[Bug 748701] Review Request: ghc-wai-extra - Basic WAI handlers and middleware
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=748701 Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||630299(ghc-wai), 746942 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 746942] Review Request: ghc-blaze-builder-enumerator - Enumeratees for conversion of builders to bytestrings
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=746942 Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||748701 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 630299] Review Request: ghc-wai - Web Application Interface
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=630299 Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||748701 Bug 630299 depends on bug 717867, which changed state. Bug 717867 Summary: Review Request: ghc-http-types - Generic HTTP types for Haskell https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=717867 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||ERRATA Status|ON_QA |CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 719908] Review Request: rubygem-multi_json - A gem to provide swappable JSON backends
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=719908 Bohuslav Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|bkab...@redhat.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 188542] Review Request: hylafax
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=188542 --- Comment #119 from Miroslav Suchý msu...@redhat.com 2011-10-25 05:13:55 EDT --- I could write up man pages for those executables, but they'd be completely unused because those executables are not meant to be used except as tools by other executables which do already have man pages. I understand that. And this is not MUST, but only SHOULD item. But still having *some* man page is nice thing. Even if it would be very short man page with something like: You should not run manually. This is called internally by (8). See also (8) ad tiffcp - fair enough ad chroot-ed environment - fair enough, I have no objection to content. But I do have objection to directory where it reside. Why you use /var/spool/hylafax? Quoting: http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#PURPOSE47 /var/spool contains data which is awaiting some kind of later processing. Data in /var/spool represents work to be done in the future (by a program, user, or administrator); often data is deleted after it has been processed. I would really recommend you to move it to /var/hylafax/chroot (similary as e.g. bind-chroot does). Is is viable? -- 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 737263] Review Request: phoronix-test-suite - An Automated, Open-Source Testing Framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=737263 --- Comment #2 from Markus Mayer lotharl...@gmx.de 2011-10-25 07:29:59 EDT --- I am still interested bringing this package to fedora. But as long as nobody is willing to do a review I am not able to finish 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 738590] Review request: rubygem-gettext_i18n_rails - Simple FastGettext Rails integration
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=738590
--- Comment #2 from Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com 2011-10-25 07:48:08 EDT
---
* Update to the latest version
- Please consider updating to the latest version of gem. It seems it should
incorporate the failed tests fix.
* License is not clear
- The license should be Public Domain and MIT, however I rose the question
upstream to clarify [1]
* Please keep the note [2] about the bundled ruby_gettext_extractor
in the spec file
* Exclude the cached gem
- The cached gem has no meaning in Fedora. I would suggest to use the
following line in your spec:
%exclude %{gemdir}/cache/%{gemname}-%{version}.gem
* Keep Readme.md in the main package
- The file contains the license information. It would be fine to keep it
in the main package.
* Keep the VERSION file in main package
- This file is required by runtime:
irb(main):002:0 require 'rubygems'
= true
irb(main):003:0 require 'gettext_i18n_rails'
Errno::ENOENT: No such file or directory - /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems
/gettext_i18n_rails-0.2.20/lib/../VERSION
from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/gettext_i18n_rails-0.2.20
/lib/gettext_i18n_rails.rb:2:in `read'
from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/gettext_i18n_rails-0.2.20
/lib/gettext_i18n_rails.rb:2
from /usr/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/rubygems/custom_require.rb:59:in
`gem_original_require'
from /usr/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/rubygems/custom_require.rb:59:in
`require'
from (irb):3
from /usr/lib64/ruby/1.8/x86_64-linux/rbconfig.rb:172
- Note that it should not be marked by %doc macro in this case.
