dist/Devel-StackTrace-WithLexicals/ (timeout 10 seconds)
perl-Devel-StackTrace-WithLexicals.src: I: checking-url
http://www.cpan.org/authors/id/S/SA/SARTAK/Devel-StackTrace-WithLexicals-0.10.tar.gz
(timeout 10 seconds)
perl-Devel-StackTrace-WithLexicals.spec: I: checking-url
http://www.cpan.org/authors/id/S/SA/SARTAK/Devel-StackTrace-WithLexicals-0.10.tar.gz
(timeout 10 seconds)
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
No issues.
-
key:
[+] OK
[.] OK, not applicable
[X] needs work
-
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}.
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license.
GPL+ or Artistic
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[.] MUST: The file containing the text of the license(s) for the package must
be included in %doc.
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source.
$ md5sum *
2912c1d6386f5ff70e13b8fc99b0c830 Devel-StackTrace-WithLexicals-0.10.tar.gz
2912c1d6386f5ff70e13b8fc99b0c830
Devel-StackTrace-WithLexicals-0.10.tar.gz.packaged
[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
- Succesful Koji build available.
[.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, ...
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.
[.] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly.
[.] MUST: If a package installs files below %{_datadir}/icons, the icon cache
must be updated.
[.] MUST: Packages storing shared library files (not just symlinks) must call
ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[.] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[.] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, ...
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates.
[+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in %files.
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
[+] MUST: Packages must not provide RPM dependency information when that
information is not global in nature, or are otherwise handled.
[.] MUST: When filtering automatically generated RPM dependency information,
the filtering system implemented by Fedora must be used.
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[.] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
[+] MUST: Files in %doc must not affect the runtime of the application.
[.] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[.] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[.] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g.
libfoo.so.1.1), ...
[.] MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned
dependency.
[.] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
[.] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file
[.] MUST: .desktop files must be properly installed with desktop-file-install
in the %install section.
[+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
[+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
[.] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream...
[+] SHOULD: Timestamps of files should be preserved.
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the pack
[Bug 742543] Review Request: perl-HTML-FormHandler - HTML forms using Moose
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=742543 Mario Blättermann changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mari...@freenet.de Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #4 from Mario Blättermann 2011-10-02 12:23:36 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2) > Yes. and I understand why. But rpmlint /doesn't/ complain about all the > automatically detected unversioned provides (this package has ~70). The > explicit provides are consistent with those automatically detected, and > necessary since other packages may depend on them. Versioning them would be a > lie since upstream hasn't given them explicit version (and where upstream has > versioned specific packages, the version numbers bear no relation to the > overall version of the distribution itself). Means, we should skip rpmlint's blurb here? The output is similar to the one before: $ rpmlint -i -v *perl-HTML-FormHandler.src: I: checking perl-HTML-FormHandler.src: I: checking-url http://search.cpan.org/dist/HTML-FormHandler/ (timeout 10 seconds) perl-HTML-FormHandler.src:44: W: unversioned-explicit-provides perl(HTML::FormHandler::Meta::Role) The specfile contains an unversioned Provides: token, which will match all older, equal, and newer versions of the provided thing. This may cause update problems and will make versioned dependencies, obsoletions and conflicts on the provided thing useless -- make the Provides versioned if possible. perl-HTML-FormHandler.src:46: W: unversioned-explicit-provides perl(HTML::FormHandler::Params) The specfile contains an unversioned Provides: token, which will match all older, equal, and newer versions of the provided thing. This may cause update problems and will make versioned dependencies, obsoletions and conflicts on the provided thing useless -- make the Provides versioned if possible. perl-HTML-FormHandler.src:47: W: unversioned-explicit-provides perl(HTML::FormHandler::Field::Repeatable::Instance) The specfile contains an unversioned Provides: token, which will match all older, equal, and newer versions of the provided thing. This may cause update problems and will make versioned dependencies, obsoletions and conflicts on the provided thing useless -- make the Provides versioned if possible. perl-HTML-FormHandler.src: I: checking-url http://www.cpan.org/authors/id/G/GS/GSHANK/HTML-FormHandler-0.35003.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds) perl-HTML-FormHandler.noarch: I: checking perl-HTML-FormHandler.noarch: I: checking-url http://search.cpan.org/dist/HTML-FormHandler/ (timeout 10 seconds) perl-HTML-FormHandler.spec:44: W: unversioned-explicit-provides perl(HTML::FormHandler::Meta::Role) The specfile contains an unversioned Provides: token, which will match all older, equal, and newer versions of the provided thing. This may cause update problems and will make versioned dependencies, obsoletions and conflicts on the provided thing useless -- make the Provides versioned if possible. perl-HTML-FormHandler.spec:46: W: unversioned-explicit-provides perl(HTML::FormHandler::Params) The specfile contains an unversioned Provides: token, which will match all older, equal, and newer versions of the provided thing. This may cause update problems and will make versioned dependencies, obsoletions and conflicts on the provided thing useless -- make the Provides versioned if possible. perl-HTML-FormHandler.spec:47: W: unversioned-explicit-provides perl(HTML::FormHandler::Field::Repeatable::Instance) The specfile contains an unversioned Provides: token, which will match all older, equal, and newer versions of the provided thing. This may cause update problems and will make versioned dependencies, obsoletions and conflicts on the provided thing useless -- make the Provides versioned if possible. perl-HTML-FormHandler.spec: I: checking-url http://www.cpan.org/authors/id/G/GS/GSHANK/HTML-FormHandler-0.35003.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds) 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 742549] Review Request: perl-Catalyst-Authentication-Credential-HTTP - HTTP Basic and Digest authentication for Catalyst
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=742549
Mario Blättermann changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||mari...@freenet.de
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mari...@freenet.de
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Mario Blättermann 2011-10-02 12:17:09
EDT ---
$ rpmlint -i -v *
perl-Catalyst-Authentication-Credential-HTTP.noarch: I: checking
perl-Catalyst-Authentication-Credential-HTTP.noarch: I: checking-url
http://search.cpan.org/dist/Catalyst-Authentication-Credential-HTTP/ (timeout
10 seconds)
perl-Catalyst-Authentication-Credential-HTTP.src: I: checking
perl-Catalyst-Authentication-Credential-HTTP.src: I: checking-url
http://search.cpan.org/dist/Catalyst-Authentication-Credential-HTTP/ (timeout
10 seconds)
perl-Catalyst-Authentication-Credential-HTTP.src: I: checking-url
http://www.cpan.org/authors/id/B/BO/BOBTFISH/Catalyst-Authentication-Credential-HTTP-1.013.tar.gz
(timeout 10 seconds)
perl-Catalyst-Authentication-Credential-HTTP.spec: I: checking-url
http://www.cpan.org/authors/id/B/BO/BOBTFISH/Catalyst-Authentication-Credential-HTTP-1.013.tar.gz
(timeout 10 seconds)
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
No issues.
