[Bug 711893] Review Request: rubygem-dnsruby - Ruby DNS(SEC) implementation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=711893
--- Comment #10 from Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com 2011-10-05 02:01:41 EDT
---
(In reply to comment #7)
- I left the %check commented because it requires network connectivity,
contains errors and missing check targets, and actually hangs.
I agree that test suite could be left disabled, when it requires some network
traffic, but if you are testing locally and it hangs, then it is bad sign and
should be better evaluated. You are preventing problems not just yourself but
also to your users.
- I install using --no-ri to avoid the above mentioned file name issues
Please no, don't do that. This is how RI works. Just ignore the output, that's
it. Rpmlint provides just hints, rpmlints with 0 warnings is not must.
- I added this to the %files (do these belong in a rubygem package?)
%{geminstdir}/test
%{geminstdir}/demo
%{geminstdir}/Rakefile
These should be typically contained in -doc subpackage.
- Added %doc %{geminstdir}/README to base package (as well as doc package)
There is no need to include the README into both packages, since the -doc
subpackage has explicit require for base package.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 739478] Review request: rubygem-jammit - Industrial Strength Asset Packaging for Rails
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=739478 --- Comment #3 from Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com 2011-10-05 02:05:26 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2) (In reply to comment #1) Taking this for a review. Any updates? Actually this is blocked by review of rhbz#725768 and this is blocked by rhbz#725739 which block everything :/ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 710648] Review Request: clusterPy - Custom analytical geographic regionalization
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=710648 --- Comment #4 from Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at 2011-10-05 02:43:05 EDT --- Thank you for reviewing, Ken! I'll change the URL for the actual build. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 710648] Review Request: clusterPy - Custom analytical geographic regionalization
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=710648 Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at 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 743497] New: Review Request: tcplay - Utility to create/open/map TrueCrypt-compatible volumes
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: tcplay - Utility to create/open/map TrueCrypt-compatible volumes https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=743497 Summary: Review Request: tcplay - Utility to create/open/map TrueCrypt-compatible volumes Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: e...@brouhaha.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~brouhaha/tcplay/tcplay.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~brouhaha/tcplay/tcplay-0.9-0.1.20111004git59c6097.fc14.src.rpm Koji scratch build for F15: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3405450 Description: The tcplay utility provides full support for creating and opening/mapping TrueCrypt-compatible volumes. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 730644] Review Request: svgSalamander - An SVG engine for Java
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=730644 Mohamed El Morabity pikachu.2...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Mohamed El Morabity pikachu.2...@gmail.com 2011-10-05 03:24:05 EDT --- This package is APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 738079] Review Request: quartz - Enterprise Job Scheduler for Java
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=738079 --- Comment #5 from Miroslav Suchý msu...@redhat.com 2011-10-05 03:44:44 EDT --- Re epoch - true that 0 != ''. If it was present there in jpackage already then keep it there. Removing that would break upgrades for people who already use quartz from jpackage. Re upgrade - there was big change in 1.8 - change in XML schema. If this does not affect/bother you, everything else should go smoothly. I use quartz in Spacewalk (my motivation for review) and we use there 1.8 (from jpackage as well). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 742389] Review Request: gtk-unico-engine - Unico Gtk+ theming 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=742389 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 742389] Review Request: gtk-unico-engine - Unico Gtk+ theming 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=742389 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-10-05 03:55:05 EDT --- gtk-unico-engine-1.0.1-2.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gtk-unico-engine-1.0.1-2.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 740814] Review Request: Jena - Java framework for building Semantic Web Applications
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=740814 --- Comment #4 from Tomas Radej tra...@redhat.com 2011-10-05 04:02:06 EDT --- Yeah, I used to interpret that as well, but I was told that implicit dependency means a transitive Require. Thank you very much for review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 740814] Review Request: Jena - Java framework for building Semantic Web Applications
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=740814 Tomas Radej tra...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Tomas Radej tra...@redhat.com 2011-10-05 04:06:06 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: jena Short Description: Java framework for building Semantic Web applications Owners: tradej Branches: f16 InitialCC: java-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 728208] Review Request: jboss-threads - JBoss Threads
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=728208
--- Comment #2 from Tomas Radej tra...@redhat.com 2011-10-05 05:45:45 EDT ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x] Rpmlint output:
jboss-threads.noarch: W: no-documentation
jboss-threads.src: W: invalid-url Source0: jboss-threads-2.0.0.GA.tar.xz
jboss-threads-javadoc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Javadocs - Java
docs, Java-docs, Avocados
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
[x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines[1].
[x] Spec file name must match the base package name, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[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.
[x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines[5].
[x] Package must own all directories that it creates.
[-] 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
[-] Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlinks)
Folder copied is apidocs, should be apidocs/*
[x] Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
[x] Javadoc subpackages have Require: jpackage-utils
[x] Package uses %global not %define
[x] If package uses tarball from VCS include comment how to re-create that
tarball (svn export URL, git clone URL, ...)
[-] If source tarball includes bundled jar/class files these need to be
removed prior to building
[x] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
[x] Jar files are installed to %{_javadir}/%{name}.jar (see [6] for details)
[x] If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even when
building with ant
[x] pom files has correct add_maven_depmap
=== Maven ===
[x] Use %{_mavenpomdir} macro for placing pom files instead of
%{_datadir}/maven2/poms
[x] If package uses -Dmaven.test.skip=true explain why it was needed in a
comment You could be more specific, but whatever
[-] 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 ***
- folder copied is apidocs, should be apidocs/*
*** NOTES ***
- you could be more specific with the test failure reason
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 697326] Review Request: libisoburn - Library to enable creation and expansion of ISO-9660 filesystems
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=697326
Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mschwe...@gmail.com
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Comment #11 from Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com 2011-10-05 05:48:48
EDT ---
* Wed Sep 28 2011 Release 1.1.6 : libisoburn now comes with a test suite -
that is just a file comparison executable to be run manually. It is not a full
suite that could be run in the %check section.