[1] https://github.com/grosser/gettext_i18n_rails/issues/37
[2] https://github.com/retoo/ruby_gettext_extractor/issues/4
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 670209] Review Request: rubygem-rsolr - A Ruby client for Apache Solr
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=670209 Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE Last Closed||2011-10-25 08:24:55 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 721061] Review Request: rubygem-sunspot - Library for expressive, powerful interaction with the Solr 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=721061 Bug 721061 depends on bug 670209, which changed state. Bug 670209 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-rsolr - A Ruby client for Apache Solr https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=670209 What|Old Value |New Value Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 737263] Review Request: phoronix-test-suite - An Automated, Open-Source Testing Framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=737263 --- Comment #4 from Valent Turkovic valent.turko...@gmail.com 2011-10-25 09:08:21 EDT --- You can look at mail I sent few days ago and continue discussion on devel mailing list. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 737263] Review Request: phoronix-test-suite - An Automated, Open-Source Testing Framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=737263 --- Comment #3 from Valent Turkovic valent.turko...@gmail.com 2011-10-25 09:06:32 EDT --- I believe that standard procedure is to mail to development mailing list if you get stuck in review process, as it is the case with this package. Have you mailed on development mailing list? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 638647] Review Request: mom - Dynamically manage system resources on virtualization hosts
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=638647 Adam Litke a...@us.ibm.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #37 from Adam Litke a...@us.ibm.com 2011-10-25 11:46:35 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: mom Short Description: Dynamically manage system resources on virtualization hosts Owners: aglitke Branches: f15 f16 f17 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 638647] Review Request: mom - Dynamically manage system resources on virtualization hosts
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=638647 --- Comment #38 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2011-10-25 11:56:31 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests). Removed f17, as f17==devel at the moment. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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
Matthieu Saulnier casper.le.fan...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||casper.le.fan...@gmail.com
--- Comment #12 from Matthieu Saulnier casper.le.fan...@gmail.com 2011-10-25
13:13:47 EDT ---
Hello
This is an informal review
[!] rpmlint must be run on every package.
rpmlint seeks-0.4.0-0.2.RC1.fc16.src.rpm
seeks.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US websearch - web search,
web-search, searcher
seeks.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hashtable - hash table,
hash-table, washable
seeks.src: W: strange-permission autogen.sh 0755L
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
rpmlint seeks-0.4.0-0.2.RC1.fc16.x86_64.rpm
seeks.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hashtable - hash table,
hash-table, washable
seeks.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libseeksplugins.so.0.0.0
exit@GLIBC_2.2.5
seeks.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libseekslsh.so.0.0.0
exit@GLIBC_2.2.5
seeks.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libseeksutils.so.0.0.0
exit@GLIBC_2.2.5
seeks.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libseeksproxy.so.0.0.0
exit@GLIBC_2.2.5
seeks.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/seeks/plugins/udb_service/libudbserviceplugin.so
seeks.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/seeks/plugins/cf/libcfplugin.so
seeks.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /var/lib/seeks seeks
seeks.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /var/lib/seeks seeks
seeks.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/seeks/plugins/websearch/libseekswebsearchplugin.so
seeks.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/seeks/plugins/img_websearch/libseeksimgwebsearchplugin.so
seeks.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/seeks/cli/libseekscli.a
seeks.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/seeks/plugins/httpserv/libseekshttpservplugin.so
seeks.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/seeks/plugins/uri_capture/liburicaptureplugin.so
seeks.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/seeks/plugins/blocker/libblockerplugin.so
seeks.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/seeks/plugins/no_tracking/libnotrackingplugin.so
seeks.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/seeks/plugins/websearch_api_compat/libseekswebsearchapicompatplugin.so
seeks.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /var/log/seeks seeks
seeks.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /var/log/seeks seeks
seeks.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/seeks/plugins/query_capture/libquerycaptureplugin.so
seeks.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary test_bqc
seeks.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gen_mrf_query_160
seeks.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary user_db_ops
seeks.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary test_dbqr_compression
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 24 warnings.
[X] The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[X] The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
[!] The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
Fix rpmlint, spelling errors aren't important here.
You can remove the BuildRoot line, as well as all occurrences of rm -rf
%{buildroot}. The %clean section is obsolete also. See below for more:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#.25clean
[X] The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines.
[X] The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
[!] 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.
Add AGPL-3.txt, BSD-yui.txt, GPL-2.0.txt and LGPL-2.1.txt in %doc section.
[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: dc7905dd57496ee6ca3ee0d21d9d76b7
Package md5sum: dc7905dd57496ee6ca3ee0d21d9d76b7
[X] The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture.
Build successful on Mock Fedora 15 x86_64
Mock Fedora 16 x86_64
Mock Fedora Rawhide 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.