-
key:
[+] OK
[.] OK, not applicable
[X] needs work
-
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}.
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license.
GPL+ or Artistic
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[.] MUST: The file containing the text of the license(s) for the package must
be included in %doc.
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source.
$ md5sum *
3e541b17e70cc175a883e260c053f638
Catalyst-Authentication-Credential-HTTP-1.013.tar.gz
3e541b17e70cc175a883e260c053f638
Catalyst-Authentication-Credential-HTTP-1.013.tar.gz.packaged
[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
- Succesful Koji build available.
[.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, ...
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.
[.] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly.
[.] MUST: If a package installs files below %{_datadir}/icons, the icon cache
must be updated.
[.] MUST: Packages storing shared library files (not just symlinks) must call
ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[.] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[.] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, ...
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates.
[+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in %files.
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
[+] MUST: Packages must not provide RPM dependency information when that
information is not global in nature, or are otherwise handled.
[.] MUST: When filtering automatically generated RPM dependency information,
the filtering system implemented by Fedora must be used.
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[.] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
[+] MUST: Files in %doc must not affect the runtime of the application.
[.] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[.] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[.] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g.
libfoo.so.1.1), ...
[.] MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned
dependency.
[.] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
[.] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file
[.] MUST: .desktop files must be properly installed with desktop-file-install
in the %install section.
[+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
[+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
[.] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream...
[+] SHOULD: Timestamps of files should be preserved.
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
See Koji build above (which uses mock anyway)
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer shoul
[Bug 742548] Review Request: perl-Catalyst-Plugin-Session-Store-Delegate - Delegate session storage to an application model object
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=742548
Iain Arnell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||742555
Mario Blättermann changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||mari...@freenet.de
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mari...@freenet.de
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Mario Blättermann 2011-10-02 12:03:43
EDT ---
$ rpmlint -i -v *
perl-Catalyst-Plugin-Session-Store-Delegate.noarch: I: checking
perl-Catalyst-Plugin-Session-Store-Delegate.noarch: I: checking-url
http://search.cpan.org/dist/Catalyst-Plugin-Session-Store-Delegate/ (timeout 10
seconds)
perl-Catalyst-Plugin-Session-Store-Delegate.src: I: checking
perl-Catalyst-Plugin-Session-Store-Delegate.src: I: checking-url
http://search.cpan.org/dist/Catalyst-Plugin-Session-Store-Delegate/ (timeout 10
seconds)
perl-Catalyst-Plugin-Session-Store-Delegate.src: I: checking-url
http://www.cpan.org/authors/id/B/BO/BOBTFISH/Catalyst-Plugin-Session-Store-Delegate-0.06.tar.gz
(timeout 10 seconds)
perl-Catalyst-Plugin-Session-Store-Delegate.spec: I: checking-url
http://www.cpan.org/authors/id/B/BO/BOBTFISH/Catalyst-Plugin-Session-Store-Delegate-0.06.tar.gz
(timeout 10 seconds)
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
No issues.
-
key:
[+] OK
[.] OK, not applicable
[X] needs work
-
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}.
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license.
GPL+ or Artistic
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[.] MUST: The file containing the text of the license(s) for the package must
be included in %doc.
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source.
md5sum *
daa73e910e3ec47fd7abc31642cc65aa
Catalyst-Plugin-Session-Store-Delegate-0.06.tar.gz
daa73e910e3ec47fd7abc31642cc65aa
Catalyst-Plugin-Session-Store-Delegate-0.06.tar.gz.packaged
[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
- Succesful Koji build available.
[.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, ...
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.
[.] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly.
[.] MUST: If a package installs files below %{_datadir}/icons, the icon cache
must be updated.
[.] MUST: Packages storing shared library files (not just symlinks) must call
ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[.] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[.] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, ...
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates.
[+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in %files.
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
[+] MUST: Packages must not provide RPM dependency information when that
information is not global in nature, or are otherwise handled.
[.] MUST: When filtering automatically generated RPM dependency information,
the filtering system implemented by Fedora must be used.
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[.] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
[+] MUST: Files in %doc must not affect the runtime of the application.
[.] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[.] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[.] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g.
libfoo.so.1.1), ...
[.] MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned
dependency.
[.] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
[.] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file
[.] MUST: .desktop files must be properly installed with desktop-file-install
in the %install section.
[+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
[+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
[.] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream...
