[Bug 748180] Review Request: dbus-sharp-glib - C# bindings for D-Bus glib main loop 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=748180 --- Comment #2 from Peter Gordon pe...@thecodergeek.com 2011-10-31 02:34:05 EDT --- Sorry for the delay - with all the stuff for halloween preparations and various other little real-life issues, I've not had the time to properly review this as of yet. I promise I'll get to it within the next day or two. 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 750139] New: Review Request: lv2-mdala-plugins - LV2 port of the MDA VST plugins
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: lv2-mdala-plugins - LV2 port of the MDA VST plugins https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=750139 Summary: Review Request: lv2-mdala-plugins - LV2 port of the MDA VST plugins Product: Fedora Version: 16 Platform: Unspecified OS/Version: Unspecified Status: NEW Severity: unspecified Priority: unspecified Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: brendan.jones...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- lv2-mda-plugins is a LV2 port of the MDA VST plugins This project exists only in SVN and has done for quite some time. It is still under active development by one of the co-authors of the LV2 standard. SPEC: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/lv2-mdala-plugins.spec SRPM: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/lv2-mdala-plugins-0-0.1.svn3580.fc16.src.rpm rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-16-x86_64/result/*.rpm lv2-mdala-plugins.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US phaser - phase, phrase, phases lv2-mdala-plugins.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US reverb - revere, revers, revert lv2-mdala-plugins.src: W: invalid-url Source0: lv2-mdala-plugins-0-svn3580.tar.bz2 lv2-mdala-plugins.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US phaser - phase, phrase, phases lv2-mdala-plugins.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US reverb - revere, revers, revert 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 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 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 --- Comment #57 from Sylvestre Ledru sylvestre.le...@scilab.org 2011-10-31 03:29:08 EDT --- @Rex: that means that Clément David has to open a new bug, does he ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 749608] Review Request: gnome-pie - A visual application launcher for Gnome
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=749608 Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||methe...@gmail.com --- Comment #3 from Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com 2011-10-31 05:42:43 EDT --- Fix the build for Rawhide. https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2011-October/158746.html -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 730970] Review Request: jhdf5 - Java HDF5 Object Package
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=730970 --- Comment #12 from Clément DAVID c.davi...@gmail.com 2011-10-31 07:19:05 EDT --- Spec URL: http://davidcl.fedorapeople.org/jhdf5.spec SRPM URL: http://davidcl.fedorapeople.org/jhdf5-2.7-4.fc16.src.rpm Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3474571 Updated, thanks for the 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 719152] Review Request: gappalib-coq - Coq support library for gappa
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=719152
--- Comment #5 from Markus Mayer lotharl...@gmx.de 2011-10-31 07:28:43 EDT ---
Must items:
OK: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build
produces. The output should be posted in the review.
OK: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
OK: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
OK: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
OK: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines .
OK: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
OK: 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.
OK: The spec file must be written in American English.
OK: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
OK: 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.
OK: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture.
N/A: 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.
OK: 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: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
N/A: 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.
OK: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
N/A: 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.
OK: 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.
OK: 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)
OK: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with
executable permissions, for example.
NOK[1]Each package must consistently use macros.
OK: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
N/A: 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).
OK: 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.
NOK[2]: Header files must be in a -devel package.
N/A: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
N/A: 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.
OK: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package
using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} =
%{version}-%{release}
OK: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed
in the spec if they are built.
N/A: 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. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need
a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation.
OK: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages.
The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the
files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for
example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with any of the
files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that
you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns,
then please
[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 --- Comment #58 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu 2011-10-31 07:55:41 EDT --- yes -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 241553] Review Request: safekeep - simple, centralized configuration for rdiff-backup
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=241553 --- Comment #36 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2011-10-31 08:04:46 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 the QA contact for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 663956] Review Request: python-numexpr - Fast numerical array expression evaluator for Python and NumPy.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=663956 --- Comment #14 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2011-10-31 08:11:07 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 746415] Review Request: ghc-MonadCatchIO-transformers - Exception handling with IO monad transformers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=746415 --- Comment #8 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2011-10-31 08:17:54 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 730593] Review Request: gnome-shell-theme-elementary - The Elementary gnome-shell theme
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=730593 --- Comment #11 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2011-10-31 08:15:25 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 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 #7 from Markus Mayer lotharl...@gmx.de 2011-10-31 08:19:56 EDT ---
Thank you for reviewing this package.