* Upstream offers a detached signature file that could be included
as another %{SOURCEn} file.
* A couple of packages in the distribution explicitly Requires: util-linux,
but I don't think this should be added also for the xorriso kde helper, which
uses ionice.
%global with_kde 1
More flexible would be
%bcond_without kde
which by default would define %with_kde to 1 and undefine it if building
--without kde. The following conditionals,
%if (%with_kde 0%{?rhel}%{?fedora} 5)
would need to be adjusted then, however. There are multiple solutions, such as
%if %{with kde} (0%{?rhel}%{?fedora} 5)
or the more cryptic:
%if 0%{?with_kde:1} (0%{?rhel}%{?fedora} 5)
%package -n xorriso
I still think it should add an arch-specific base package dependency as
discussed before.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package
And just to mention it, yes, it's possible to upgrade arbitrary libraries in
Fedora with API additions, (re)build applications with them and produce builds
where the automatic SONAME deps are not accurate enough. In a subpackage, one
has full control over the base package name and EVR, however, whereas an
explicit versioned dependency on external package NEVR bears risks.
* Unless you want to build this library for EPEL 5, you could prune some of the
items which are no longer necessary:
- BuildRoot definition
- BuildRoot removal at beginning of %install
- %clean section
- %defattr lines
- pkgconfig dependency in -devel package
* APPROVED
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 Tomas Radej tra...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #12 from Tomas Radej tra...@redhat.com 2011-10-05 06:34:44 EDT --- Seems fine. *** 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 739478] Review request: rubygem-jammit - Industrial Strength Asset Packaging for Rails
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=739478 Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|743402 | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 743247] Review Request: perl-Digest - Modules that calculate message digests
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=743247 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE Last Closed||2011-10-05 07:48:05 --- Comment #5 from Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com 2011-10-05 07:48:05 EDT --- Sub-packaged in perl-5.14.2-195.fc17, perl-Digest-1.17-1.fcf17 built. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 736801] Review Request: pure-gen - A Pure C bindings generator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=736801 --- Comment #4 from Michel Alexandre Salim michel+...@sylvestre.me 2011-10-05 07:54:24 EDT --- It's built now. Which Fedora release are you testing on? I can add it to the Build Overrides for the distribution release you need (f15 or 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 710648] Review Request: clusterPy - Custom analytical geographic regionalization
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=710648 --- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2011-10-05 08:02:22 EDT --- Please include an SCM request when setting the fedora-cvs flag, thanks! https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_SCM_admin_requests -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 739478] Review request: rubygem-jammit - Industrial Strength Asset Packaging for Rails
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=739478 James Laska jla...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||743402 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 710648] Review Request: clusterPy - Custom analytical geographic regionalization
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=710648 --- Comment #6 from Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at 2011-10-05 08:21:40 EDT --- Sorry, out of my mind! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 710648] Review Request: clusterPy - Custom analytical geographic regionalization
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=710648 Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at 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 710648] Review Request: clusterPy - Custom analytical geographic regionalization
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=710648 --- Comment #7 from Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at 2011-10-05 08:25:23 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: clusterPy Short Description: Library of spatially constrained clustering algorithms Owners: volter Branches: f15 f16 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 742996] Review Request: libpwquality - A library for password generation and password quality checking
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=742996 Miloslav Trmač m...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||m...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|m...@redhat.com Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 738079] Review Request: quartz - Enterprise Job Scheduler for Java
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=738079 --- Comment #6 from Andy Grimm agr...@gmail.com 2011-10-05 08:51:11 EDT --- I've grep'ed through our code, and it appears that we don't use quartz directly; it's is required by ha-jdbc and mule. ha-jdbc is a dormant project at this point, and the latest version of mule still has 1.6.6 as the quartzVersion in its pom file; I can attempt to build these against newer versions and see what happens. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 710648] Review Request: clusterPy - Custom analytical geographic regionalization
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=710648 --- Comment #8 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2011-10-05 09:12:34 EDT --- And the BZ isn't assigned to the reviewer, and the review flag isn't set to +. :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 710648] Review Request: clusterPy - Custom analytical geographic regionalization
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=710648 Ken Dreyer ktdre...@ktdreyer.com changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ktdre...@ktdreyer.com Flag||fedora-review+ --- Comment #9 from Ken Dreyer ktdre...@ktdreyer.com 2011-10-05 09:16:37 EDT --- Sorry Jon, thanks :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 713990] Review Request: bzr-fastimport - Bzr plugin for fast loading of data from other VCS tools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=713990 Andy Grimm agr...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||agr...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|agr...@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 727171] Review Request: jboss-dmr - JBoss DMR
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727171 Jaromír Cápík jca...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #7 from Jaromír Cápík jca...@redhat.com 2011-10-05 09:55:57 EDT --- [x] Rpmlint output: $ rpmlint jboss-dmr-1.0.0-2.fc17.noarch.rpm jboss-dmr.noarch: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. $ rpmlint jboss-dmr-1.0.0-2.fc17.src.rpm jboss-dmr.src: W: invalid-url Source0: jboss-dmr-1.0.0.Final.tar.xz 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. $ rpmlint jboss-dmr-javadoc-1.0.0-2.fc17.noarch.rpm jboss-dmr-javadoc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Javadocs - Java docs, Java-docs, Avocados 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms. [x] Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc subpackage [x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. Tested on: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 *** APPROVED *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 713984] Review Request: python-fastimport - Python parser for fastimport (VCS interchange format)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=713984 Andy Grimm agr...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||agr...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|agr...@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 710648] Review Request: clusterPy - Custom analytical geographic regionalization