[+] SHOU
[Bug 742545] Review Request: perl-MooseX-RelatedClassRoles - Apply roles to a class related to yours
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=742545 Iain Arnell changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 742542] Review Request: perl-Catalyst-ActionRole-ACL - User role-based authorization action class
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=742542 --- Comment #2 from Iain Arnell 2011-10-02 11:54:12 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: perl-Catalyst-ActionRole-ACL Short Description: User role-based authorization action class Owners: iarnell Branches: f15 f16 InitialCC: perl-sig -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 742543] Review Request: perl-HTML-FormHandler - HTML forms using Moose
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=742543 --- Comment #3 from Iain Arnell 2011-10-02 11:55:42 EDT --- Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~iarnell/review/perl-HTML-FormHandler.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~iarnell/review/perl-HTML-FormHandler-0.35003-2.fc15.src.rpm Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3397209 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 742545] Review Request: perl-MooseX-RelatedClassRoles - Apply roles to a class related to yours
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=742545 --- Comment #2 from Iain Arnell 2011-10-02 11:54:21 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: perl-MooseX-RelatedClassRoles Short Description: Apply roles to a class related to yours Owners: iarnell Branches: f15 f16 InitialCC: perl-sig -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 742538] Review Request: perl-Catalyst-Model-Adaptor - Use a plain class as a Catalyst model
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=742538 Iain Arnell changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 742538] Review Request: perl-Catalyst-Model-Adaptor - Use a plain class as a Catalyst model
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=742538 --- Comment #2 from Iain Arnell 2011-10-02 11:54:02 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: perl-Catalyst-Model-Adaptor Short Description: Use a plain class as a Catalyst model Owners: iarnell Branches: f15 f16 InitialCC: perl-sig -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 742542] Review Request: perl-Catalyst-ActionRole-ACL - User role-based authorization action class
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=742542 Iain Arnell changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 742545] Review Request: perl-MooseX-RelatedClassRoles - Apply roles to a class related to yours
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=742545
Iain Arnell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||742560
Mario Blättermann changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||mari...@freenet.de
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mari...@freenet.de
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Mario Blättermann 2011-10-02 11:44:25
EDT ---
$ rpmlint -i -v *
perl-MooseX-RelatedClassRoles.noarch: I: checking
perl-MooseX-RelatedClassRoles.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
accessor -> accessory, access or, access-or
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
perl-MooseX-RelatedClassRoles.noarch: I: checking-url
http://search.cpan.org/dist/MooseX-RelatedClassRoles/ (timeout 10 seconds)
perl-MooseX-RelatedClassRoles.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/share/doc/perl-MooseX-RelatedClassRoles-0.004/LICENSE
The Free Software Foundation address in this file seems to be outdated or
misspelled. Ask upstream to update the address, or if this is a license file,
possibly the entire file with a new copy available from the FSF.
perl-MooseX-RelatedClassRoles.src: I: checking
perl-MooseX-RelatedClassRoles.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
accessor -> accessory, access or, access-or
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
perl-MooseX-RelatedClassRoles.src: I: checking-url
http://search.cpan.org/dist/MooseX-RelatedClassRoles/ (timeout 10 seconds)
perl-MooseX-RelatedClassRoles.src: I: checking-url
http://www.cpan.org/authors/id/H/HD/HDP/MooseX-RelatedClassRoles-0.004.tar.gz
(timeout 10 seconds)
perl-MooseX-RelatedClassRoles.spec: I: checking-url
http://www.cpan.org/authors/id/H/HD/HDP/MooseX-RelatedClassRoles-0.004.tar.gz
(timeout 10 seconds)
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings.
The spelling errors are ignorable. Regarding the incorrect FSF address, you
should file an upstream bug.
-
key:
[+] OK
[.] OK, not applicable
[X] needs work
-
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}.
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license.
GPL+ or Artistic
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[.] MUST: The file containing the text of the license(s) for the package must
be included in %doc.
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source.
$ md5sum *
76d8afd0f24f68f564e5891b8329d52e MooseX-RelatedClassRoles-0.004.tar.gz
76d8afd0f24f68f564e5891b8329d52e
MooseX-RelatedClassRoles-0.004.tar.gz.packaged
[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
- Succesful Koji build available.
[.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, ...
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.
[.] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly.
[.] MUST: If a package installs files below %{_datadir}/icons, the icon cache
must be updated.
[.] MUST: Packages storing shared library files (not just symlinks) must call
ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[.] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[.] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, ...
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates.
[+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in %files.
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
[+] MUST: Packages must not provide RPM dependency information when that
information is not global in nature, or are otherwise handled.
[.] MUST: When filtering automatically generated RPM dependency information,
the filtering system implemented by Fedora must be used.
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[.] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
[+] MUST: Files in %doc must not affect the runtime of the application.
[.] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[.] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[.] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g.