I (In reply to comment #6)
Some elements of the spec file have no effect in any released version of
Fedora. Unless you plan to use this spec file with EPEL also, you can remove
the BuildRoot tag, the rm -rf %{buildroot} line at the top of %install, the
entire %clean script, and the %defattr at the top of %files.
Yep. I plan to use this spec file in EPEL so I will not remove them
MUST:
[+] rpmlint output:
phoronix-test-suite.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
benchmarking - bench marking, bench-marking, benchmark
phoronix-test-suite.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pts - pt,
ts, pets
phoronix-test-suite.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc
/etc/bash_completion.d/phoronix-test-suite
phoronix-test-suite.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US benchmarking
- bench marking, bench-marking, benchmark
phoronix-test-suite.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pts - pt,
ts,
pets
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
The spelling warnings are bogus. How about the bash completion file, though?
Should it be marked %config?
I have changed it %config(nonreplace).
[+] follows package naming guidelines
[+] spec file base name matches package name
[+] package meets the packaging guidelines: with the caveat that I don't
really
understand the PHP guidelines, but this package doesn't appear to meet the
conditions established in those guidelines.
[+] package uses a Fedora approved license
[+] license field matches the actual license
[+] license file is included in %doc
[+] spec file is in American English
[+] spec file is legible
[+] sources match upstream: md5sum is 2f075538fbe45bb69b3e9d7bfef63948 for
both
[+] package builds on at least one primary arch (tried x86_64)
[N] appropriate use of ExcludeArch
[+] all build requirements in BuildRequires
[N] spec file handles locales properly
[N] ldconfig in %post and %postun
[+] no bundled copies of system libraries
[+] no relocatable packages
[+] package owns all directories that it creates
[+] no files listed twice in %files
[+] proper permissions on files
[+] consistent use of macros
[+] code or permissible content
[N] large documentation in -doc
[+] no runtime dependencies in %doc
[N] header files in -devel
[N] static libraries in -static
[N] .so in -devel
[N] -devel requires main package
[+] package contains no libtool archives
[+] package contains a desktop file, uses desktop-file-install: actually
desktop-file-validate, which is also okay
[-] package does not own files/dirs owned by other packages: owns the
following
dirs already owned by hicolor-icon-theme:
/usr/share/icons/hicolor
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48/apps
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/64x64
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/64x64/mimetypes
This package does not require hicolor-icon-theme neither implicit nor explecit.
Acourding to the Package guidlines (The directory is owned by a package which
is not required for your package to function) this package must own these
directories.
[+] all filenames in UTF-8
SHOULD:
[N] query upstream for license text
[N] description and summary contain available translations
[+] package builds in mock: tried fedora-rawhide-i386
[+] package builds on all supported arches: tried i386 and x86_64
[+] package functions as described: minimal testing only
[+] sane scriptlets
[N] subpackages require the main package
[N] placement of pkgconfig files
[N] file dependencies versus package dependencies
[+] package contains man pages for binaries/scripts
New Version:
Spec URL: http://lotharlutz.fedorapeople.org/phoronix-test-suite.spec
SRPM URL:
http://lotharlutz.fedorapeople.org/phoronix-test-suite-3.4.0-2.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 746754] Review request: PDFCrack - A Password Recovery Tool for PDF-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=746754 --- Comment #22 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2011-10-31 08:20:36 EDT --- Names in summary and SCM request do not match, please correct. Also, branch should be f16, not fl6. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 749099] Review Request: pystache - Mustache for Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=749099 Ankur Sinha sanjay.an...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Ankur Sinha sanjay.an...@gmail.com 2011-10-31 08:41:39 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: pystache Short Description: Mustache for python Owners: ankursinha sundaram Branches: f15 f16 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 749099] Review Request: pystache - Mustache for Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=749099 --- Comment #3 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2011-10-31 08:45:13 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 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 Neal Becker ndbeck...@gmail.com 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 749099] Review Request: pystache - Mustache for Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=749099 Ankur Sinha sanjay.an...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE Last Closed||2011-10-31 10:08:15 --- Comment #4 from Ankur Sinha sanjay.an...@gmail.com 2011-10-31 10:08:15 EDT --- Thank you Lakshmi and Jon. Built for rawhide. Closing :) http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3474865 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 663956] Review Request: python-numexpr - Fast numerical array expression evaluator for Python and NumPy.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=663956 Thibault North thibault.no...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2011-10-31 10:38:01 --- Comment #15 from Thibault North thibault.no...@gmail.com 2011-10-31 10:38:01 EDT --- Builds done, updates pending. 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 749099] Review Request: pystache - Mustache for Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=749099 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-10-31 10:50:15 EDT --- pystache-0.3.1-1.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/pystache-0.3.1-1.fc15 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 749099] Review Request: pystache - Mustache for Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=749099 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-10-31 10:50:23 EDT --- pystache-0.3.1-1.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/pystache-0.3.1-1.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 749132] Review Request: dpm-dsi - Disk Pool Manager (DPM) plugin to GridFTP
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=749132
--- Comment #3 from Ricardo Rocha rocha.po...@gmail.com 2011-10-31 11:07:32
EDT ---
Hi Steve.