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=710648 Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #10 from Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at 2011-10-05 10:13:09 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: clusterPy Short Description: Library of spatially constrained clustering algorithms Owners: volter Branches: f15 f16 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 713990] Review Request: bzr-fastimport - Bzr plugin for fast loading of data from other VCS tools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=713990 --- Comment #3 from Andy Grimm agr...@gmail.com 2011-10-05 10:11:29 EDT --- A few things: 1) Please fix the FSF address in these files (the correct address is here: http://www.fsf.org/about/contact/ ): $ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/bzr-fastimport-0.10.0-1.fc17.noarch.rpm bzr-fastimport.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/bzrlib/plugins/fastimport/tests/test_generic_processor.py bzr-fastimport.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/bzrlib/plugins/fastimport/cmds.py bzr-fastimport.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/bzrlib/plugins/fastimport/cache_manager.py bzr-fastimport.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/bzrlib/plugins/fastimport/tests/test_exporter.py bzr-fastimport.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/bzrlib/plugins/fastimport/tests/test_branch_mapper.py bzr-fastimport.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/bzrlib/plugins/fastimport/helpers.py bzr-fastimport.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/bzrlib/plugins/fastimport/bzr_commit_handler.py bzr-fastimport.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/bzrlib/plugins/fastimport/tests/test_commands.py bzr-fastimport.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/bzrlib/plugins/fastimport/exporters/__init__.py bzr-fastimport.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/bzrlib/plugins/fastimport/exporter.py bzr-fastimport.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/bzrlib/plugins/fastimport/__init__.py bzr-fastimport.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/bzrlib/plugins/fastimport/branch_mapper.py bzr-fastimport.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/bzrlib/plugins/fastimport/user_mapper.py bzr-fastimport.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/bzrlib/plugins/fastimport/marks_file.py bzr-fastimport.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/bzrlib/plugins/fastimport/revision_store.py bzr-fastimport.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/bzrlib/plugins/fastimport/processors/generic_processor.py bzr-fastimport.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/bzrlib/plugins/fastimport/processors/__init__.py bzr-fastimport.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/bzrlib/plugins/fastimport/branch_updater.py 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 18 errors, 0 warnings. You should also send the change to the upstream maintainers of this project. 2) Several parts of this spec are no longer needed in recent Fedora releases, and should be removed: a) %defattr(-,root,root,-) in the %files section b) the %clean section c) rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT in the %install section 3) This package does not function without python-fastimport, so it should have a Requires line for this. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 743612] New: Review Request: lbdb - collect email addresses from several sources and offer them in mutt
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: lbdb - collect email addresses from several sources and offer them in mutt https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=743612 Summary: Review Request: lbdb - collect email addresses from several sources and offer them in mutt Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: cferg...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Spec URL: http://teuf.fedorapeople.org/lbdb/lbdb.spec SRPM URL: http://teuf.fedorapeople.org/lbdb/lbdb-0.38-1.src.rpm Description: The Little Brother's Database (lbdb) consists of a set of small tools that collect mail addresses from several sources and offer these addresses to the external query feature of the Mutt mail reader. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 710648] Review Request: clusterPy - Custom analytical geographic regionalization
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=710648 --- Comment #11 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2011-10-05 10:15:27 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 710648] Review Request: clusterPy - Custom analytical geographic regionalization
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=710648 Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net changed: What|Removed |Added CC||l...@jcomserv.net --- Comment #12 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2011-10-05 10:16:00 EDT --- No worries, thanks! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 743615] New: Review Request: nagios-plugins-openmanage - Nagios plugin to monitor hardware health on Dell servers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: nagios-plugins-openmanage - Nagios plugin to monitor hardware health on Dell servers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=743615 Summary: Review Request: nagios-plugins-openmanage - Nagios plugin to monitor hardware health on Dell servers Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: unspecified Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: t.h.amund...@usit.uio.no QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Spec URL: http://folk.uio.no/trondham/review/nagios-plugins-openmanage.spec SRPM URL: http://folk.uio.no/trondham/review/nagios-plugins-openmanage-3.7.3-1.el6.src.rpm Description: check_openmanage is a plugin for Nagios which checks the hardware health of Dell servers running OpenManage Server Administrator (OMSA). The plugin can be used remotely with SNMP or locally with NRPE, check_by_ssh or similar, whichever suits your needs and particular taste. The plugin checks the health of the storage subsystem, power supplies, memory modules, temperature probes etc., and gives an alert if any of the components are faulty or operate outside normal parameters. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 743615] Review Request: nagios-plugins-openmanage - Nagios plugin to monitor hardware health on Dell servers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=743615 Xavier Bachelot xav...@bachelot.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||xav...@bachelot.org Blocks||177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 713984] Review Request: python-fastimport - Python parser for fastimport (VCS interchange format)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=713984 --- Comment #7 from Andy Grimm agr...@gmail.com 2011-10-05 10:30:02 EDT --- Similar to the review for bzr-fastimport; several parts of this spec are no longer needed in recent Fedora releases, and should be removed: 1) %defattr(-,root,root,-) in the %files section 2) the %clean section 3) rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT in the %install section Please fix these, and I will approve the package (and as Jorge said, please bump the revision when you change the spec). I cannot sponsor you, but I will do what I can to help you get 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 710648] Review Request: clusterPy - Custom analytical geographic regionalization
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=710648 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-10-05 11:52:06 EDT --- clusterPy-0.9.9-3.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/clusterPy-0.9.9-3.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 710648] Review Request: clusterPy - Custom analytical geographic regionalization
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=710648 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-10-05 11:52:15 EDT --- clusterPy-0.9.9-3.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/clusterPy-0.9.9-3.fc15 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 710648] Review Request: clusterPy - Custom analytical geographic regionalization
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=710648 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 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 693820] Review Request: gallery3 - Customizable photo gallery web site
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=693820 --- Comment #13 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2011-10-05 12:20:47 EDT --- Update: I pulled the Bodhi updates, as I can't actually get this to work. I'm making tweaks as I go, and will push new builds one I have something that works. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 743615] Review Request: nagios-plugins-openmanage - Nagios plugin to monitor hardware health on Dell servers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=743615
Terje Røsten terje...@phys.ntnu.no changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||terje...@phys.ntnu.no
--- Comment #1 from Terje Røsten terje...@phys.ntnu.no 2011-10-05 12:34:23
EDT ---
# No binaries here, do not build a debuginfo package
%global debug_package %{nil}
Why is not use BuildArch: noarch?
