[Bug 630279] Review Request: ghc-email-validate - Validating an email address string against RFC 5322
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=630279 Lakshmi Narasimhan changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW AssignedTo|lakshminaras2...@gmail.com |nob...@fedoraproject.org -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 630302] Review Request: ghc-pureMD5 - MD5 implementations
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=630302 Lakshmi Narasimhan changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW AssignedTo|lakshminaras2...@gmail.com |nob...@fedoraproject.org -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||ghc-blaze-builder-enumerato ||r-0.2.0.3-1.fc16 Resolution||ERRATA Last Closed||2011-11-04 21:36:11 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System 2011-11-04 21:36:11 EDT --- ghc-blaze-builder-enumerator-0.2.0.3-1.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||ghc-cryptohash-0.7.4-1.fc16 Resolution||ERRATA Last Closed||2011-11-04 21:35:59 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System 2011-11-04 21:35:59 EDT --- ghc-cryptohash-0.7.4-1.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 745305] Review Request: drupal7-entity - Extends the entity API to provide a unified way to deal with entities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=745305 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System 2011-11-04 21:34:23 EDT --- Package drupal7-entity-1.0-0.2.beta11.fc16: * should fix your issue, * was pushed to the Fedora 16 testing repository, * should be available at your local mirror within two days. Update it with: # su -c 'yum update --enablerepo=updates-testing drupal7-entity-1.0-0.2.beta11.fc16' as soon as you are able to. Please go to the following url: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2011-15456 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 743497] Review Request: tcplay - Utility to create/open/map TrueCrypt-compatible volumes
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=743497 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|tcplay-0.9-0.4.20111007git9 |tcplay-0.9-0.4.20111007git9 |7ed5f9.fc14 |7ed5f9.fc16 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System 2011-11-04 21:30:24 EDT --- tcplay-0.9-0.4.20111007git97ed5f9.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 745311] Review Request: drupal7-fivestar - The Fivestar voting module adds a clean attractive voting widget
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=745311 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System 2011-11-04 21:29:57 EDT --- drupal7-fivestar-2.0-0.1.alpha1.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 739856] Review Request: opendbx - abstraction library for database access in C
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=739856 --- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System 2011-11-04 21:29:36 EDT --- opendbx-1.4.5-5.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 745308] Review Request: drupal7-field_permissions - A replacement for the Content Permissions module shipped with CCK
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=745308 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System 2011-11-04 21:27:28 EDT --- Package drupal7-field_permissions-1.0-0.1.alpha1.fc16: * should fix your issue, * was pushed to the Fedora 16 testing repository, * should be available at your local mirror within two days. Update it with: # su -c 'yum update --enablerepo=updates-testing drupal7-field_permissions-1.0-0.1.alpha1.fc16' as soon as you are able to. Please go to the following url: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2011-15451 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 742882] Review Request: ghc-semigroups - Provides Haskell 98 semigroups
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=742882 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|ghc-semigroups-0.8-1.fc15 |ghc-semigroups-0.8-1.fc16 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System 2011-11-04 21:27:47 EDT --- ghc-semigroups-0.8-1.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||ghc-wai-extra-0.4.3-1.fc16 Resolution||ERRATA Last Closed||2011-11-04 21:29:46 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System 2011-11-04 21:29:46 EDT --- ghc-wai-extra-0.4.3-1.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 739997] Review Request: undertaker - Find always-on and always-off conditional C code
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=739997 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||undertaker-1.2-1.fc16 Resolution||ERRATA Last Closed||2011-11-04 21:21:48 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System 2011-11-04 21:21:48 EDT --- undertaker-1.2-1.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 730644] Review Request: svgSalamander - An SVG engine for Java
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=730644 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|svgsalamander-0.0-4.fc15|svgsalamander-0.0-4.fc16 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System 2011-11-04 21:19:40 EDT --- svgsalamander-0.0-4.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 732205] Review Request: airsched - C++ Simulated Airline Schedule Manager 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=732205 --- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System 2011-11-04 20:32:32 EDT --- airsched-0.1.3-2.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/airsched-0.1.3-2.fc14 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 725310] Review Request: osdlyrics - Show on-screen lyrics with your favorite media players
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725310 --- Comment #12 from Robin Lee 2011-11-04 19:55:53 EDT --- Yes, I hope for some written guideline. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 719757] Review Request: apron - Numerical abstract domain 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=719757 --- Comment #10 from Jason Tibbitts 2011-11-04 19:05:54 EDT --- Just wanted to be sure that everyone's aware that the license tag reflects what's in the binary package. So if you had a bunch of LGPLv2+ code and a single GPLv2+ file was compiled together with it to make a binary, the resulting binary is simply GPLv2+ and if that's all you had in the resulting package, the license tag would simply show GPLv2+. Or, to put it another way, it looks like "newpolka/mf_qsort.c and ppl/*" refer to files in the source package, not the resulting binary package, and thus aren't terribly relevant to what goes in the License tag. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 749753] Review Request: clxclient - a C++ X windows 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=749753 Brendan Jones changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Brendan Jones 2011-11-04 18:47:54 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: clxclient Short Description: a C++ X windows library Owners: bsjones Branches: rawhide f16 f15 f14 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 745308] Review Request: drupal7-field_permissions - A replacement for the Content Permissions module shipped with CCK