Thanks a lot for reviewing this package.
I'll try to do a couple of informal reviews soon, and will put the links here
as you suggest.
Please see inline for the details fixes.
Issues to be checked:
- -libs or not (see comment at the end)
- gssapi_openssl.h (also details inline)
Spec URL: http://rocha.web.cern.ch/rocha/fedora/dpm-dsi.spec
SRPM URL: http://rocha.web.cern.ch/rocha/fedora/dpm-dsi-1.8.2-1.src.rpm
(i've simply overwritten the previous files as this is not built/released yet.
should i have increased the release number anyway?)
(In reply to comment #2)
Review of dpm-dsi, Sat 29th October 2011
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=749132
[yes] specfiles match: dpm-dsi is the SVN module name.
[no] source files match upstream:
This is built from SVN. Your comments for createing the
.spec file mention how to export the source but not how
to create the tar ball. I realize it's obvious but please add it.
See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Using_Revision_Control
Please expand on your instructions.
Done.
[yes] package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
expect where detailed elsewhere.
[no] spec is properly named, cleanly written, and uses macros consistently.
You use '/usr' during the installation which should be %{prefix} or similar.
Changed to:
make install prefix=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_prefix}
[yes] dist tag is present.
[yes] build root is correct.
Though can be dropped unless EPEL5 is being targeted.
[no] license field matches the actual license.
.spec file says ASL2.0 but src/globus_gridftp_server_dpm.c
talks about a globus license.
On a similar note what is src/gssapi_openssl.h for instance, is
not just a duplication of
Not sure what to do about gssapi_openssl.h.
I can't find it anywhere in Fedora with 'yum provides', there's a couple of
other packages depending on it at build time but none shipping it.
Regarding the license, i had a look at the guidelines and it seems that the
strictest license should stay, i guess in this case that's ASL2.0?
I'm glad to change it to something more appropriate if needed of course.
[yes] license is open source-compatible.
ASL2.0 is but see above.
[yes] license text included in package but see above.
[notchecked] latest version is being packaged.
[yes] BuildRequires are proper.
[no] compiler flags are appropriate.
cc -g -Wall -fPIC -D_LARGEFILE64_SOURCE
You just have a plain ./configure and not a %configure
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Compiler_flags
Updated to use:
CFLAGS='${optflags}' ./configure ...
I can't simply use %configure as this is a hand written script not supporting
most of the options given by the macro. But flags should be properly passed
now.
[yes] %clean is present.
But not needed unless EPEL5
[yes] package builds in mock.
[no] package installs properly.
See 'requires' below.
Fixed.
[yes] rpmlint is silent or justified.
$ rpmlint dpm-dsi.spec
dpm-dsi.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: dpm-dsi-1.8.2.tar.gz
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
dpm-dsi.x86_64:
W: incoherent-init-script-name dpm-gsiftp ('dpm-dsi', 'dpm-dsid')
This is expected
[no] final provides and requires are sane
dpm-dsi-1.8.2-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm provides:
libglobus_gridftp_server_dpm.so.1()(64bit)
dpm-dsi(x86-64) = 1.8.2-1.fc15
dpm-dsi-devel-1.8.2-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm provides:
dpm-dsi--devel = 1.8.2-1.fc15
dpm-dsi-devel(x86-64) = 1.8.2-1.fc15
dpm-dsi-1.8.2-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm requires
config(dpm-dsi) = 1.8.2-1.fc15
globus-gridftp-server-progs(x86-64)
initscripts
libdl.so.2()(64bit)
libdpm.so.1()(64bit)
libglobus_ftp_control.so.1()(64bit)
libvomsapi.so.1()(64bit)
voms(x86-64)
So the explicit requirement 'voms(x86-64)' is not needed and should be
removed.
dpm-dsi-devel-1.8.2-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm requires
dpm-dsi-libs(x86-64) = 1.8.2-1.fc15
libglobus_gridftp_server_dpm.so.1()(64bit)
dpm-dsi-libs ? This is presumably just meant to be dpm-dsi unless
you meant to create a seperate libs package in the first place?