URL: http://folk.uio.no/trondham/software/%{plugin}.html
Source0:
http://folk.uio.no/trondham/software/files/%{plugin}-%{version}.tar.gz
I don't see the value in using the %{plugin} macro here.
BuildRequires: /usr/bin/pod2man
Well, simply using BuildRequires: perl should be safe and faster?
Requires: perl(Config::Tiny)
Requires: perl(Net::SNMP)
Requires: perl(Crypt::Rijndael)
Please let rpm find these.
You will find this page useful:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Perl
Provides: nagios-plugins-check-openmanage = %{version}-%{release}
Obsoletes: nagios-plugins-check-openmanage 3.7.2-3
Please explain the need for these lines.
%{nagiospluginsdir}/*
%{_mandir}/man8/*.8*
%{_mandir}/man5/*.5*
%dir %{_sysconfdir}/nagios
%config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/nagios/*
1)I like more explicit file list, however that's me.
2) I guess %dir %{_sysconfdir}/nagios is owned by nagios-plugins
and not needed in this package?
Would be nice if you could create a FAS account and do a koji scratch build.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 743612] Review Request: lbdb - collect email addresses from several sources and offer them in mutt
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=743612
Matthieu Saulnier casper.le.fan...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||casper.le.fan...@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Matthieu Saulnier casper.le.fan...@gmail.com 2011-10-05
12:48:10 EDT ---
Hello
This is an informal review
[X] rpmlint must be run on every package.
[X] The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[X] The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
[X] The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[X] The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
[X] The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
[X] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for
the package must be included in %doc.
[X] The spec file must be written in American English.
[X] The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[X] The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
Upstream md5sum: a8e65f1400c90818ff324dc4fd67eba2
Package md5sum: a8e65f1400c90818ff324dc4fd67eba2
[X] The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture.
Build successful on Fedora 15 x86_64
[NA] If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch.
[NA] All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional.
[NA] The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
[NA] Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library
files(not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths,
must call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[X] Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[NA] If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker.
[X] A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create
a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
create that directory.
[X] A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings.
[X] Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with
executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
%defattr(...) line.
[X] Each package must consistently use macros.
[X] The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[NA] Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
[X] If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime
of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run
properly if it is not present.
[NA] Header files must be in a -devel package.
[NA] Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[NA] If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1),
then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel
package.
[NA] In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release}.
[X] Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed
in the spec if they are built.
[NA] Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file,
and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the
%install section.
[X] Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
[X] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 742389] Review Request: gtk-unico-engine - Unico Gtk+ theming 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=742389 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-10-05 13:16:35 EDT --- gtk-unico-engine-1.0.1-2.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 testing repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 710648] Review Request: clusterPy - Custom analytical geographic regionalization
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=710648 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-10-05 13:16:59 EDT --- clusterPy-0.9.9-3.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 testing repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 730644] Review Request: svgSalamander - An SVG engine for Java
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=730644 Cédric OLIVIER cedric.oliv...@free.fr 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 730644] Review Request: svgSalamander - An SVG engine for Java
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=730644 --- Comment #7 from Cédric OLIVIER cedric.oliv...@free.fr 2011-10-05 12:55:15 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: svgsalamander Short Description: An SVG engine for Java Owners: cquad Branches: f14 f15 f16 InitialCC: cquad -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 736582] Review Request: ghc-primitive - Wrappers for primitive operations
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=736582 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-10-05 13:34:01 EDT --- ghc-vector-0.7.1-1.fc16, ghc-primitive-0.3.1-2.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 736586] Review Request: ghc-vector - Efficient Arrays for Haskell
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=736586 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-10-05 13:34:07 EDT --- ghc-vector-0.7.1-1.fc16, ghc-primitive-0.3.1-2.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 730644] Review Request: svgSalamander - An SVG engine for Java
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=730644 --- Comment #8 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2011-10-05 12:59:56 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 743615] Review Request: nagios-plugins-openmanage - Nagios plugin to monitor hardware health on Dell servers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=743615
--- Comment #2 from Trond H. Amundsen t.h.amund...@usit.uio.no 2011-10-05
12:59:22 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #1)
# No binaries here, do not build a debuginfo package
%global debug_package %{nil}
Why is not use BuildArch: noarch?
Because I use the %{_libdir} macro. As far as I can see, the placement for
Nagios plugins in Fedora/EPEL is /usr/lib64/nagios/plugins and
/usr/lib/nagios/plugins for 64bit and 32bit arches, respectively. If not for
this, it would be a noarch package.
URL: http://folk.uio.no/trondham/software/%{plugin}.html
Source0:
http://folk.uio.no/trondham/software/files/%{plugin}-%{version}.tar.gz
I don't see the value in using the %{plugin} macro here.
Mostly cosmetic reasons. I couldn't use %{name} :)
BuildRequires: /usr/bin/pod2man
Well, simply using BuildRequires: perl should be safe and faster?