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=745308 Fedora Update System 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 745308] Review Request: drupal7-field_permissions - A replacement for the Content Permissions module shipped with CCK
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=745308 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System 2011-11-04 18:46:33 EDT --- drupal7-field_permissions-1.0-0.1.alpha1.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/drupal7-field_permissions-1.0-0.1.alpha1.el5 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 745308] Review Request: drupal7-field_permissions - A replacement for the Content Permissions module shipped with CCK
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=745308 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System 2011-11-04 18:46:48 EDT --- drupal7-field_permissions-1.0-0.1.alpha1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/drupal7-field_permissions-1.0-0.1.alpha1.el6 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 719757] Review Request: apron - Numerical abstract domain 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=719757 Jerry James changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #9 from Jerry James 2011-11-04 18:46:38 EDT --- Thanks again, Brendan. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: apron Short Description: Numerical abstract domain library Owners: jjames Branches: 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 749753] Review Request: clxclient - a C++ X windows 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=749753 --- Comment #6 from Brendan Jones 2011-11-04 18:45:28 EDT --- No problem (I missed it too ;) Thanks again 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 745308] Review Request: drupal7-field_permissions - A replacement for the Content Permissions module shipped with CCK
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=745308 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System 2011-11-04 18:46:55 EDT --- drupal7-field_permissions-1.0-0.1.alpha1.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/drupal7-field_permissions-1.0-0.1.alpha1.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 745308] Review Request: drupal7-field_permissions - A replacement for the Content Permissions module shipped with CCK
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=745308 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System 2011-11-04 18:46:41 EDT --- drupal7-field_permissions-1.0-0.1.alpha1.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/drupal7-field_permissions-1.0-0.1.alpha1.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 745305] Review Request: drupal7-entity - Extends the entity API to provide a unified way to deal with entities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=745305 Fedora Update System 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 745305] Review Request: drupal7-entity - Extends the entity API to provide a unified way to deal with entities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=745305 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System 2011-11-04 18:42:57 EDT --- drupal7-entity-1.0-0.2.beta11.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/drupal7-entity-1.0-0.2.beta11.el5 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 745305] Review Request: drupal7-entity - Extends the entity API to provide a unified way to deal with entities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=745305 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System 2011-11-04 18:43:21 EDT --- drupal7-entity-1.0-0.2.beta11.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/drupal7-entity-1.0-0.2.beta11.el6 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 719757] Review Request: apron - Numerical abstract domain 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=719757 Brendan Jones changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #8 from Brendan Jones 2011-11-04 18:40:59 EDT --- That's fine Jerry. This package is APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 745305] Review Request: drupal7-entity - Extends the entity API to provide a unified way to deal with entities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=745305 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System 2011-11-04 18:43:13 EDT --- drupal7-entity-1.0-0.2.beta11.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/drupal7-entity-1.0-0.2.beta11.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 745305] Review Request: drupal7-entity - Extends the entity API to provide a unified way to deal with entities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=745305 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System 2011-11-04 18:43:04 EDT --- drupal7-entity-1.0-0.2.beta11.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/drupal7-entity-1.0-0.2.beta11.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 719757] Review Request: apron - Numerical abstract domain 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=719757 --- Comment #7 from Jerry James 2011-11-04 18:37:02 EDT --- Argh, you're right. How about if I change the comment on the License tag to read as follows: # The entire package is LGPLv2+ except newpolka/mf_qsort.c and ppl/*, all of # which are GPLv2+. Thanks for the review. Are you okay with me just making that change before I import into git, or do you want to see another spec file & rpm before approving this 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 749753] Review Request: clxclient - a C++ X windows 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=749753
Jerry James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Jerry James 2011-11-04 18:26:39 EDT
---
Oh heck, I'm sorry, I made a mistake. The -devel package should NOT be noarch.