'voms' removed, and sorry for not giving the -devel a try (just tried the
installation of the main rpm, will get used to yum localinstall *rpm :-)).
dpm-dsi-devel now requires dpm-dsi (see comment at the end).
[none] %check is present and all tests pass:
[none] no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths.
[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.
[no] scriptlets match those on ScriptletSnippets page.
Check when ldconfig should
[Bug 749132] Review Request: dpm-dsi - Disk Pool Manager (DPM) plugin to GridFTP
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=749132 --- Comment #4 from Steve Traylen steve.tray...@cern.ch 2011-10-31 11:18:49 EDT --- (i've simply overwritten the previous files as this is not built/released yet. should i have increased the release number anyway?) fine this time but please increase Release at every update. This is standard practice for reviews. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 745515] Review Request: yuicompressor - Tool that supports the compression of both JavaScript and CSS 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=745515 --- Comment #2 from Stanislav Ochotnicky socho...@redhat.com 2011-10-31 11:16:44 EDT --- I have fixed all of the problems except the last one (i.e. javascript comment compilation). I believe this might be a problem with rhino itself, will test later. Upstream fails the same way. http://sochotni.fedorapeople.org/packages/yuicompressor.spec http://sochotni.fedorapeople.org/packages/yuicompressor-2.4.8-0.1.sha6e2bc23.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 745515] Review Request: yuicompressor - Tool that supports the compression of both JavaScript and CSS 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=745515 --- Comment #3 from Ville Skyttä ville.sky...@iki.fi 2011-10-31 13:45:16 EDT --- * As mentioned in comment 1, upstream 2.4.6 does not fail the same way: $ wget http://yui.zenfs.com/releases/yuicompressor/yuicompressor-2.4.6.zip $ unzip -q yuicompressor-2.4.6.zip $ echo /* hello */ | java -jar yuicompressor-2.4.6/build/yuicompressor-2.4.6.jar --type js This produces no output, which is the expected result. * The script to recreate the tarball requested in comment 1 is still missing, and there was no comment about it. Maybe it went unnoticed? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 Thomas Spura toms...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo? --- Comment #32 from Thomas Spura toms...@fedoraproject.org 2011-10-31 13:47:47 EDT --- * Assigned To: Timothy St. Clair * APPROVED by Neal Becker without a comment * Don't know who is the sponsor for Kapil Arya here (of if sponsord in another bug) What's going on here? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 719152] Review Request: gappalib-coq - Coq support library for gappa
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=719152
--- Comment #6 from Jerry James loganje...@gmail.com 2011-10-31 13:55:50 EDT
---
Thanks for the review!
(In reply to comment #5)
NOK[1]: Please use %{buildroot} instead of $RPM_BUILD_ROOT. That is just for
usabilty as it is easier to read if there is just one macro style used. See
Package guidelines: Mixing the two styles, while valid, is bad from a QA and
usability point of view, and should not be done in Fedora packages.
You're talking about this:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Using_.25.7Bbuildroot.7D_and_.25.7Boptflags.7D_vs_.24RPM_BUILD_ROOT_and_.24RPM_OPT_FLAGS
But I am not mixing the two styles discussed in that section. There is no
instance of either %{buildroot} or %{optflags} in this spec file, therefore
this is a straight $RPM_BUILD_ROOT + $RPM_OPT_FLAGS style. I don't understand
what you are objecting to.
NOK[2]: Can *.v files be considered as header files? As far as I understand
they more than source files. I think the devel subpackage should be considered
as Install this package, if you want to develope a application/library that
uses the base package. E.g. the devel package for an library written in C
only
contains the header files, because they are required to link the library. If
someone wants the source files not for developing, but for just looking at it,
he is required to install the source package.