Maybe. If it's safer/better/preferred to use package names instead in
BuildRequires I'll change it.
Requires: perl(Config::Tiny)
Requires: perl(Net::SNMP)
Requires: perl(Crypt::Rijndael)
Please let rpm find these.
No, rpmbuild doesn't find these. The first two aren't found because they're
only invoked if the user requests a certain feature via options, i.e. there are
no use Foo::Bar that rpmbuild would find. The last one is only needed if the
user wishes to use SNMPv3 with AES. Neither the plugin nor Net::SNMP requires
it.
You will find this page useful:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Perl
Thanks.
Provides: nagios-plugins-check-openmanage = %{version}-%{release}
Obsoletes: nagios-plugins-check-openmanage 3.7.2-3
Please explain the need for these lines.
I have for a long time supplied RPM packages for download (not part of a repo).
These lines are included to make the transition to Fedora/EPEL packages easier
for existing users of the RPM packages.
%{nagiospluginsdir}/*
%{_mandir}/man8/*.8*
%{_mandir}/man5/*.5*
%dir %{_sysconfdir}/nagios
%config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/nagios/*
1)I like more explicit file list, however that's me.
2) I guess %dir %{_sysconfdir}/nagios is owned by nagios-plugins
and not needed in this package?
No, %{_sysconfdir}/nagios is not owned by any package that this package
requires.
Would be nice if you could create a FAS account and do a koji scratch build.
Yes, I will.
Thanks for your thoughts and comments :)
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 737379] Review Request: drupal7-views - Provides a method for Drupal designers to control content presentation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=737379 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-10-05 13:34:52 EDT --- drupal7-views-3.0-0.1.rc1.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 736582] Review Request: ghc-primitive - Wrappers for primitive operations
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=736582 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|ghc-vector-0.7.1-1.fc14 |ghc-vector-0.7.1-1.fc16 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 736586] Review Request: ghc-vector - Efficient Arrays for Haskell
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=736586 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|ghc-vector-0.7.1-1.fc14 |ghc-vector-0.7.1-1.fc16 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 737379] Review Request: drupal7-views - Provides a method for Drupal designers to control content presentation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=737379 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||drupal7-views-3.0-0.1.rc1.f ||c16 Resolution||ERRATA Last Closed||2011-10-05 13:35:00 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 Denis Arnaud denis.arnaud_fed...@m4x.org changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 Denis Arnaud denis.arnaud_fed...@m4x.org changed: What|Removed |Added Estimated Hours|0.0 |10.0 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 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 Denis Arnaud denis.arnaud_fed...@m4x.org changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|denis.arnaud_fed...@m4x.org -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 743409] Review Request: drupal7-diff - Show diff-type changes in 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=743409 --- Comment #2 from Scott Dodson sdod...@sdodson.com 2011-10-05 15:27:49 EDT --- Additional run of rpmlint against the src.rpm provided, previous run was against the rebuild src.rpm on my local system. $ rpmlint ~/packages/drupal7-diff-2.0-1.fc16.src.rpm drupal7-diff.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US permissioned - permission ed, permission-ed, permission 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 743409] Review Request: drupal7-diff - Show diff-type changes in 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=743409
Scott Dodson sdod...@sdodson.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sdod...@sdodson.com
--- Comment #1 from Scott Dodson sdod...@sdodson.com 2011-10-05 15:25:05 EDT
---
This is my first review, I am not yet a member of the packager's group. As such
I have not set any flags.
MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted
in the review.
$ rpmlint rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/drupal7-diff-2.0-1.fc15.noarch.rpm
rpmbuild/SRPMS/drupal7-diff-2.0-1.fc15.src.rpm rpmbuild/SPECS/drupal7-diff.spec
drupal7-diff.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US permissioned -
permission ed, permission-ed, permission
drupal7-diff.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US permissioned -
permission ed, permission-ed, permission
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
Two debatable spelling warnings can be ignored.
All of the following criteria have been met.
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 unless your package has an exemption.
MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines .
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.
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. If no
upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL
Guidelines for how to deal with this.
$ md5sum rpmbuild/SOURCES/diff-7.x-2.0.tar.gz ; curl -s -o -
http://ftp.drupal.org/files/projects/diff-7.x-2.0.tar.gz | md5sum -
e25c84e6b7c7ec21ae2caeefe176a7b5 rpmbuild/SOURCES/diff-7.x-2.0.tar.gz
e25c84e6b7c7ec21ae2caeefe176a7b5 -
MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture.
N/A noarch package
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. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line.
MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
N/A MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library
files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must
call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker.
MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create
a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create
that directory.
MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific situations)
MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with
executable permissions, for example.
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. (The definition
of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to
size. Large can refer to either size or quantity).
MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime
of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run
properly if it is not present.