It almost is, except for those .so files. The embarrassing part is that I've
made this mistake before (*blush*) Take the noarch out and put the
%{?_isa} back on -devel's Requires, like you had it in the first place, and
this package is APPROVED.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 719757] Review Request: apron - Numerical abstract domain 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=719757 Brendan Jones changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #6 from Brendan Jones 2011-11-04 18:24:08 EDT --- I noticed in the README file in the root directory of the source it is mentioned that those files requiring the PPL library are also GPL rather than LGPL. Apart from that I'm happy to approve this review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 745311] Review Request: drupal7-fivestar - The Fivestar voting module adds a clean attractive voting widget
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=745311 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System 2011-11-04 18:17:47 EDT --- drupal7-fivestar-2.0-0.1.alpha1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/drupal7-fivestar-2.0-0.1.alpha1.el6 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 745311] Review Request: drupal7-fivestar - The Fivestar voting module adds a clean attractive voting widget
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=745311 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System 2011-11-04 18:17:55 EDT --- drupal7-fivestar-2.0-0.1.alpha1.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/drupal7-fivestar-2.0-0.1.alpha1.el5 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 745311] Review Request: drupal7-fivestar - The Fivestar voting module adds a clean attractive voting widget
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=745311 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System 2011-11-04 18:18:03 EDT --- drupal7-fivestar-2.0-0.1.alpha1.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/drupal7-fivestar-2.0-0.1.alpha1.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 745311] Review Request: drupal7-fivestar - The Fivestar voting module adds a clean attractive voting widget
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=745311 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System 2011-11-04 18:17:38 EDT --- drupal7-fivestar-2.0-0.1.alpha1.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/drupal7-fivestar-2.0-0.1.alpha1.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 745311] Review Request: drupal7-fivestar - The Fivestar voting module adds a clean attractive voting widget
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=745311 Fedora Update System 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 741129] Review Request: OpenStego - Free Steganography solution
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=741129 --- Comment #3 from Matthieu Saulnier 2011-11-04 18:17:14 EDT --- Oups, I've forgotten urls files... Spec URL: http://pingou.fedorapeople.org/RPMs/openstego.spec SRPM URL: http://pingou.fedorapeople.org/RPMs/openstego-0.5.2-3.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 749753] Review Request: clxclient - a C++ X windows 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=749753 --- Comment #4 from Brendan Jones 2011-11-04 18:13:36 EDT --- Thanks for the review! I have made the changes you've suggested, and rebuilt clthreads in accordance with bug 751466. SPEC: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/clxclient.spec SRPM: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/clxclient-3.6.1-4.fc16.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 749320] Review Request: xinput_calibrator - A generic touchscreen calibration program
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=749320
--- Comment #3 from Matthieu Saulnier 2011-11-04
18:05:29 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> - I recommend to use the %{version} macro in Source0 in order to simplify
> future updates.
Done
> - Add the files Changelog and README to the %docs.
Added
> - Don't add the .gz suffix to the manpage because the compression format
> might change. Replace it by an asterisk:
> %{_mandir}/man1/%{name}.1*
Done
> - Add INSTALL="install -p" to 'make install' so that the timestamps of the
> manpage, .desktop file, etc. are preserved.
Added
> - If you plan to build the package for EPEL < 6 as well, you must add a
> BuildRoot field, a %clean section and clean the buildroot at the beginning
> of %install. In case you targeting Fedora and EPEL 6 only, leave everything
> as is.
I don't plan to build for EPEL < 6
> You might want to remove the %defattr line in %files, though. It's
> not required for Fedora any longer either.