The .v files are for human consumption only. They are not necessary for any
computerized task. It is possible to compile applications that use
gappalib-coq without needing the .v files. In that regard, they're kind of
like the various emacs-foo-el packages; nothing in Fedora requires the contents
of those packages, but they are useful for humans to look at.
If -devel isn't a good name for this subpackage, then how about -source?
As Thomas Spura already mentioned on his review for flocq you should consider
to doing a packaging draft and send it to fpc to clarify this.
Yes, I will do this. It will probably take me a few days to complete. 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 719152] Review Request: gappalib-coq - Coq support library for gappa
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=719152
--- Comment #7 from Markus Mayer lotharl...@gmx.de 2011-10-31 14:16:11 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #6)
Thanks for the review!
(In reply to comment #5)
NOK[1]: Please use %{buildroot} instead of $RPM_BUILD_ROOT. That is just for
usabilty as it is easier to read if there is just one macro style used. See
Package guidelines: Mixing the two styles, while valid, is bad from a QA
and
usability point of view, and should not be done in Fedora packages.
You're talking about this:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Using_.25.7Bbuildroot.7D_and_.25.7Boptflags.7D_vs_.24RPM_BUILD_ROOT_and_.24RPM_OPT_FLAGS
But I am not mixing the two styles discussed in that section. There is no
instance of either %{buildroot} or %{optflags} in this spec file, therefore
this is a straight $RPM_BUILD_ROOT + $RPM_OPT_FLAGS style. I don't understand
what you are objecting to.
Yes, you are right. I have missinterpreted this section a bit.
NOK[2]: Can *.v files be considered as header files? As far as I understand
they more than source files. I think the devel subpackage should be
considered
as Install this package, if you want to develope a application/library that
uses the base package. E.g. the devel package for an library written in C
only
contains the header files, because they are required to link the library. If
someone wants the source files not for developing, but for just looking at
it,
he is required to install the source package.
The .v files are for human consumption only. They are not necessary for any
computerized task. It is possible to compile applications that use
gappalib-coq without needing the .v files. In that regard, they're kind of
like the various emacs-foo-el packages; nothing in Fedora requires the
contents
of those packages, but they are useful for humans to look at.
If -devel isn't a good name for this subpackage, then how about -source?
As Thomas Spura already mentioned on his review for flocq you should
consider
to doing a packaging draft and send it to fpc to clarify this.
Yes, I will do this. It will probably take me a few days to complete.
Thanks.
emacs-foo-el packages exists for two reasons (source:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Emacs):
- It is often the case that byte compiling the elisp source for one add-on will
require the presence of the elisp source for another add-on package at build
time for example.
- When debugging a problem with an (X)Emacs package, the Elisp debugger can
look up the relevant code or symbol definition in the source lisp file if
present.
If a user just wants to source to look at it, it is already possible using
'yumdownloader --source packagename'.
Maybe this can help you finding your way.
Regards,
Markus
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on 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 Neal Becker ndbeck...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|needinfo? | --- Comment #33 from Neal Becker ndbeck...@gmail.com 2011-10-31 14:32:36 EDT --- 1. I was attempting to accept ownership of this. Sorry if I did not proceed correctly. What do I need to do? 2. It was not my attempt to APPROVE this. I thought setting the flag was to request review. 3. Please see my latest here: http://nbecker.fedorapeople.org/dmtcp.spec http://nbecker.fedorapeople.org/dmtcp-1.2.3-3.svn1321.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 474549] Review Request: ca-cacert.org - CAcert.org CA root certificates
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474549 Philipp Dunkel p.dun...@cacert.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||p.dun...@cacert.org --- Comment #41 from Philipp Dunkel p.dun...@cacert.org 2011-10-31 14:36:46 EDT --- Hi, I am a former Board Member of CAcert Inc. and was intimately involved in drafting many CAcert Policies as well as these licenses. While i am not authorized to speak on behalf of CAcert Inc. I believe I can help here to further an understanding between the two communities. There are three main problems in getting this done. 1. RedHat Legal and this thread view the issue as one of software or content licensing. Since a certificate, especially a root certificate is neither just content nor is it just software, this is bound to fail. 2. RedHat understands limiting liability to a vendor. However liability has different vectors in PKI in combination with open communities that make warranty limitations useless to a community like CAcert. 