[X] All build
[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
Matthieu Saulnier casper.le.fan...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||casper.le.fan...@gmail.com
--- Comment #12 from Matthieu Saulnier casper.le.fan...@gmail.com 2011-10-25
13:13:47 EDT ---
Hello
This is an informal review
[!] rpmlint must be run on every package.
rpmlint seeks-0.4.0-0.2.RC1.fc16.src.rpm
seeks.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US websearch - web search,
web-search, searcher
seeks.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hashtable - hash table,
hash-table, washable
seeks.src: W: strange-permission autogen.sh 0755L
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
rpmlint seeks-0.4.0-0.2.RC1.fc16.x86_64.rpm
seeks.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hashtable - hash table,
hash-table, washable
seeks.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libseeksplugins.so.0.0.0
exit@GLIBC_2.2.5
seeks.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libseekslsh.so.0.0.0
exit@GLIBC_2.2.5
seeks.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libseeksutils.so.0.0.0
exit@GLIBC_2.2.5
seeks.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libseeksproxy.so.0.0.0
exit@GLIBC_2.2.5
seeks.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/seeks/plugins/udb_service/libudbserviceplugin.so
seeks.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/seeks/plugins/cf/libcfplugin.so
seeks.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /var/lib/seeks seeks
seeks.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /var/lib/seeks seeks
seeks.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/seeks/plugins/websearch/libseekswebsearchplugin.so
seeks.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/seeks/plugins/img_websearch/libseeksimgwebsearchplugin.so
seeks.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/seeks/cli/libseekscli.a
seeks.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/seeks/plugins/httpserv/libseekshttpservplugin.so
seeks.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/seeks/plugins/uri_capture/liburicaptureplugin.so
seeks.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/seeks/plugins/blocker/libblockerplugin.so
seeks.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/seeks/plugins/no_tracking/libnotrackingplugin.so
seeks.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/seeks/plugins/websearch_api_compat/libseekswebsearchapicompatplugin.so
seeks.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /var/log/seeks seeks
seeks.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /var/log/seeks seeks
seeks.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/seeks/plugins/query_capture/libquerycaptureplugin.so
seeks.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary test_bqc
seeks.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gen_mrf_query_160
seeks.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary user_db_ops
seeks.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary test_dbqr_compression
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 24 warnings.
[X] The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[X] The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
[!] The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
Fix rpmlint, spelling errors aren't important here.
You can remove the BuildRoot line, as well as all occurrences of rm -rf
%{buildroot}. The %clean section is obsolete also. See below for more:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#.25clean
[X] The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines.
[X] The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
[!] 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.
Add AGPL-3.txt, BSD-yui.txt, GPL-2.0.txt and LGPL-2.1.txt in %doc section.
[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: dc7905dd57496ee6ca3ee0d21d9d76b7
Package md5sum: dc7905dd57496ee6ca3ee0d21d9d76b7
[X] The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture.
Build successful on Mock Fedora 15 x86_64
Mock Fedora 16 x86_64
Mock Fedora Rawhide 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.
[X] All build
[Bug 472639] Review Request: Scilab - Numerical Analysis toolkit
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472639 Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo?(my...@yahoo.com) --- Comment #53 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu 2011-10-25 15:29:40 EDT --- OK, seems to me D Haley (original) submitter, last commented on 2010-04-29. Are you still interested in maintaining this? If not or if we don't hear from him, we probably ought to resubmit scilab from someone still able, interested, and available (Clément?) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 188542] Review Request: hylafax
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=188542 Miroslav Suchý msu...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|msu...@redhat.com -- 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 736717] Review Request: lcmaps - Grid (X.509) and VOMS credentials to local account mapping
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=736717
--- Comment #4 from Steve Traylen steve.tray...@cern.ch 2011-10-25 16:28:05
EDT ---
rpmlint lcmaps.spec is clean
$ rpmlint ./lcmaps-1.4.31-5.fc15.src.rpm
lcmaps.src: W: strange-permission lcmaps.spec 0600L
Please change the permissions on the input files to the .src.rpm
$ rpmlint./noarch/lcmaps-basic-interface-1.4.31-5.fc15.noarch.rpm \
./noarch/lcmaps-globus-interface-1.4.31-5.fc15.noarch.rpm \
./noarch/lcmaps-openssl-interface-1.4.31-5.fc15.noarch.rpm \
./x86_64/lcmaps-1.4.31-5.fc15.x86_64.rpm \
./x86_64/lcmaps-debuginfo-1.4.31-5.fc15.x86_64.rpm \
./x86_64/lcmaps-devel-1.4.31-5.fc15.x86_64.rpm \
Full in to these types:
(1)
lcmaps.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/liblcmaps.so.0.0.0
exit@GLIBC_2.2.5
Is this something you can look at, it's genrally considered bad practise,
at least submit a bug upstream.