N/A MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
N/A MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
N/A MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix
[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 akurt...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #8 from Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com 2011-10-05 15:44:24 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 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 Omair Majid oma...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #9 from Omair Majid oma...@redhat.com 2011-10-05 16:08:43 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: simplevalidation Short Description: A library for adding user-interface input validation to Swing applications Owners: omajid Branches: InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 #10 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2011-10-05 16:09:55 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 #8 from Sébastien Willmann sebastien.willm...@gmail.com 2011-10-05 16:22:00 EDT --- New spec and srpm : http://wilqu.fr/rpms/seeks/seeks-0.3.5a-3.fc17.src.rpm http://wilqu.fr/rpms/seeks/seeks.spec I tried your patch, but compilation still fails with OpenCV enabled. Does it work for you ? About the comments: 1) I removed the version. 2) I talked with upstream: those files are useless indeed, but sweeping some symlinks doesn't seem to be in their top priorities. They said I rose an interesting question about library versionning though. I removed the package and the files. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 #8 from Sébastien Willmann sebastien.willm...@gmail.com 2011-10-05 16:22:00 EDT --- New spec and srpm : http://wilqu.fr/rpms/seeks/seeks-0.3.5a-3.fc17.src.rpm http://wilqu.fr/rpms/seeks/seeks.spec I tried your patch, but compilation still fails with OpenCV enabled. Does it work for you ? About the comments: 1) I removed the version. 2) I talked with upstream: those files are useless indeed, but sweeping some symlinks doesn't seem to be in their top priorities. They said I rose an interesting question about library versionning though. I removed the package and the files. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 713990] Review Request: bzr-fastimport - Bzr plugin for fast loading of data from other VCS tools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=713990 --- Comment #4 from Andy Grimm agr...@gmail.com 2011-10-05 16:54:23 EDT --- Another note on this: the latest version of bzr-fastimport is 0.11.0. 0.10.0 has at least one issue with current bzr due to the relocation of the KnitPackRepository module. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 711893] Review Request: rubygem-dnsruby - Ruby DNS(SEC) implementation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=711893 Paul Wouters p...@xelerance.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #11 from Paul Wouters p...@xelerance.com 2011-10-05 17:03:56 EDT --- I'll move the test/demo to the doc package, remove the readme from the docs package, and enable the RI. Thanks for reviewing! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 739398] Review Request: openblas - An optimized BLAS library based on GotoBLAS2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=739398
--- Comment #5 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski domi...@greysector.net
2011-10-05 17:29:01 EDT ---
Builds in mock rawhide/x86_64.
$ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result
openblas.src:11: W: macro-in-comment %{version}
openblas.src:11: W: macro-in-comment %{alpha}
openblas.src:112: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{buildroot}/usr/lib/libopen*
openblas.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
xianyi-OpenBLAS-v0.1alpha2.4-0-gfe7a932.tar.gz
openblas-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation
openblas-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
openblas-threads.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) pthreads - threads,
p threads, packthread
openblas-threads.x86_64: W: no-soname /usr/lib64/libopenblasp-r0.1alpha2.4.so
openblas-threads.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit
/usr/lib64/libopenblasp-r0.1alpha2.4.so exit@GLIBC_2.2.5
openblas-threads.x86_64: W: no-documentation
openblas-openmp.x86_64: W: no-soname /usr/lib64/libopenblaso-r0.1alpha2.4.so
openblas-openmp.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit
/usr/lib64/libopenblaso-r0.1alpha2.4.so exit@GLIBC_2.2.5
openblas-openmp.x86_64: W: no-documentation
openblas.x86_64: W: no-soname /usr/lib64/libopenblas-r0.1alpha2.4.so
openblas.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit
/usr/lib64/libopenblas-r0.1alpha2.4.so exit@GLIBC_2.2.5
openblas.x86_64: W: no-documentation
7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 15 warnings.
The gcc command which the library is linked with lacks -Wl,-soname=,
hence the no-soname warning from rpmlint. I think this must be fixed.
Fixing this properly might also require modifying the %files lists
apart from patching the Makefiles.
$ md5sum v0.1alpha2.4 xianyi-OpenBLAS-v0.1alpha2.4-0-gfe7a932.tar.gz
c23bc85bc536b175533b862e964b4fe1 v0.1alpha2.4
c23bc85bc536b175533b862e964b4fe1
xianyi-OpenBLAS-v0.1alpha2.4-0-gfe7a932.tar.gz
The changes from GotoBLAS2 are mainly added support for the Chinese
Loongson CPU and some superficial changes like minor build system tweaks,
renamed files, new name and added copyright/license texts.
Bundles lapack-3.1.1 sources - investigate unbundling, if sources are
necessary to build, contact lapack maintainer to add a -source subpackage
and BuildRequire it.
Bundles some files from lapack-3.0 sources, at least lapack/getri/*.f.
Bundles http://www.netlib.org/blas/blast-forum/cblas.tgz:CBLAS/testing
directory as ctest/ and (modified) test/. Also cblas.h is basically
the same, only reformatted and with parameter names changed.
Bundles a modified http://www.netlib.org/blas/blas.tgz:BLAS directory
as reference/.
I guess the above are GotoBLAS2's legacy.
make -C serial TARGET=CORE2 ...
Minimum requirements for Fedora are still Pentium Pro or newer.
Will this run on a Pentium Pro?
# Get rid of rpaths
for lib in %{buildroot}%{_libdir}/libopenblas{,o,p}-*.so; do
execstack -c $lib
done
The comment seems wrong. Also, is that the only way to remove executable stack?
rm -rf %{buildroot} in %install and the %clean section are only necessary for
EPEL.
There are no docs included in %files. I'd suggest at least these:
Changelog.txt
GotoBLAS*.txt
LICENSE - especially important (MUST be included)
README
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 711895] Review Request: softhsm - Software version of a PKCS#11 Hardware Security Module
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=711895
--- Comment #1 from Paul Wouters p...@xelerance.com 2011-10-05 18:04:58 EDT
---
I've updated to softhsm-1.3.0.
They still did not fix the .so issue, so Ive changed --libdir to
%{_libdir}/softhsm/ to avoid the system from trying to use it as a shared
library.
rpmlint output:
softhsm.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/softhsm 0700L
softhsm-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libsofthsm -
libertinism, softhearted
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings.