3. Reliance, warranty, use and the like have distinct meanings in the CA world. These meanings don't necessarily mesh well with the software world I will try to explain what the issues/thoughts at CAcert were in the hope that this will further inter-community understanding and maybe enable this bug to be successfully resolved. @1: Certificates are neither content nor software: Certificates have a single purpose. They are a piece of information that is useful only in determining the validity of a digital signature. As such they are, to an extent software as they are used to calculate a verification of a signature supplied. In so far as they are a file containing data that is not fundamentally executable a certificate is also content. However that misses the whole point of certificates and what they really are. They are really legal statements saying: If you can take a signature and muck it around with this bit of digits here, then we certify that the information contained is valid. Now while licensing for a piece of content, such as a book, or a piece of software, is a solved issue, the licensing of neither-software-nor-content-but-a-bit-of-both-but-not-really stuff is not something that RedHat or the OSS world in general has solved yet. However it is something that CAcert is expert at. Which leads me to @2: Why limitations of liability and the like are insufficient in the CAcert context One of the big problems for CAcert that other CAs do not have is in fact that CAcert is an open community. The members of our community are bound to each other as well as CAcert Inc. via the CAcert Community Agreement (CCA). This clearly regulated the claims any one in our community, such as providing for arbitration, limiting cash liabilities and so forth. In this context, we as a community are willing to make certain legal guarantees, such as statements about the reliability of certificate information and the like. The problem arises because in the CA/PKI world such statements are made not only between a CA and someone using a certificate to verify some signature, but rather it is a triangular relationship. A CAcert member makes a statement to a user and because the CAcert Member is a member CAcert makes an auxiliary statement to the user. Now if all a CA is worried about is its own behind, then limiting liability is sufficient. But CAcert is a community, and we do watch out for more than just CAcert Inc., we also watch out for our members. However we cannot disclaim the liability of a member to a user for communications that take place between the member and the user directly. The only recourse is that we state If you are not bound by the CCA you may not rely (as defined) upon anything CAcert says with its certificates Because this then eliminates any reliance in statements made via CAcert certificates between the member and the user. So is this a use restriction? Absolutely. You may not use CAcert certificates as a base for your decision making. You can use them to establish secured connections to websites, you can even use them for e-commerce, provided you find some other means to verify that the certificate in question is that of your commerce partner. But you may not take the fact that CAcert has signed a certificate to MEAN anything, unless you are bound by separate agreement to CAcert. @3. The terms we use do not necessarily mesh well Limiting liability, what does rely mean, what does use mean, what is a draft policy, and the like are another cause for misunderstanding between the RedHat and CAcert communities. We have a very well defined set of meanings for these words and they re described in our policies. However while these meanings are basically in line with the common use,
[Bug 745313] Review Request: drupal7-variable - Variable module provides a registry for meta-data about Drupal variables
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=745313 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-10-31 14:58:41 EDT --- Package drupal7-variable-1.1-1.el5: * should fix your issue, * was pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 testing repository, * should be available at your local mirror within two days. Update it with: # su -c 'yum update --enablerepo=epel-testing drupal7-variable-1.1-1.el5' as soon as you are able to. Please go to the following url: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2011-4807 then log in and leave karma (feedback). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 Thomas Spura toms...@fedoraproject.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 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 #34 from Thomas Spura toms...@fedoraproject.org 2011-10-31 15:10:36 EDT --- (In reply to comment #33) 1. I was attempting to accept ownership of this. Sorry if I did not proceed correctly. What do I need to do? Ah, I understand. Please open your own review request (so that bug opener=later package owner) and close this as a dublicate of your new one. (Don't know if the NEEDSPONSOR flag needs to get cleard...) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 730593] Review Request: gnome-shell-theme-elementary - The Elementary gnome-shell theme
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=730593 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 711230] Review Request: ruby-rhubarb - simple versioned object-graph persistence for ruby
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=711230 --- Comment #2 from Will Benton wi...@redhat.com 2011-10-31 15:46:11 EDT --- The most recent SRPM is available from packages.getwallaby.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 711229] Review Request: ruby-spqr - easy QMF agent framework for Ruby
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=711229 --- Comment #2 from Will Benton wi...@redhat.com 2011-10-31 15:45:05 EDT --- The most recent SRPM is available from packages.getwallaby.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 730593] Review Request: gnome-shell-theme-elementary - The Elementary gnome-shell theme
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=730593 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-10-31 15:47:40 EDT --- gnome-shell-theme-elementary-3.2-1.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gnome-shell-theme-elementary-3.2-1.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 730593] Review Request: gnome-shell-theme-elementary - The Elementary gnome-shell theme