(2)
lcmaps.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/liblcmaps_return_poolindex.so
So you mention these in the .spec file that they are dlopened. It
it only your application that opens them? Can they be moved out
of lib to say copy httpd's /usr/lib64/httpd/modules style, e.g
/usr/lib64/lcmaps/modules, this is a suggestion rather than a requirement.
(3)
lcmaps-basic-interface.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/include/lcmaps/lcmaps_basic.h
This is quite odd, why are these not just in the devel package? especially
given that you just require it anyway.
[yes] specfiles match: lcmaps.spec.
[yes] source files match upstream:
$ md5sum ../SOURCES/lcmaps-1.4.31.tar.gz lcmaps-1.4.31.tar.gz
ab2dcdb2679c8b8e1c7ae6570fbc3bc5 ../SOURCES/lcmaps-1.4.31.tar.gz
ab2dcdb2679c8b8e1c7ae6570fbc3bc5 lcmaps-1.4.31.tar.gz
[yes] package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
[no] spec is properly named, cleanly written, and uses macros consistently.
You use both lcmaps and %{name} quite a bit through the package. I would
drop one of them. Proberly name since it seems unlikely that this will
be useful for anything else.
[yes] dist tag is present.
[yes] build root is correct.
[?] license field matches the actual license, ASL2.0 all the code
is headed well. However the LICENSE file is not the ASL2.0 I am familiar
with. Do you believe with this file this still complies to the ASL2.0, what
is this text.
[? but probably] license is open source-compatible.
[yes] license text included in package.
[no] latest version is being packaged.
1.4.34 appears to be available.
[yes] BuildRequires are proper.
Builds okay in mock
[yes] compiler flags are appropriate.
[yes] %clean is present. (But not needed anymore)
[yes] package builds in mock. tested F15.
[not-checked-yet] package installs properly.
[no] rpmlint is silent.
See comments above.
[not-checked-yet] final provides and requires are sane
Waiting on more comments about the '-interface' packages.
I don't understand the 'interface' packages.
[none] %check is present and all tests pass:
[yes] owns the directories it creates.
[yes] doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
[yes] no duplicates in %files.
[yes] file permissions are appropriate.
[yes] scriptlets match those on ScriptletSnippets page.
[yes] documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
[yes] %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
[?] pkgconfig files. You have requires pkgconfig, this is only needed
on RHEL5.
[yes] no libtool .la droppings.
[none] desktop files valid and installed properly.
So the main questions are , what are those 'interface' packages, can't
these just all go in devel?
The odd LICENSE file which is not ASL2.0.
Steve.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 640742] Review Request: drupal6-ckeditor - Replace textarea fields with the CKEditor - a visual HTML editor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=640742 Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|640740 | Depends on||640740 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 640740] Review Request: ckeditor - WYSIWYG text editor to be used inside web pages
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=640740 Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||640742 Depends on|640742 | --- Comment #2 from Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com 2011-10-25 17:57:22 EDT --- http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/ckeditor.spec http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/ckeditor-3.6.2-1.fc16.src.rpm * Tue Oct 25 2011 Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com 3.6.2-1 - Update to 3.6.2 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 736717] Review Request: lcmaps - Grid (X.509) and VOMS credentials to local account mapping
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=736717
--- Comment #5 from Dennis van Dok denni...@nikhef.nl 2011-10-25 17:58:41 EDT
---
Hi Steve,
thanks for your thorough reporting. I will give some short and direct answers
now, but some things need more looking into and discussion with the developers.
a) the spec file permission; don't know how it happened but will look into it.
b) I'll look into the use of %{name} in the spec file.
1) the call to exit we got for free from flex, in case the parser bails out
over some weird error condition. We will fix this if we haven't already.