libfoo.so.1.1
[Bug 742543] Review Request: perl-HTML-FormHandler - HTML forms using Moose
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=742543 --- Comment #2 from Iain Arnell 2011-10-02 11:44:49 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1) > $ rpmlint -i -v *perl-HTML-FormHandler.noarch: I: checking > perl-HTML-FormHandler.noarch: I: checking-url > http://search.cpan.org/dist/HTML-FormHandler/ (timeout 10 seconds) > perl-HTML-FormHandler.noarch: E: useless-provides > perl(HTML::FormHandler::Field::Compound) > This package provides 2 times the same capacity. It should only provide it > once. Good call. This should be an explicit Provides: perl(HTML::FormHandler::Field::Repeatable::Instance) I must have copy/pasted the wrong line somehow. Update coming [big snip] > Seems to be that rpmlint wants to have explicit versioning of the "Provides" > entries. Yes. and I understand why. But rpmlint /doesn't/ complain about all the automatically detected unversioned provides (this package has ~70). The explicit provides are consistent with those automatically detected, and necessary since other packages may depend on them. Versioning them would be a lie since upstream hasn't given them explicit version (and where upstream has versioned specific packages, the version numbers bear no relation to the overall version of the distribution itself). (And as an aside, thanks as ever for the reviews. I'm busy trying to update cweyl's packages at the minute, but will try to return the favour). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 742543] Review Request: perl-HTML-FormHandler - HTML forms using Moose
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=742543 Iain Arnell changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||742560 Mario Blättermann changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mari...@freenet.de --- Comment #1 from Mario Blättermann 2011-10-02 11:20:56 EDT --- $ rpmlint -i -v *perl-HTML-FormHandler.noarch: I: checking perl-HTML-FormHandler.noarch: I: checking-url http://search.cpan.org/dist/HTML-FormHandler/ (timeout 10 seconds) perl-HTML-FormHandler.noarch: E: useless-provides perl(HTML::FormHandler::Field::Compound) This package provides 2 times the same capacity. It should only provide it once. perl-HTML-FormHandler.src: I: checking perl-HTML-FormHandler.src: I: checking-url http://search.cpan.org/dist/HTML-FormHandler/ (timeout 10 seconds) perl-HTML-FormHandler.src:44: W: unversioned-explicit-provides perl(HTML::FormHandler::Field::Compound) The specfile contains an unversioned Provides: token, which will match all older, equal, and newer versions of the provided thing. This may cause update problems and will make versioned dependencies, obsoletions and conflicts on the provided thing useless -- make the Provides versioned if possible. perl-HTML-FormHandler.src:45: W: unversioned-explicit-provides perl(HTML::FormHandler::Meta::Role) The specfile contains an unversioned Provides: token, which will match all older, equal, and newer versions of the provided thing. This may cause update problems and will make versioned dependencies, obsoletions and conflicts on the provided thing useless -- make the Provides versioned if possible. perl-HTML-FormHandler.src:47: W: unversioned-explicit-provides perl(HTML::FormHandler::Params) The specfile contains an unversioned Provides: token, which will match all older, equal, and newer versions of the provided thing. This may cause update problems and will make versioned dependencies, obsoletions and conflicts on the provided thing useless -- make the Provides versioned if possible. perl-HTML-FormHandler.src: I: checking-url http://www.cpan.org/authors/id/G/GS/GSHANK/HTML-FormHandler-0.35003.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds) perl-HTML-FormHandler.spec:44: W: unversioned-explicit-provides perl(HTML::FormHandler::Field::Compound) The specfile contains an unversioned Provides: token, which will match all older, equal, and newer versions of the provided thing. This may cause update problems and will make versioned dependencies, obsoletions and conflicts on the provided thing useless -- make the Provides versioned if possible. perl-HTML-FormHandler.spec:45: W: unversioned-explicit-provides perl(HTML::FormHandler::Meta::Role) The specfile contains an unversioned Provides: token, which will match all older, equal, and newer versions of the provided thing. This may cause update problems and will make versioned dependencies, obsoletions and conflicts on the provided thing useless -- make the Provides versioned if possible. perl-HTML-FormHandler.spec:47: W: unversioned-explicit-provides perl(HTML::FormHandler::Params) The specfile contains an unversioned Provides: token, which will match all older, equal, and newer versions of the provided thing. This may cause update problems and will make versioned dependencies, obsoletions and conflicts on the provided thing useless -- make the Provides versioned if possible. perl-HTML-FormHandler.spec: I: checking-url http://www.cpan.org/authors/id/G/GS/GSHANK/HTML-FormHandler-0.35003.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds) 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 6 warnings. Seems to be that rpmlint wants to have explicit versioning of the "Provides" entries. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 742542] Review Request: perl-Catalyst-ActionRole-ACL - User role-based authorization action class
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=742542
Iain Arnell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||742560
Mario Blättermann changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||mari...@freenet.de
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mari...@freenet.de
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Mario Blättermann 2011-10-02 11:05:39
EDT ---
$ rpmlint -i -v *perl-Catalyst-ActionRole-ACL.noarch: I: checking
perl-Catalyst-ActionRole-ACL.noarch: I: checking-url
http://search.cpan.org/dist/Catalyst-ActionRole-ACL/ (timeout 10 seconds)
perl-Catalyst-ActionRole-ACL.src: I: checking
perl-Catalyst-ActionRole-ACL.src: I: checking-url
http://search.cpan.org/dist/Catalyst-ActionRole-ACL/ (timeout 10 seconds)
perl-Catalyst-ActionRole-ACL.src: I: checking-url
http://www.cpan.org/authors/id/B/BO/BOBTFISH/Catalyst-ActionRole-ACL-0.06.tar.gz
(timeout 10 seconds)
perl-Catalyst-ActionRole-ACL.spec: I: checking-url
http://www.cpan.org/authors/id/B/BO/BOBTFISH/Catalyst-ActionRole-ACL-0.06.tar.gz
(timeout 10 seconds)
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
No issues.
-
key:
[+] OK
[.] OK, not applicable
[X] needs work
-
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}.
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license.
GPL+ or Artistic
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[.] MUST: The file containing the text of the license(s) for the package must
be included in %doc.
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source.
$ md5sum *
67b4f3a2092f1cdc26785c9b1ba45b67 Catalyst-ActionRole-ACL-0.06.tar.gz
67b4f3a2092f1cdc26785c9b1ba45b67
Catalyst-ActionRole-ACL-0.06.tar.gz.packaged
[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
- Succesful Koji build available.
[.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, ...
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.
[.] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly.
[.] MUST: If a package installs files below %{_datadir}/icons, the icon cache
must be updated.
[.] MUST: Packages storing shared library files (not just symlinks) must call
ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[.] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[.] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, ...
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates.
[+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in %files.
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
[+] MUST: Packages must not provide RPM dependency information when that
information is not global in nature, or are otherwise handled.
[.] MUST: When filtering automatically generated RPM dependency information,
the filtering system implemented by Fedora must be used.
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[.] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
[+] MUST: Files in %doc must not affect the runtime of the application.
[.] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[.] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[.] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g.
libfoo.so.1.1), ...
[.] MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned
dependency.
[.] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
[.] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file
[.] MUST: .desktop files must be properly installed with desktop-file-install
in the %install section.
[+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
[+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
[.] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream...
[+] SHOULD: Timestamps of files should be preserved.