Spec URL: ftp://ftp.xelerance.com/opendnssec/softhsm.spec
SRPM URL: ftp://ftp.xelerance.com/opendnssec/softhsm-1.3.0-1.fc14.src.rpm
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 739398] Review Request: openblas - An optimized BLAS library based on GotoBLAS2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=739398
--- Comment #6 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi 2011-10-05 18:38:54
EDT ---
(In reply to comment #5)
The gcc command which the library is linked with lacks -Wl,-soname=,
hence the no-soname warning from rpmlint. I think this must be fixed.
I don't think the missing soname is a big issue, since the BLAS/LAPACK API has
stabilized a *long* time ago.
I have reported the lack of soversioning upstream before asking for the review.
Fixing this properly might also require modifying the %files lists
apart from patching the Makefiles.
Sure. But I don't want to add soversions myself; that's the job of upstream.
The changes from GotoBLAS2 are mainly added support for the Chinese
Loongson CPU and some superficial changes like minor build system tweaks,
renamed files, new name and added copyright/license texts.
Yes, I'd think the major part of the code is straight from GotoBLAS2, which was
non-free for a long time. GotoBLAS is, however, dead nowadays, so packaging
OpenBLAS seems a lot more sane.
Bundles lapack-3.1.1 sources - investigate unbundling, if sources are
necessary to build, contact lapack maintainer to add a -source subpackage
and BuildRequire it.
Bundles some files from lapack-3.0 sources, at least lapack/getri/*.f.
Maybe I'll need to ask for an exception. A generic -source package is not
enough, since the build scripts assume a specific version.
Although, I see that this problem is solved in ATLAS by just BR'ing the static
version of the LAPACK libraries. Maybe the same thing could be done with
OpenBLAS as well.
Bundles http://www.netlib.org/blas/blast-forum/cblas.tgz:CBLAS/testing
directory as ctest/ and (modified) test/. Also cblas.h is basically
the same, only reformatted and with parameter names changed.
Since OpenBLAS provides CBLAS functions, the headers have to be duplicated
anyhow.
Bundles a modified http://www.netlib.org/blas/blas.tgz:BLAS directory
as reference/.
.. although it's not used anyhow; it's only used when a cross-check against the
reference implementation is requested.
Minimum requirements for Fedora are still Pentium Pro or newer.
Will this run on a Pentium Pro?
Judging from GotoBLAS_01Readme.txt, the minimum CPU is Pentium3 or Athlon.
If someone still runs older systems, they can use ATLAS instead.
It would be of course possible to limit this package to only, say, x86_64
architecture, where it will run on every system.
The comment seems wrong. Also, is that the only way to remove executable
stack?
Good catch.
Yes, I think so. Gcc creates executable stacks whenever there's an assembly
section without a GNU-stack note. And these aren't portable, they're not often
used.
rm -rf %{buildroot} in %install and the %clean section are only necessary for
EPEL.
.. where this package will also be useful.
There are no docs included in %files. I'd suggest at least these:
Added.
http://theory.physics.helsinki.fi/~jzlehtol/rpms/openblas.spec
http://theory.physics.helsinki.fi/~jzlehtol/rpms/openblas-0.1-2.alpha2.4.fc15.src.rpm
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 713984] Review Request: python-fastimport - Python parser for fastimport (VCS interchange format)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=713984 --- Comment #8 from Dan Callaghan dcall...@redhat.com 2011-10-05 19:51:43 EDT --- (In reply to comment #7) I've fixed these issues, and also added a patch for the incorrect FSF address (like in bzr-fastimport). Updated spec and SRPM are here: http://fedorapeople.org/~dcallagh/python-fastimport/python-fastimport.spec http://repos.fedorapeople.org/repos/dcallagh/bzr-fastimport/fedora-15/SRPMS/python-fastimport-0.9.0-2.fc15.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 713990] Review Request: bzr-fastimport - Bzr plugin for fast loading of data from other VCS tools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=713990 --- Comment #5 from Dan Callaghan dcall...@redhat.com 2011-10-05 19:50:28 EDT --- Thanks for taking this review on, Andy. (In reply to comment #3) A few things: 1) Please fix the FSF address in these files (the correct address is here: http://www.fsf.org/about/contact/ ): [...] You should also send the change to the upstream maintainers of this project. It looks [1] like the current recommendation is just to put an URL to the GPL rather than the FSF's mailing address, which I think makes much more sense. I've added a patch to do that, and filed it upstream [2]. 2) Several parts of this spec are no longer needed in recent Fedora releases, and should be removed: a) %defattr(-,root,root,-) in the %files section b) the %clean section c) rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT in the %install section Done. 3) This package does not function without python-fastimport, so it should have a Requires line for this. Oops, probably the most important part of the spec file. Not sure how I missed that! Fixed. (In reply to comment #4) Another note on this: the latest version of bzr-fastimport is 0.11.0. 0.10.0 has at least one issue with current bzr due to the relocation of the KnitPackRepository module. Version bumped. Updated spec and SRPM are here: http://fedorapeople.org/~dcallagh/bzr-fastimport/bzr-fastimport.spec http://repos.fedorapeople.org/repos/dcallagh/bzr-fastimport/fedora-15/SRPMS/bzr-fastimport-0.11.0-1.fc15.src.rpm [1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html [2] https://bugs.launchpad.net/bzr-fastimport/+bug/868789 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 737379] Review Request: drupal7-views - Provides a method for Drupal designers to control content presentation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=737379 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|drupal7-views-3.0-0.1.rc1.f |drupal7-views-3.0-0.1.rc1.f |c16 |c15 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-10-05 20:04:36 EDT --- drupal7-views-3.0-0.1.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 711893] Review Request: rubygem-dnsruby - Ruby DNS(SEC) implementation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=711893 --- Comment #12 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2011-10-05 20:50:33 EDT --- No SCM request? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 711899] Review Request: opendnssec - DNSSEC key and zone management software