2+3) I will clarify in the spec file what the rationale is behind having a
'interface' package rather than a 'devel' package. The gist of it is that a
developer of a client program would not need to link his work with lcmaps.so,
because that is delayed until run-time. Only the header files are needed. The
header files are split up because some depend on openssl, and some on globus,
but we don't want to force a developer to install the globus dependencies if he
doesn't really need them.
At run-time, liblcmaps.so is required for dlopen, so this shouldn't be in the
devel package. This leaves the devel package to be virtually empty.
Technically the interface packages could be renamed devel packages, but the
current user base knows and uses the interface packages already.
The licence file seems to be a leftover from the previous funding projects, I
will have to discuss whether we can simply replace it with the normal ASL2.0
text.
I will get back soon, and update the 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 640742] Review Request: drupal6-ckeditor - Replace textarea fields with the CKEditor - a visual HTML editor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=640742 --- Comment #4 from Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com 2011-10-25 17:59:18 EDT --- http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/drupal6-ckeditor-1.6-1.fc16.src.rpm * Tue Oct 25 2011 Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com - 1.6-1 - Update to 1.6 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 742610] Review Request: netcdf-cxx - Legacy netCDF C++ library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=742610 --- Comment #4 from Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com 2011-10-25 18:46:37 EDT --- Anyone able to review this? I really need to get it into rawhide since the netcdf 4.2.0 package there no longer includes 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 676335] Review Request: dmtcp - Checkpoint/Restart functionality for Linux processes
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=676335 --- Comment #31 from Kapil Arya ka...@ccs.neu.edu 2011-10-25 19:09:53 EDT --- Hi All, I have updated the spec file as suggested by Neal and Thomas. Here are the URLs: Spec URL: http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/kapil/fedora_rpms/dmtcp.spec SRPM URL: http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/kapil/fedora_rpms/dmtcp-1.2.3-2.svn1321.fc15.src.rpm Please let me know if I missed something. Thanks, -Kapil -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 747849] Review Request: e00compr - Library to compress and uncompress E00 files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=747849
Thomas Spura toms...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||toms...@fedoraproject.org
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|toms...@fedoraproject.org
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Thomas Spura toms...@fedoraproject.org 2011-10-25
19:25:28 EDT ---
REVIEW:
Good:
- name ok
- group ok
- license ok
- correct FLAGS used
- contains static library (static provides partly ok (see below))
- install ok
- %files ok
- rpmlint ignorable:
$ rpmlint ~/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/e00compr-*
~/rpmbuild/SRPMS/e00compr-1.0.1-1.fc15.src.rpm
e00compr.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) uncompress - uncompressed,
compression, compressor
e00compr.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US uncompress -
uncompressed, compression, compressor
e00compr.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) uncompress - uncompressed,
compression, compressor
e00compr.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US uncompress -
uncompressed, compression, compressor
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
- koji build successfully:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3460389
- source match upstream:
6ab8ceadf8b63357aff88bca2da06355 e00compr-1.0.1.tar.gz
Needswork:
Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
Provides: %{name}-static = %{version}-%{release}
Why not also provide with %{?_isa}?
TODO:
It would be great if upstream would provide the test files for the examples so
they can be tested in a %check section. (But just a SHOULD here)
##
Change the Provides to:
Provides: %{name}-static%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
and it's:
##
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 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 Paul W. Frields sticks...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||sticks...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Paul W. Frields sticks...@gmail.com 2011-10-25 19:56:23 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: drupal7-diff Short Description: Show diff-type changes in Drupal 7 Owners: pfrields asrob Branches: f15 f16 el5 el6 InitialCC: sdodson -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 743410] Review Request: drupal7-login_destination - Customize login landing page 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=743410 Paul W. Frields sticks...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||sticks...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Paul W. Frields sticks...@gmail.com 2011-10-25 19:57:33 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: drupal7-login_destination Short Description: Customize login landing page in Drupal 7 Owners: pfrields asrob Branches: f15 f16 el5 el6 InitialCC: sdodson -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 743411] Review Request: drupal7-theme-ninesixty - Ninesixty theme for Drupal 7
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=743411 Paul W. Frields sticks...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||sticks...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Paul W. Frields sticks...@gmail.com 2011-10-25 19:58:07 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: drupal7-theme-ninesixty Short Description: Ninesixty theme for Drupal 7 Owners: pfrields asrob Branches: f15 f16 el5 el6 InitialCC: sdodson -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 749055] Review Request: libkactivities - API for using and interacting with Activities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=749055 Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||656997(kde-reviews) Alias||libkactivities -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 749055] New: Review Request: libkactivities - API for using and interacting with Activities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: libkactivities - API for using and interacting with Activities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=749055 Summary: Review Request: libkactivities - API for using and interacting with Activities Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rdie...@math.unl.edu QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Spec URL: http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/libkactivities/libkactivities.spec SRPM URL: http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/libkactivities/libkactivities-6.1-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: API for using and interacting with Activities as a consumer, application adding information to them or as an activity manager. First step and dependency for bringing Plasma Active to fedora. Once imported, will require modifications to kdelibs, kdebase-runtime to omit their copies of libkactivities and activitymanager, respectively. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 747008] Review Request: drupal7-advanced_help - Allows module developers to store their help outside the module system in html