Removed
Spec URL: http://pingou.fedorapeople.org/RPMs/xinput_calibrator.spec
SRPM URL:
http://pingou.fedorapeople.org/RPMs/xinput_calibrator-0.7.5-2.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 746079] Review Request: rubygem-grit library for extracting info from a git repository in 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=746079 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System 2011-11-04 17:48:32 EDT --- Package rubygem-grit-2.4.1-2.fc16: * should fix your issue, * was pushed to the Fedora 16 testing repository, * should be available at your local mirror within two days. Update it with: # su -c 'yum update --enablerepo=updates-testing rubygem-grit-2.4.1-2.fc16' as soon as you are able to. Please go to the following url: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2011-15431 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 732205] Review Request: airsched - C++ Simulated Airline Schedule Manager 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=732205 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System 2011-11-04 17:48:04 EDT --- airsched-0.1.2-1.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 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
Michael Schwendt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mschwe...@gmail.com
--- Comment #13 from Michael Schwendt 2011-11-04 17:23:40
EDT ---
> %package devel
> Summary: Development files for %{name}
> Group: Development/Libraries
> Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
Why does the -devel package require the base package? The base package
guidelines don't apply here, because of the contents of this -devel 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 719757] Review Request: apron - Numerical abstract domain 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=719757 --- Comment #5 from Jerry James 2011-11-04 17:21:55 EDT --- (In reply to comment #4) > [?] Be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing > Guidelines > *** Just need to clarify the multiple licenses in the SPEC file. May also need > to reflect in the relevant %file section (ie > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios I added a comment to explain the license situation. Unfortunately, there is no way to address the problem via %files, as the differently licensed file gets compiled into the library along with everything else. > [?] library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package > *** You have separated the *_debug.so files out into a separate package? On second thought, we don't really want these in Fedora. I have removed the debug versions of the libraries altogether. > [?] Packaged according to Fedora OCAML packaging guidelines > Do you need an explicit Requires: apron-devel in package > ocaml-apron-devel? > Similiarly -debug packages. > see: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:OCaml#-devel_subpackage Ah, right. I was thinking apron-devel wasn't needed because it just contains C header files, but it also contains the *.so files, doesn't it? Okay, added. > [?] Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package > using > a fully versioned dependency > Do you need an explicit Requires: apron-debug in package ocaml-apron-debug? I removed them, so the point is moot. :-) New versions: Spec URL: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/apron/apron.spec SRPM URL: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/apron/apron-0.9.10-3.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 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
Michael Schwendt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||751455
--- Comment #12 from Michael Schwendt 2011-11-04 17:21:08
EDT ---
> Change the Provides to:
> Provides: %{name}-static%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
That makes no sense, because you cannot BuildRequires that.
Remember, a spec file's BuildRequires become the src.rpm's Requires. And a
src.rpm is not arch-specific.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 749753] Review Request: clxclient - a C++ X windows 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=749753
Jerry James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||751466
--- Comment #3 from Jerry James 2011-11-04 16:55:50 EDT
---
The BuildRoot tag at the top of the spec file is unnecessary in all current
versions of Fedora. Also, the -devel subpackage should be declared "BuildArch:
noarch", which also means removing the "%{?_isa}" from that subpackage's
Requires of the main package.
Note that the rpmlint output below is from the installed packages, not the
binary RPMs. Some checks are disabled for the latter.
+: OK
-: must be fixed
=: should be fixed (at your discretion)
N: not applicable
MUST:
[+] rpmlint output:
clxclient.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libclxclient.so.3.6.1
P_thread::thr_start(int, int, unsigned long)
clxclient.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libclxclient.so.3.6.1
typeinfo for P_thread
clxclient.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libclxclient.so.3.6.1
P_thread::~P_thread()
clxclient.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libclxclient.so.3.6.1
ITC_ip1q::get_event(unsigned int)
clxclient.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libclxclient.so.3.6.1
P_thread::thr_start(int, int, unsigned long)
clxclient.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libclxclient.so.3.6.1
P_thread::P_thread()
clxclient.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libclxclient.so.3.6.1 /usr/lib64/libfreetype.so.6
clxclient.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libclxclient.so.3.6.1 /lib64/libm.so.6
clxclient.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libclxclient.so.3.6.1
exit@GLIBC_2.2.5
clxclient-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 10 warnings.