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
See Koji build above (which uses mock anyway)
[+] SHOULD: The
[Bug 566757] Review Request: strongswan - IKEv1 and IKEv2 based VPN suite
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=566757 Xose Vazquez Perez changed: What|Removed |Added CC||xose.vazq...@gmail.com --- Comment #11 from Xose Vazquez Perez 2011-10-02 10:59:21 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 742759] New: Review Request: perl-Text-Aspell - Perl interface to the GNU Aspell library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: perl-Text-Aspell - Perl interface to the GNU Aspell library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=742759 Summary: Review Request: perl-Text-Aspell - Perl interface to the GNU Aspell library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: tcall...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Spec URL: http://spot.fedorapeople.org/perl-Text-Aspell.spec SRPM URL: http://spot.fedorapeople.org/perl-Text-Aspell-0.09-10.fc15.src.rpm Koji Rawhide Scratch Build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3397158 Description: This module provides a Perl interface to the GNU Aspell library. This module is to meet the need of looking up many words, one at a time, in a single session, such as spell-checking a document in memory. Review Note: This package was retired in Fedora due to being orphaned. I am reviving it to resolve broken dependencies. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 742538] Review Request: perl-Catalyst-Model-Adaptor - Use a plain class as a Catalyst model
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=742538
Mario Blättermann changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||mari...@freenet.de
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mari...@freenet.de
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Mario Blättermann 2011-10-02 10:33:56
EDT ---
$ rpmlint -i -v *perl-Catalyst-Model-Adaptor.noarch: I: checking
perl-Catalyst-Model-Adaptor.noarch: I: checking-url
http://search.cpan.org/dist/Catalyst-Model-Adaptor/ (timeout 10 seconds)
perl-Catalyst-Model-Adaptor.src: I: checking
perl-Catalyst-Model-Adaptor.src: I: checking-url
http://search.cpan.org/dist/Catalyst-Model-Adaptor/ (timeout 10 seconds)
perl-Catalyst-Model-Adaptor.src: I: checking-url
http://www.cpan.org/authors/id/B/BO/BOBTFISH/Catalyst-Model-Adaptor-0.10.tar.gz
(timeout 10 seconds)
perl-Catalyst-Model-Adaptor.spec: I: checking-url
http://www.cpan.org/authors/id/B/BO/BOBTFISH/Catalyst-Model-Adaptor-0.10.tar.gz
(timeout 10 seconds)
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Looks fine so far.
-
key:
[+] OK
[.] OK, not applicable
[X] needs work
-
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}.
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license.
GPL+ or Artistic
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[.] MUST: The file containing the text of the license(s) for the package must
be included in %doc.
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source.
$ md5sum *
06756b1c13ebe84d3f2538975cfea978 Catalyst-Model-Adaptor-0.10.tar.gz
06756b1c13ebe84d3f2538975cfea978
Catalyst-Model-Adaptor-0.10.tar.gz.packaged
[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
- Succesful Koji build available.
[.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, ...
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.
[.] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly.
[.] MUST: If a package installs files below %{_datadir}/icons, the icon cache
must be updated.
[.] MUST: Packages storing shared library files (not just symlinks) must call
ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[.] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[.] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, ...
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates.
[+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in %files.
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
[+] MUST: Packages must not provide RPM dependency information when that
information is not global in nature, or are otherwise handled.
[.] MUST: When filtering automatically generated RPM dependency information,
the filtering system implemented by Fedora must be used.
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[.] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
[+] MUST: Files in %doc must not affect the runtime of the application.
[.] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[.] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[.] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g.
libfoo.so.1.1), ...
[.] MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned
dependency.
[.] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
[.] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file
[.] MUST: .desktop files must be properly installed with desktop-file-install
in the %install section.
[+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
[+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
[.] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream...
[+] SHOULD: Timestamps of files should be preserved.
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
See Koji build above (which uses mock anyway)
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described.
I assume the packager has tested it. Don't know how to test it on my
system.
[+] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane.
[.] S
[Bug 710475] Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-iconplacesbookmarks - A gnome-shell extension to add a Places and Bookmarks menu
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=710475 --- Comment #5 from Mario Blättermann 2011-10-02 10:16:21 EDT --- Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3397099 $ rpmlint -i -v * gnome-shell-extension-iconplacesbookmarks.src: I: checking gnome-shell-extension-iconplacesbookmarks.src: I: checking-url http://www.fpmurphy.com/gnome-shell-extensions/ (timeout 10 seconds) gnome-shell-extension-iconplacesbookmarks.src: I: checking-url http://www.fpmurphy.com/gnome-shell-extensions/iconplacesbookmarks-1.1.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds) gnome-shell-extension-iconplacesbookmarks.noarch: I: checking gnome-shell-extension-iconplacesbookmarks.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.0-1 ['1.1-1.fc17', '1.1-1'] The latest entry in %changelog contains a version identifier that is not coherent with the epoch:version-release tuple of the package. gnome-shell-extension-iconplacesbookmarks.noarch: I: checking-url http://www.fpmurphy.com/gnome-shell-extensions/ (timeout 10 seconds) gnome-shell-extension-iconplacesbookmarks.spec: I: checking-url http://www.fpmurphy.com/gnome-shell-extensions/iconplacesbookmarks-1.1.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds) 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. The version number in the changelog is still incorrect for the last entry. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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
Lakshmi Narasimhan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Lakshmi Narasimhan 2011-10-02
08:46:08 EDT ---
[+]MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
the review.
rpmlint -i ghc-wai-0.4.2-1.fc17.src.rpm ghc-wai-devel-0.4.2-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm
ghc-wai-0.4.2-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm ../ghc-wai.spec
3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 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
[+]MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines.
License is BSD 2 clause.
[+]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 wai-0.4.2.tar.gz
3b1b56ba80e4c6328ec7c6209bb2915f wai-0.4.2.tar.gz
d5sum ghc-wai-0.4.2-1.fc15.src/wai-0.4.2.tar.gz
3b1b56ba80e4c6328ec7c6209bb2915f ghc-wai-0.4.2-1.fc15.src/wai-0.4.2.tar.gz
[+]MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture.
Built on x86_64 and x86.
[+]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 ll 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.
[+]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.