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=747008 Paul W. Frields sticks...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||sticks...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|sticks...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 747018] Review Request: drupal7-calendar - This module will display any Views date field in calendar formats
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=747018 Paul W. Frields sticks...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||sticks...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|sticks...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 747008] Review Request: drupal7-advanced_help - Allows module developers to store their help outside the module system in html
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=747008
Paul W. Frields sticks...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Paul W. Frields sticks...@gmail.com 2011-10-25 20:21:03
EDT ---
[ O K ] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted
in the review.
[ O K ] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming
Guidelines.
[ O K ] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the
format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
[ O K ] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[ O K ] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and
meet the Licensing Guidelines.
[ O K ] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[ O K ] 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.
[ O K ] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[ O K ] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[ O K ] 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/drupal7-advanced_help-1.0/advanced_help-7.x-1.0-beta1.tar.gz ;
curl -s -o -
http://ftp.drupal.org/files/projects/advanced_help-7.x-1.0-beta1.tar.gz |
md5sum -
c25a39d3d4be4bf6d1dda4c29966ee7e
rpmbuild/SOURCES/drupal7-advanced_help-1.0/advanced_help-7.x-1.0-beta1.tar.gz
c25a39d3d4be4bf6d1dda4c29966ee7e -
[ O K ] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms
on at least one primary architecture.
[ O K ] 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.
[ O K ] 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.
[ O K ] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using
the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
[ O K ] 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.
[ O K ] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[ O K ] 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.
[ O K ] 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.
[ O K ] 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)
[ O K ] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be
set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include
a %defattr(...) line.
[ O K ] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[ O K ] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[ O K ] 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).
[ O K ] 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 (e.g.
libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in
a -devel package.
[ N/A ] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the
base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release}
[ O K ] MUST:
[Bug 747035] Review Request: drupal7-views_bulk_operations - This module augments Views by allowing bulk operations to be executed
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=747035
Paul W. Frields sticks...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Paul W. Frields sticks...@gmail.com 2011-10-25 20:28:01
EDT ---
[ O K ] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted
in the review.
[ O K ] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming
Guidelines.
[ O K ] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the
format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
[ O K ] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[ O K ] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and
meet the Licensing Guidelines.
[ O K ] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[ O K ] 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.
[ O K ] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[ O K ] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[ O K ] 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/drupal7-views_bulk_operations-3.0/views_bulk_operations-7.x-3.0-beta3.tar.gz
; curl -s -o -
http://ftp.drupal.org/files/projects/views_bulk_operations-7.x-3.0-beta3.tar.gz
| md5sum -
6533e4877c8fb6cce9b30ef21368155e
rpmbuild/SOURCES/drupal7-views_bulk_operations-3.0/views_bulk_operations-7.x-3.0-beta3.tar.gz
6533e4877c8fb6cce9b30ef21368155e -
[ O K ] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms
on at least one primary architecture.
[ O K ] 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.
[ O K ] 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.
[ O K ] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using
the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
[ O K ] 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.
[ O K ] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[ O K ] 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.
[ O K ] 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.
[ O K ] 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)
[ O K ] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be
set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include
a %defattr(...) line.
[ O K ] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[ O K ] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[ O K ] 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).
[ O K ] 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 (e.g.
libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in
a -devel package.