This means that libclxclient.so.3.6.1 is NOT linked with -lclthreads but should
be (hence the undefined non-weak symbols), and is linked with -lfreetype and
-lm, but should not be. This alteration of your sed command nearly fixes the
issues:
# Force Fedora's flags and fix the link line
sed -e 's|-O2|%{optflags}|' \
-e 's|/sbin/ldconfig|# /sbin/ldconfig|' \
-e 's|`freetype-config --libs`||' \
-e 's|-lpthread -lXft -lX11|-lclthreads -lXft -lX11|' \
-i Makefile
This doesn't completely fix the problem, though, due to bug 751466.
[+] follows package naming guidelines
[+] spec file base name matches package name
[+] package meets the packaging guidelines
[+] package uses a Fedora approved license
[-] license field matches the actual license: actual license is LGPLv2+
[+] license file is included in %doc
[+] spec file is in American English
[+] spec file is legible
[+] sources match upstream: md5sum is bd47f80a855d3203fcf10365e79d85e4 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
[+] 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
[+] header files in -devel
[N] static libraries in -static
[+] .so in -devel
[+] -devel requires main package
[+] package contains no libtool archives
[N] package contains a desktop file, uses desktop-file-install
[+] package does not own files/dirs owned by other packages
[+] 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: no simple means of testing
[+] sane scriptlets
[+] subpackages require the main package
[N] placement of pkgconfig files
[N] file dependencies versus package dependencies
[N] package contains man pages for binaries/scripts
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 726080] Review Request: Xnee - X11 environment recorder
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=726080 --- Comment #22 from Matthieu Saulnier 2011-11-04 16:47:06 EDT --- (In reply to comment #20) > > OK, then it's much easier to add all docs to the libs package only. Since > > all > > other subpackages and the base package require the libs as a dependency, the > > docs are installed together with the libs. So, just move the %doc line from > > the > > base package to the libs package and drop all %docs everywhere else (COPYING > > too). This avoids cluttering the file system with duplicate files. > ok Done Spec URL: http://pingou.fedorapeople.org/RPMs/xnee.spec SRPM URL: http://pingou.fedorapeople.org/RPMs/xnee-3.10-6.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 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 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System 2011-11-04 16:29:42 EDT --- jhdf5-2.7-5.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 745296] Review Request: drupal7-context - Allows you to manage contextual conditions and reactions of your site
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=745296 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System 2011-11-04 16:01:14 EDT --- drupal7-context-3.0-0.1.beta1.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 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 745314] Review Request: drupal7-i18n - modules to extend Drupal core multilingual capabilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=745314 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System 2011-11-04 16:00:56 EDT --- drupal7-i18n-1.0-1.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 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 745306] Review Request: drupal7-eva - Eva allows the output of a View to be attached to content of entities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=745306 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System 2011-11-04 16:00:33 EDT --- drupal7-eva-1.1-1.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 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 745309] Review Request: drupal7-votingapi - Drupal Standardized API and schema for storing, retrieving, and tabulating votes
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=745309 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System 2011-11-04 16:01:02 EDT --- drupal7-votingapi-2.4-1.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 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 745291] Review Request: drupal7-active_tags - adds a taxonomy widget with a new jQuery enabled tag entry widget
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=745291 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System 2011-11-04 16:01:41 EDT --- drupal7-active_tags-2.0-0.1.dev.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 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 745293] Review Request: drupal7-cck cck allows you to add custom fields to nodes using a web browser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=745293 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System 2011-11-04 16:00:39 EDT --- drupal7-cck-2-0.1.dev.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 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 751411] Review Request: bash-modules - Modules for bash
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=751411
Thomas Spura changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||toms...@fedoraproject.org
--- Comment #1 from Thomas Spura 2011-11-04
15:51:04 EDT ---
Some quick comments:
- Are you already a packager? I couldn't find you in fas...
- When you use a svn checkout, you need to promote it differently in
%{version}:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Non-Numeric_Version_in_Release
- use global instead of define:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#.25global_preferred_over_.25define
- How did you generate the source?
Either give a URL or add a comment, how you did the checkout.
- What version of LGPL is this? LGPLv2+? (Didn't download sources because of
the
last issue above).