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=711899 --- Comment #2 from Paul Wouters p...@xelerance.com 2011-10-05 23:41:20 EDT --- Note rubygems-dnsruby past review and should be available shortly. I've added softhsm as a dependancy, as the majority of users will not have a hardware HSM. And for hardware HSM you need opencryptoki. So I opted to make both packages a dependancy. softhsm has not yet been reviewed: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=711895 Spec URL: ftp://ftp.xelerance.com/opendnssec/opendnssec.spec SRPM URL: ftp://ftp.xelerance.com/opendnssec/opendnssec-1.3.2-1.fc14.src.rpm Upgraded to 1.3.2 rpmlint output: [paul@bofh fedora]$ rpmlint /home/paul/SRPMS/opendnssec-1.3.2-1.fc14.src.rpm /home/paul/RPMS/x86_64/opendnssec-1.3.2-1.fc14.x86_64.rpm /home/paul/RPMS/x86_64/opendnssec-debuginfo-1.3.2-1.fc14.x86_64.rpm opendnssec.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US crypto - crypt, crypts, crypt o opendnssec.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US softhsm - softhearted, softness, softwood opendnssec.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US crypto - crypt, crypts, crypt o opendnssec.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US softhsm - softhearted, softness, softwood opendnssec.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib opendnssec.x86_64: E: non-readable /etc/opendnssec/zonelist.xml 0600L opendnssec.x86_64: E: non-readable /etc/opendnssec/conf.xml 0600L opendnssec.x86_64: E: non-readable /etc/opendnssec/zonefetch.xml 0600L opendnssec.x86_64: E: non-readable /etc/opendnssec/kasp.xml 0600L opendnssec.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ods-kasp2html 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 6 warnings. The only-non-binary-in-usr-lib is a little strange, as opendnssec installs ruby scripts there. They do not use a she-bang, so they are not executable. But I guess they are binaries in a sense. The xml files are only readable by root because they can contain pins, passwords and private keys. The usage of /usr/bin/ods-kasp2html is indeed weird. I'll double check with upstream if we should install it or not, as all my attempts at using it is failing: [paul@bofh opendnssec-1.3.2]$ ods-kasp2html usage: /usr/bin/ods-kasp2html [kasp.xml] [paul@bofh opendnssec-1.3.2]$ sudo ods-kasp2html /etc/opendnssec/kaps.xml usage: /usr/bin/ods-kasp2html [kasp.xml] -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 741900] Review Request: grinder - A tool for synchronizing repositories and their contents
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=741900
Scott Dodson sdod...@sdodson.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sdod...@sdodson.com
--- Comment #1 from Scott Dodson sdod...@sdodson.com 2011-10-06 00:10:52 EDT
---
Informal review. I am not a sponsored packager yet.
[ FAIL ] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the
build produces. The output should be posted in the review.
$ rpmlint grinder-0.0.27-1.fc15.src.rpm grinder.spec
~/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/grinder-0.0.27-1.fc15.noarch.rpm
grinder.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US synching - syncing,
lynching, sync hing
grinder.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency python-hashlib
grinder.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US synching - syncing,
lynching, sync hing
grinder.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.0.118-1 ['0.0.27-1.fc15',
'0.0.27-1']
grinder.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/grinder/SatDumpClient.py 0644L /usr/bin/env
grinder.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/grinder/rhn_api.py 0644L /usr/bin/python
grinder.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/grinder/PackageFetch.py 0644L /usr/bin/env
grinder.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/grinder/RHNComm.py 0644L /usr/bin/env
grinder.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/grinder/grinder.py 0644L /usr/bin/python
grinder.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/grinder/ParallelFetch.py 0644L /usr/bin/env
grinder.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary grinder
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 7 errors, 4 warnings.
[ PASS ] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming
Guidelines .
[ PASS ] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the
format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
[ FAIL ] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
It lacks meaningful documentation. Changelog has entries that don't seem
relevant to the version packaged. Is this 0.0.27 or a later version?
[ PASS ] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and
meet the Licensing Guidelines .
[ PASS ] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[ FAIL ] 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.
tarball has a LICENSE please include it.
[ PASS ] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[ PASS ] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[ PASS ] 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.
If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL
Guidelines for how to deal with this.
$ md5sum rpmbuild/SOURCES/grinder-0.0.27.tar.gz ; curl -s -o -
http://mmccune.fedorapeople.org/grinder/grinder-0.0.27.tar.gz | md5sum -
8367b3988299d6ba364620d170c57ad3 rpmbuild/SOURCES/grinder-0.0.27.tar.gz
8367b3988299d6ba364620d170c57ad3 -
[ PASS ] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms
on at least one primary architecture.
[ N/A ] 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. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line.
[ PASS ] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except
for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
[ N/A ] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using
the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
[ N/A ] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared
library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths,
must call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[ PASS ] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[ N/A ] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must
state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker.
[ PASS ] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does
not create a
[Bug 226575] Merge Review: xorg-x11-drv-aiptek
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226575 Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NOTABUG Flag|fedora-review- | Last Closed||2011-10-06 00:39:46 --- Comment #3 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2011-10-06 00:39:46 EDT --- Package has been retired. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 226574] Merge Review: xorg-x11-drv-acecad
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226574 Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NOTABUG Flag|fedora-review- | Last Closed||2011-10-06 00:41:39 --- Comment #3 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2011-10-06 00:41:39 EDT --- Package has been retired. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 474992] Review Request: libirman - Library for IRMAN hardware
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474992 Jan ONDREJ ondr...@salstar.sk changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #35 from Jan ONDREJ ondr...@salstar.sk 2011-10-06 01:41:39 EDT --- Package Change Request == Package Name: libirman New Branches: el6 Owners: ondrejj Requested in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=743566 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