[ N/A ] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the
base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
[Bug 747018] Review Request: drupal7-calendar - This module will display any Views date field in calendar formats
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=747018
Paul W. Frields sticks...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Paul W. Frields sticks...@gmail.com 2011-10-25 20:25:23
EDT ---
[ O K ] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted
in the review.
[ O K ] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming
Guidelines.
[ O K ] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the
format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
[ O K ] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[ O K ] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and
meet the Licensing Guidelines.
[ O K ] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[ O K ] 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.
[ O K ] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[ O K ] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[ O K ] 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/drupal7-calendar-3.0/calendar-7.x-3.0-alpha1.tar.gz ;
curl -s -o -
http://ftp.drupal.org/files/projects/calendar-7.x-3.0-alpha1.tar.gz | md5sum -
ee5fbac9b1338089e393770ff990e477
rpmbuild/SOURCES/drupal7-calendar-3.0/calendar-7.x-3.0-alpha1.tar.gz
ee5fbac9b1338089e393770ff990e477 -
[ O K ] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms
on at least one primary architecture.
[ O K ] 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.
[ O K ] 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.
[ O K ] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using
the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
[ O K ] 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.
[ O K ] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[ O K ] 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.
[ O K ] 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.
[ O K ] 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)
[ O K ] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be
set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include
a %defattr(...) line.
[ O K ] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[ O K ] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[ O K ] 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).
[ O K ] 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 (e.g.
libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in
a -devel package.
[ N/A ] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the
base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release}
[ O K ] MUST: Packages must NOT
[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 #5 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2011-10-25 20:48:57 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 743410] Review Request: drupal7-login_destination - Customize login landing page 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=743410 --- Comment #3 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2011-10-25 20:49:28 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 743411] Review Request: drupal7-theme-ninesixty - Ninesixty theme for Drupal 7
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=743411 --- Comment #3 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2011-10-25 20:49:55 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 748312] Review Request: ghc-cryptohash - Haskell crypto hashes
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=748312
Lakshmi Narasimhan lakshminaras2...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||lakshminaras2...@gmail.com
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|lakshminaras2...@gmail.com
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Lakshmi Narasimhan lakshminaras2...@gmail.com 2011-10-25
21:09:35 EDT ---
[+]MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
the review.
rpmlint -i ghc-cryptohash-0.7.4-1.fc16.src.rpm
ghc-cryptohash-0.7.4-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm
ghc-cryptohash-devel-0.7.4-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm ../ghc-cryptohash.spec
ghc-cryptohash.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Crypto - Crypt, Crypts,
Crypt o
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ghc-cryptohash.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US crypto - crypt,
crypts, crypt o
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ghc-cryptohash.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Crypto - Crypt,
Crypts, Crypt o
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ghc-cryptohash.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US crypto - crypt,
crypts, crypt o
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ghc-cryptohash-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US crypto -
crypt, crypts, crypt o
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
[+]MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+]MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec
[+]MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
Naming - Yes
Version-release - Matches
License - OK, BSD no advertising 3 clause
No prebuilt external bits - OK
Spec legibity - OK
Package template - OK
Arch support - OK
Libexecdir - OK
rpmlint - yes
changelogs - OK
Source url tag - OK, validated.
Build Requires list - OK
Summary and description - OK
API documentation - OK, in devel package
[+]MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines.
BSD 3 clause no advertising.
[+]MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[+]MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package must be included in %doc.
LICENSE file is included.
[+]MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+]MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+]MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream
source,as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task.
md5sum ghc-cryptohash-0.7.4-1.fc15.src/cryptohash-0.7.4.tar.gz
1e04911c7d89f0f76633baa1cb40
ghc-cryptohash-0.7.4-1.fc15.src/cryptohash-0.7.4.tar.gz
md5sum cryptohash-0.7.4.tar.gz
1e04911c7d89f0f76633baa1cb40 cryptohash-0.7.4.tar.gz
[+]MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture.
Built on x86_64.
[+]MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch.
[+]MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.
[+]MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
Checked with rpmquery --list
[NA]MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review.
[+]MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates.
Checked with rpmquery --whatprovides
[+]MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file's %files listings.
[+]MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
Checked with ls -lR
[+]MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[+]MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[+]MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
[+]MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application.
[+]MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned
dependency: Requires: {name} = %{version}-%{release}
[NA]MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be
removed in the spec if they are built.