[+]MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned
dependency: Requires: {name} = %{version}-%{release}
pm -e ghc-wai
error: Failed dependencies:
ghc(wai-0.4.2) = 4b36963ef91b4a4adab343315ef116b6 is needed by
(installed) ghc-wai-devel-0.4.2-1.fc15.x86_64
ghc-wai = 0.4.2-1.fc15 is needed by (installed)
ghc-wai-devel-0.4.2-1.fc15.x86_64
[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. Installs fine. Loaded Network.Wai into ghci. Loads fine.
[+]SHOULD: If scriptlets are use
[Bug 742742] Review Request: perl-strictures - Turn on strict and make all warnings fatal
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=742742 --- Comment #2 from Iain Arnell 2011-10-02 07:03:10 EDT --- Oops. That description wasn't very good. How about Description: This package turns on strict and makes all warnings fatal. Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~iarnell/review/perl-strictures.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~iarnell/review/perl-strictures-1.002002-2.fc15.src.rpm Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3396692 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 652971] Review Request: code-editor - A text/code editor based on Qt Creator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652971 --- Comment #52 from Kevin Kofler 2011-10-02 06:59:27 EDT --- One thing you may want to (but don't have to) fix in the upstream code is canonicalizing those /usr/bin/../lib64/code-editor rpaths. But I guess that's the same in the original upstream Qt Creator. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 687987] Review Request: plymouth-theme-hot-dog - Plymouth Happy Hot Dog Theme
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=687987 --- Comment #10 from Will Woods 2011-10-02 07:02:49 EDT --- AT LONG LAST! LOOK UPON THE BEEFY MIRACLE, YE MIGHTY, AND DESPAIR: http://wwoods.fedorapeople.org/hot-dog/plymouth-theme-hot-dog-0.4-1.fc16.src.rpm http://wwoods.fedorapeople.org/hot-dog/plymouth-theme-hot-dog.spec I consider this a blocker for F16. And F15. We must go back in time and add this to F15. BOARD THE TIME MACHINE AND LET US MAKE HISTORY. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 730312] Review Request: jboss-classfilewriter - JBoss Class File Writer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=730312 Marek Goldmann changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Marek Goldmann 2011-10-02 06:52:49 EDT --- Thanks for review! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: jboss-classfilewriter Short Description: JBoss Class File Writer Owners:goldmann -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 742742] New: Review Request: perl-strictures - Turn on strict and make all warnings fatal
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: perl-strictures - Turn on strict and make all warnings fatal Alias: perl-strictures https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=742742 Summary: Review Request: perl-strictures - Turn on strict and make all warnings fatal Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: Unspecified URL: http://search.cpan.org/dist/strictures/ OS/Version: Unspecified Status: NEW Severity: unspecified Priority: unspecified Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: iarn...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~iarnell/review/perl-strictures.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~iarnell/review/perl-strictures-1.002002-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: I've been writing the equivalent of this module at the top of my code for about a year now. I figured it was time to make it shorter. *rt-0.10_01 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 742742] Review Request: perl-strictures - Turn on strict and make all warnings fatal
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=742742 --- Comment #1 from Iain Arnell 2011-10-02 06:53:48 EDT --- Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3396668 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 728460] Review Request: xnio - JBoss XNIO
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=728460 --- Comment #2 from Marek Goldmann 2011-10-02 06:36:37 EDT --- Package is ready to review - no more blockers, koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3396607 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 730312] Review Request: jboss-classfilewriter - JBoss Class File Writer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=730312 Alexander Kurtakov changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Alexander Kurtakov 2011-10-02 06:36:16 EDT --- Approved. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 730312] Review Request: jboss-classfilewriter - JBoss Class File Writer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=730312 --- Comment #3 from Marek Goldmann 2011-10-02 06:33:04 EDT --- Fixed! Spec URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/jboss-classfilewriter/2/jboss-classfilewriter.spec SRPM URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/jboss-classfilewriter/2/jboss-classfilewriter-1.0.0-2.fc17.src.rpm Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3396595 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 652971] Review Request: code-editor - A text/code editor based on Qt Creator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652971
--- Comment #51 from Ilyes Gouta 2011-10-02 06:20:25
EDT ---
Hi Michael, Kevin,
> Could be replaced with just one line for %_libdir/code-editor/
Yes, sure.