- defattr looks odd and is not needed in Fedora (in el5 and below, if you want
to branch for it)
- The %changelog is missing. Please add a changelog everytime you change
something
and bump the release
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 722640] Review Request: R-qcc - SQC package for R
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=722640 --- Comment #9 from Pierre-YvesChibon 2011-11-04 15:38:30 EDT --- (In reply to comment #8) > But the one thing I didn't quite understand: > R-qcc.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/R/library/qcc/COPYING > > What's that supposed to be telling me? The FSF address has recently changed and the file mentioned here still contains the old address. This is not a review blocker but you should mention it upstream so that he can update his license file. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 749320] Review Request: xinput_calibrator - A generic touchscreen calibration program
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=749320
--- Comment #2 from Martin Gieseking 2011-11-04
15:20:07 EDT ---
Here's the formal review of your package. It's in pretty good shape. Just a few
minor comments:
- I recommend to use the %{version} macro in Source0 in order to simplify
future updates.
- Add the files Changelog and README to the %docs.
- Don't add the .gz suffix to the manpage because the compression format
might change. Replace it by an asterisk:
%{_mandir}/man1/%{name}.1*
- Add INSTALL="install -p" to 'make install' so that the timestamps of the
manpage, .desktop file, etc. are preserved.
- If you plan to build the package for EPEL < 6 as well, you must add a
BuildRoot field, a %clean section and clean the buildroot at the beginning
of %install. In case you targeting Fedora and EPEL 6 only, leave everything
as is. You might want to remove the %defattr line in %files, though. It's
not required for Fedora any longer either.
$ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-15-x86_64/result/*.rpm
xinput_calibrator.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xinput -> input,
x input, Putin
xinput_calibrator.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mis -> mus, mos,
mid
xinput_calibrator.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US recalibrates ->
re calibrates, re-calibrates, calibrates
xinput_calibrator.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US evdev -> evade
xinput_calibrator.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xorg -> xor,
org, Borg
xinput_calibrator.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US conf -> con,
cone, cons
xinput_calibrator.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xinput ->
input, x input, Putin
xinput_calibrator.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mis -> mus,
mos, mid
xinput_calibrator.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US recalibrates
-> re calibrates, re-calibrates, calibrates
xinput_calibrator.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US evdev ->
evade
xinput_calibrator.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xorg -> xor,
org, Borg
xinput_calibrator.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US conf -> con,
cone, cons
xinput_calibrator-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) xinput ->
input, x input, Putin
xinput_calibrator-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
xinput -> input, x input, Putin
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 14 warnings.
The above spelling errors are false positive and can be ignored.
-
key:
[+] OK
[.] OK, not applicable
[X] needs work
-
[] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}.
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license.
- MIT acccording to source file headers
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[+] MUST: The file containing the text of the license(s) for the package must
be included in %doc.
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source.
$ md5sum xinput_calibrator-0.7.5.tar.gz*
20da0a2055a5a75962add8c6b44f60fa xinput_calibrator-0.7.5.tar.gz
20da0a2055a5a75962add8c6b44f60fa xinput_calibrator-0.7.5.tar.gz.upstream
[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
[.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line.
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.
[+] MUST: When compiling C, C++, or Fortran files, %{optflags} must be applied.
[.] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly.
[.] MUST: If a package installs files below %{_datadir}/icons, the icon cache
must be updated.
[.] MUST: Packages storing shared library files (not just symlinks) must call
ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[+] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[.] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, ...
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates.
[+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in %files.
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[.] MUST: Lar
[Bug 749753] Review Request: clxclient - a C++ X windows 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=749753 Jerry James changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||loganje...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|loganje...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review- --- Comment #2 from Jerry James 2011-11-04 15:12:36 EDT --- I will take this review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 739417] Review Request: php53-php-gettext - Gettext emulation in PHP
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=739417 Fedora Update System 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 739417] Review Request: php53-php-gettext - Gettext emulation in PHP
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=739417 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System 2011-11-04 15:07:26 EDT --- php53-php-gettext-1.0.11-3.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/php53-php-gettext-1.0.11-3.el5 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 751102] Review Request: jetty-test-policy - Jetty test policy 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=751102
--- Comment #1 from Jeff Johnston 2011-11-04 14:56:53 EDT
---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[X] Rpmlint output:
rpmlint -i jetty-test-policy.spec
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[X] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines[1].