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=730593 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-10-31 15:50:04 EDT --- gnome-shell-theme-elementary-3.0-1.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gnome-shell-theme-elementary-3.0-1.fc15 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 745233] Review Request: python-logbook - A logging replacement for Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=745233 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-10-31 17:23:18 EDT --- python-logbook-0.3-3.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 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 719152] Review Request: gappalib-coq - Coq support library for gappa
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=719152 --- Comment #8 from Jerry James loganje...@gmail.com 2011-10-31 18:29:22 EDT --- (In reply to comment #7) emacs-foo-el packages exists for two reasons Good point. If I drop the -devel subpackage altogether, would you find this package acceptable? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 #8 from Jerry James loganje...@gmail.com 2011-10-31 18:27:55 EDT --- I think we're nearly there (In reply to comment #7) This package does not require hicolor-icon-theme neither implicit nor explecit. Acourding to the Package guidlines (The directory is owned by a package which is not required for your package to function) this package must own these directories. I wasn't sure how this was supposed to be handled, so I asked on fedora-devel. Would you, please, take a look at the thread starting here? http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2011-October/158861.html -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 747437] Review Request: perl-Data-Properties - Persistent properties
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=747437 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-10-31 19:08:44 EDT --- perl-Data-Properties-0.02-3.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Data-Properties-0.02-3.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 747437] Review Request: perl-Data-Properties - Persistent properties
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=747437 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-10-31 19:08:51 EDT --- perl-Data-Properties-0.02-3.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Data-Properties-0.02-3.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 747437] Review Request: perl-Data-Properties - Persistent properties
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=747437 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 750394] New: 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. Summary: Review Request: dmtcp - Checkpoint/Restart functionality for Linux processes https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=750394 Summary: Review Request: dmtcp - Checkpoint/Restart functionality for Linux processes Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: ndbeck...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Spec URL: http://nbecker.fedorapeople.org/dmtcp.spec SRPM URL: http://nbecker.fedorapeople.org/dmtcp-1.2.3-3.svn1321.fc15.src.rpm Description: DMTCP (Distributed MultiThreaded Checkpointing) is a tool to transparently checkpointing the state of an arbitrary group of programs including multi-threaded and distributed computations. It operates directly on the user binary executable, with no Linux kernel modules or other kernel mods. Among the applications supported by DMTCP are OpenMPI, MATLAB, Python, Perl, and many programming languages and shell scripting languages. DMTCP also supports GNU screen sessions, including vim/cscope and emacs. With the use of TightVNC, it can also checkpoint and restart X-Windows applications, as long as they do not use extensions (e.g.: no OpenGL, no video). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 750394] 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=750394 Neal Becker ndbeck...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ka...@ccs.neu.edu --- Comment #1 from Neal Becker ndbeck...@gmail.com 2011-10-31 19:30:01 EDT --- *** Bug 676335 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 Neal Becker ndbeck...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||DUPLICATE Last Closed||2011-10-31 19:30:01 --- Comment #35 from Neal Becker ndbeck...@gmail.com 2011-10-31 19:30:01 EDT --- I am taking ownership of this (at the request of upstream), so am closing *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 750394 *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 750394] 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=750394 Neal Becker ndbeck...@gmail.com 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 719150] Review Request: flocq - Formalization of floating point numbers for Coq
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=719150 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-10-31 21:27:00 EDT --- flocq-1.4.0-3.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 747437] Review Request: perl-Data-Properties - Persistent properties
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=747437 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-10-31 21:26:44 EDT --- perl-Data-Properties-0.02-3.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 730593] Review Request: gnome-shell-theme-elementary - The Elementary gnome-shell theme
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=730593 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-10-31 21:26:32 EDT --- gnome-shell-theme-elementary-3.2-1.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 testing repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 695058] Review Request: transgui - An App to remotely control a Transmission Bit-Torrent client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=695058 --- Comment #17 from Praveen Kumar kumarpraveen.nit...@gmail.com 2011-10-31 22:21:42 EDT --- (In reply to comment #15) Maybe you could also add the man page. Source does't contain man pages so I am not able to include those. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 726989] Review Request: ipwatchd - IP conflict detection tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=726989 Yunyun Qu y...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||y...@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