Now:
%{?filter_setup:
%filter_provides_in %_libdir/code-editor/
%filter_from_requires
/\(libAggregation\|libCPlusPlus\|libExtensionSystem\|libLanguageUtils\|libQtConcurrent\|libUtils\)\.so.*/d
%filter_from_requires
/\(libBinEditor\|libCore\|libCppEditor\|libCppTools\|libFakeVim\|libFind\|libLocator\|libTextEditor\)\.so.*/d
%filter_setup
}
and:
ilyes@whitebird ~/rpmbuild $ rpm -qp --provides
RPMS/x86_64/code-editor-2.3.0-9.fc15.x86_64.rpm
mimehandler(text/x-c++hdr)
mimehandler(text/x-chdr)
mimehandler(text/x-c++src)
mimehandler(text/x-csrc)
mimehandler(text/x-xsrc)
code-editor = 2.3.0-9.fc15
code-editor(x86-64) = 2.3.0-9.fc15
ilyes@whitebird ~/rpmbuild $ rpm -qp --requires
RPMS/x86_64/code-editor-2.3.0-9.fc15.x86_64.rpm
hicolor-icon-theme
xdg-utils
qt4(x86-64) >= 4.7.4
/bin/sh
/bin/sh
/bin/sh
rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.14)(64bit)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4)(64bit)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4)(64bit)
libdl.so.2()(64bit)
libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
libm.so.6()(64bit)
libm.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit)
libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
libpthread.so.0(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit)
libQtCore.so.4()(64bit)
libQtGui.so.4()(64bit)
libQtHelp.so.4()(64bit)
libQtNetwork.so.4()(64bit)
libQtScript.so.4()(64bit)
libQtSql.so.4()(64bit)
libQtXml.so.4()(64bit)
libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.1)(64bit)
libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4)(64bit)
rtld(GNU_HASH)
rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1
The software is functional and:
[root@whitebird rpmbuild]# ldd /usr/bin/code-editor (trying out just the main
binary)
linux-vdso.so.1 => (0x7bbff000)
libExtensionSystem.so.1 =>
/usr/bin/../lib64/code-editor/libExtensionSystem.so.1 (0x7f13b78e1000)
libAggregation.so.1 => /usr/bin/../lib64/code-editor/libAggregation.so.1
(0x7f13b76dc000)
libQtGui.so.4 => /usr/lib64/libQtGui.so.4 (0x003be720)
libQtNetwork.so.4 => /usr/lib64/libQtNetwork.so.4 (0x003be800)
libQtCore.so.4 => /usr/lib64/libQtCore.so.4 (0x003be6c0)
libpthread.so.0 => /lib64/libpthread.so.0 (0x0035a580)
libstdc++.so.6 => /usr/lib64/libstdc++.so.6 (0x0035abc0)
libm.so.6 => /lib64/libm.so.6 (0x0035a5c0)
libgcc_s.so.1 => /lib64/libgcc_s.so.1 (0x0035a680)
libc.so.6 => /lib64/libc.so.6 (0x0035a540)
libdl.so.2 => /lib64/libdl.so.2 (0x0035a600)
libgthread-2.0.so.0 => /lib64/libgthread-2.0.so.0 (0x0035a740)
librt.so.1 => /lib64/librt.so.1 (0x0035a640)
libglib-2.0.so.0 => /lib64/libglib-2.0.so.0 (0x0035a700)
libpng12.so.0 => /usr/lib64/libpng12.so.0 (0x0035a9c0)
libz.so.1 => /lib64/libz.so.1 (0x0035a6c0)
libfreetype.so.6 => /usr/lib64/libfreetype.so.6 (0x003bee20)
libgobject-2.0.so.0 => /lib64/libgobject-2.0.so.0 (0x0035a780)
libSM.so.6 => /usr/lib64/libSM.so.6 (0x0035ac80)
libICE.so.6 => /usr/lib64/libICE.so.6 (0x0035ac40)
libXi.so.6 => /usr/lib64/libXi.so.6 (0x003e4a60)
libXrender.so.1 => /usr/lib64/libXrender.so.1 (0x0035aa40)
libXrandr.so.2 => /usr/lib64/libXrandr.so.2 (0x0035aac0)
libXfixes.so.3 => /usr/lib64/libXfixes.so.3 (0x0035aa80)
libXcursor.so.1 => /usr/lib64/libXcursor.so.1 (0x0035ab40)
libXinerama.so.1 => /usr/lib64/libXinerama.so.1 (0x0035ab80)
libfontconfig.so.1 => /usr/lib64/libfontconfig.so.1 (0x003bee60)
libXext.so.6 => /usr/lib64/libXext.so.6 (0x0035a980)
libX11.so.6 => /usr/lib64/libX11.so.6 (0x0035a800)
libssl.so.10 => /usr/lib64/libssl.so.10 (0x0033f120)
libcrypto.so.10 => /lib64/libcrypto.so.10 (0x0033f0e0)
/lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 (0x0035a500)
libuuid.so.1 => /lib64/libuuid.so.1 (0x0035ac00)
libexpat.so.1 => /lib64/libexpat.so.1 (0x0035a8c0)
libxcb.so.1 => /usr/lib64/libxcb.so.1 (0x0035a840)
libgssapi_krb5.so.2 => /lib64/libgssapi_krb5.so.2 (0x0035af80)
libkrb5.so.3 => /lib64/libkrb5.so.3 (0x0035b0c0)
libcom_err.so.2 => /lib64/libcom_err.so.2 (0x0035aec0)
libk5crypto.so.3 => /lib64/libk5crypto.so.3 (0x0035b000)
libXau.so.6 => /usr/lib64/libXau.so.6 (0x0035a880)
libkrb5support.so.0 => /lib64/libkrb5support.so.0 (0x0035afc0)
libkeyutils.so.1 => /lib64/libkeyutils.so.1 (0x0035b040)
libresolv.so.2 => /lib64/libresolv.so.2 (0x0035a900)
libselinux.so.1 => /lib64/libselinux.so.1 (0x0035a7c0)
We're do
[Bug 727152] Review Request: jboss-common-core - JBoss Common Classes
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727152 --- Comment #11 from Marek Goldmann 2011-10-02 06:19:38 EDT --- Fixed license, skipped tests because of a failing one. Spec URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/jboss-common-core/3/jboss-common-core.spec SRPM URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/jboss-common-core/3/jboss-common-core-2.2.18-2.fc17.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 #6 from Alexander Kurtakov 2011-10-02
06:12:58 EDT ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[!] Rpmlint output:
simplevalidation-javadoc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Javadocs ->
Java docs, Java-docs, Avocados
simplevalidation-javadoc.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/javadoc/simplevalidation/javadoc/package-list
simplevalidation-javadoc.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/javadoc/simplevalidation/javadoc/stylesheet.css
simplevalidation.noarch: E: summary-too-long C A simple library for
retrofitting user-interface input validation to Swing applications
simplevalidation.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US validators ->
liquidators
simplevalidation.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US urls -> curls,
purls, hurls
simplevalidation.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.4.1
['0.4-1.fc15', '0.4-1']
Simple to fix, don't care for the spelling errors.
simplevalidation.noarch: W: no-documentation
Not a real problem as the package is not providing any documentation but please
remove the empty doc macro in the files section.
[x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines[1].
[x] Spec file name must match the base package name, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines[2].
[x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms.
[x] Buildroot definition is not present
[x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines[3,4].
[x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type: GPLv2 or CDDL
[-] 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:1ecbbc482003d92263c507668b5d04ec
MD5SUM upstream package:1ecbbc482003d92263c507668b5d04ec
[x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines[5].