[NA]MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the
[Bug 748701] Review Request: ghc-wai-extra - Basic WAI handlers and middleware
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=748701
Lakshmi Narasimhan lakshminaras2...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||lakshminaras2...@gmail.com
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|lakshminaras2...@gmail.com
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Lakshmi Narasimhan lakshminaras2...@gmail.com 2011-10-25
21:44:35 EDT ---
[+]MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
the review.
rpmlint -i ghc-wai-extra-0.4.3-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm
ghc-wai-extra-0.4.3-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm
ghc-wai-extra-devel-0.4.3-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm ../ghc-wai-extra.spec
ghc-wai-extra.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) middleware - middle
ware, middle-ware, middleweight
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ghc-wai-extra.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.4.3-0
['0.4.3-1.fc16', '0.4.3-1']
The latest entry in %changelog contains a version identifier that is not
coherent with the epoch:version-release tuple of the package.
ghc-wai-extra.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) middleware - middle
ware, middle-ware, middleweight
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ghc-wai-extra.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.4.3-0
['0.4.3-1.fc16', '0.4.3-1']
The latest entry in %changelog contains a version identifier that is not
coherent with the epoch:version-release tuple of the package.
ghc-wai-extra-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) middleware -
middle ware, middle-ware, middleweight
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
[+]MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+]MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec
[+]MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
Naming - Yes
Version-release - Matches, Incorrect changelog entry needs to be fixed.
License - OK
No prebuilt external bits - OK
Spec legibity - OK
Package template - OK
Arch support - OK
Libexecdir - OK
rpmlint - yes
changelogs - OK
Source url tag - OK, validated.
Build Requires list - OK
Summary and description - OK
API documentation - OK, in devel package
[+]MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines.
BSD 2 clause.
[+]MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[+]MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package must be included in %doc.
LICENSE file is included.
[+]MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+]MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+]MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream
source,as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task.
md5sum ghc-wai-extra-0.4.3-1.fc15.src/wai-extra-0.4.3.tar.gz
391885d438355135df4300234be9ebab
ghc-wai-extra-0.4.3-1.fc15.src/wai-extra-0.4.3.tar.gz
md5sum wai-extra-0.4.3.tar.gz
391885d438355135df4300234be9ebab wai-extra-0.4.3.tar.gz
[+]MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture.
Built on x86_64.
[+]MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch.
[+]MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.
[+]MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
Checked with rpmquery --list
[NA]MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review.
[+]MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates.
Checked with rpmquery --whatprovides.
[+]MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file's %files listings.
[+]MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
Checked with ls -lR.
[+]MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[+]MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[+]MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
[+]MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application.
[NA]MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix
(e.g.libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must
go in a -devel package.
[+]MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a
[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 #5 from Paul Wouters p...@xelerance.com 2011-10-25 21:44:42 EDT --- So if I understood Wes correctly, the only real mistake left was the text about include files in the descriptions? Those have been fixed. I have not added a separate user as this might complicate things later with HSM as well. Spec URL: ftp://ftp.xelerance.com/opendnssec/softhsm.spec SRPM URL: ftp://ftp.xelerance.com/opendnssec/softhsm-1.3.0-2.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 748701] Review Request: ghc-wai-extra - Basic WAI handlers and middleware
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=748701 --- Comment #3 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com 2011-10-25 22:00:04 EDT --- Thank you for the package review. - Oops, yeah will fix the changelog release number when importing. - unforunately upstream yesod does not seem positively disposed to adding source file license headers but I will mention it to them. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 748701] Review Request: ghc-wai-extra - Basic WAI handlers and middleware
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=748701 Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status Whiteboard|Ready | Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com 2011-10-25 23:11:58 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: ghc-wai-extra Short Description: Basic WAI handlers and middleware Owners: petersen Branches: f16 f15 f14 el6 InitialCC: haskell-sig -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 748312] Review Request: ghc-cryptohash - Haskell crypto hashes
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=748312 Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status Whiteboard|Ready | Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com 2011-10-25 23:53:22 EDT --- Thank you for the review. :) New Package SCM Request === Package Name: ghc-cryptohash Short Description: Haskell crypto hashes Owners: petersen Branches: f16 f15 f14 el6 InitialCC: haskell-sig -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