[x] Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x] File sections do not contain %defattr(-,root,root,-) unless changed with
good reason
[x] Permissions on files are set properly.
[x] Package does NOT have a %clean section which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}
(or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). (not needed anymore)
[x] Package consistently uses macros (no %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
mixing)
[x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
[x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x] Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
subpackage
[x] Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlinks)
[x] Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
[x] Javadoc subpackages have Require: jpackage-utils
[x] Package uses %global not %define
[-] If package uses tarball from VCS include comment how to re-create that
tarball (svn export URL, git clone URL, ...)
[x] If source tarball includes bundled jar/class files these need to be
removed prior to building
[x] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
[x] Jar files are installed to %{_javadir}/%{name}.jar (see [6] for details)
[-] If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even when
building with ant
[-] pom files has correct add_maven_depmap
=== 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 ===
1. Please fix the rpmlint warnings/errors.
Jon: when you do a review you're supposed to run rpmlint on the binary rpms too
not only on the spec file.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 728171] Review Request: jboss-logging-tools - JBoss Logging I18n Tools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=728171 --- Comment #3 from Marek Goldmann 2011-10-02 06:09:49 EDT --- Fixed and packaged 1.0.0.CR1. Spec URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/jboss-logging-tools/2/jboss-logging-tools.spec SRPM URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/jboss-logging-tools/2/jboss-logging-tools-1.0.0-0.1.CR1.fc17.src.rpm Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3396530 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 #5 from Marek Goldmann 2011-10-02 05:56:45 EDT --- Fixed the issues, but the packages till depends on cookcc which is on the way to Rawhide. Spec URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/jboss-dmr/2/jboss-dmr.spec SRPM URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/jboss-dmr/2/jboss-dmr-1.0.0-2.fc17.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 Marek Goldmann changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Marek Goldmann 2011-10-02 05:53:31 EDT --- Thanks for review! I'll fix the apidocs issue while importing the package. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: jboss-logmanager-log4j Short Description: JBoss LogManager Log4j Compatibility Library Owners:goldmann -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 AssignedTo|jon.vanal...@redhat.com |akurt...@redhat.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #5 from Alexander Kurtakov 2011-10-02 05:53:34 EDT --- Thanks Jon, I'll do the formal review myself. Thanks for the prereview. Btw, you should submit a package yourself so we can get you sponsored. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 730312] Review Request: jboss-classfilewriter - JBoss Class File Writer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=730312
--- Comment #2 from Alexander Kurtakov 2011-10-02
05:46:29 EDT ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[!] Rpmlint output:
jboss-classfilewriter-javadoc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Javadocs
-> Java docs, Java-docs, Avocados
jboss-classfilewriter.noarch: W: no-documentation - There is an empty %doc
macro and there is README file that should go in it.
[x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines[1].
[x] Spec file name must match the base package name, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines[2].
[x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms.
[x] Buildroot definition is not present
[x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines[3,4].
[x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type: 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.
[-] 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.
[x] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
[x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x] Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
subpackage
[x] Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlinks)
[x] Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
[x] Javadoc subpackages have Require: jpackage-utils
[x] Package uses %global not %define
[x] If package uses tarball from VCS include comment how to re-create that
tarball (svn export URL, git clone URL, ...)
[x] If source tarball includes bundled jar/class files these need to be
removed prior to building
[x] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
[x] Jar files are installed to %{_javadir}/%{name}.jar (see [6] for details)
[x] If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even when
building with ant
[x] pom files has correct add_maven_depmap
=== Maven ===
[x] Use %{_mavenpomdir} macro for placing pom files instead of
%{_datadir}/maven2/poms
[-] 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 ===
1. Fix the doc installation.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 730312] Review Request: jboss-classfilewriter - JBoss Class File Writer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=730312 Alexander Kurtakov 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 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 #3 from Marek Goldmann 2011-10-02 05:45:51 EDT --- Tomas, I removed the zipeinit.jar file and created a bug report upstream: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/AS7-1988 The jar files in src/test/resources are simple packages without any binary files required to tests. Tests are disabled for now, but possibly will be enabled in the future. Spec URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/jboss-vfs/2/jboss-vfs.spec SRPM URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/jboss-vfs/2/jboss-vfs-3.0.1-2.fc17.src.rpm Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3396463 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 730312] Review Request: jboss-classfilewriter - JBoss Class File Writer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=730312 Alexander Kurtakov changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||akurt...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|akurt...@redhat.com --- Comment #1 from Alexander Kurtakov 2011-10-02 05:37:11 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 724924] Review Request: cookcc - Lexer and Parser 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=724924 Marek Goldmann changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #9 from Marek Goldmann 2011-10-02 05:17:28 EDT --- Thanks for review! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: cookcc Short Description: Lexer and Parser Generator Owners:goldmann -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 738034] Review Request: woodstox-core-asl - High-performance XML processor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=738034 Tom "spot" Callaway changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tcall...@redhat.com Blocks|182235(FE-Legal)| --- Comment #5 from Tom "spot" Callaway 2011-10-02 04:52:57 EDT --- This is really dumb, however, here's what you should do: Have this package generate two subpackages: woodstox-core-asl and woodstox-core-lgpl Tag each one with the appropriate license and include the appropriately named jar file. Lifting FE-Legal. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 621559] Review Request: perl-Data-Properties - Perl equivalent of java.util.Properties
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=621559 Tom "spot" Callaway changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tcall...@redhat.com --- Comment #10 from Tom "spot" Callaway 2011-10-02 04:33:23 EDT --- Jessica, if you can forward me a copy of the email from Brian so that I have it in the extremely unlikely event of dispute over the license, I will permit this package to move forward without including a copy. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 730232] Review Request: jboss-servlet-3.0-api - Java Servlet 3.0 API
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=730232 --- Comment #2 from Marek Goldmann 2011-10-02 03:49:23 EDT --- Rich, Could you please clarify licensing for this package? Thanks! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