[X] Spec file name must match the base package name, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[ ] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines[2].
[!] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms.
Build fails with the following:
[ERROR] Failed to execute goal
org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-surefire-plugin:2.10:test (default-test) on
project jetty-test-policy: Unable to generate classpath:
org.apache.maven.artifact.resolver.MultipleArtifactsNotFoundException: Missing:
[ERROR] --
[ERROR] 1) org.apache.maven.surefire:surefire-junit3:jar:2.10
[ERROR]
[ERROR] Try downloading the file manually from the project website.
[ERROR]
[ERROR] Then, install it using the command:
[ERROR] mvn install:install-file -DgroupId=org.apache.maven.surefire
-DartifactId=surefire-junit3 -Dversion=2.10 -Dpackaging=jar
-Dfile=/path/to/file
[ERROR]
[ERROR] Alternatively, if you host your own repository you can deploy the file
there:
[ERROR] mvn deploy:deploy-file -DgroupId=org.apache.maven.surefire
-DartifactId=surefire-junit3 -Dversion=2.10 -Dpackaging=jar
-Dfile=/path/to/file -Durl=[url] -DrepositoryId=[id]
[ERROR]
[ERROR] Path to dependency:
[ERROR] 1) dummy:dummy:jar:1.0
[ERROR] 2) org.apache.maven.surefire:surefire-junit3:jar:2.10
[ERROR]
[ERROR] 2) org.apache.maven.surefire:common-junit3:jar:2.10
[ERROR]
[ERROR] Try downloading the file manually from the project website.
[ERROR]
[ERROR] Then, install it using the command:
[ERROR] mvn install:install-file -DgroupId=org.apache.maven.surefire
-DartifactId=common-junit3 -Dversion=2.10 -Dpackaging=jar -Dfile=/path/to/file
[ERROR]
[ERROR] Alternatively, if you host your own repository you can deploy the file
there:
[ERROR] mvn deploy:deploy-file -DgroupId=org.apache.maven.surefire
-DartifactId=common-junit3 -Dversion=2.10 -Dpackaging=jar -Dfile=/path/to/file
-Durl=[url] -DrepositoryId=[id]
[ERROR]
[ERROR] Path to dependency:
[ERROR] 1) dummy:dummy:jar:1.0
[ERROR] 2) org.apache.maven.surefire:surefire-junit3:jar:2.10
[ERROR] 3) org.apache.maven.surefire:common-junit3:jar:2.10
[ERROR]
[ERROR] --
[ERROR] 2 required artifacts are missing.
[ERROR]
[ERROR] for artifact:
[ERROR] dummy:dummy:jar:1.0
[ERROR]
[ERROR] from the specified remote repositories:
[ERROR] central (http://repo1.maven.org/maven2, releases=true, snapshots=false)
[ERROR] -> [Help 1]
[ERROR]
[ERROR] To see the full stack trace of the errors, re-run Maven with the -e
switch.
[ERROR] Re-run Maven using the -X switch to enable full debug logging.
[ERROR]
[ERROR] For more information about the errors and possible solutions, please
read the following articles:
[ERROR] [Help 1]
http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MAVEN/MojoExecutionException
[X] Buildroot definition is not present
[X] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines[3,4].
[!] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
There is no license specified in any source file.
License type:
ASL 2,0 or EPL
[-] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package is included in %doc.
[-] All independent sub-packages have license of their own
[-] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[X] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
MD5SUM this package:e36c2a4c3d4daa923755214e343dd7f9
MD5SUM upstream package:e36c2a4c3d4daa923755214e343dd7f9
[?] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines[5].
[X] Package must own all directories that it creates or must require other
packages for directories it uses.
[X] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[X] File sections do not contain %defattr(-,root,root,-) unless changed with
good reason
[X] Permissions on files are set properly.
[X] Package does NOT have a %clean section which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}
(or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). (not needed anymore)
[X] Package consistently uses macros (no %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
mixing)
[X] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
[X] Package does not own files or directories owned
[Bug 722640] Review Request: R-qcc - SQC package for R
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=722640 --- Comment #8 from John J. McDonough 2011-11-04 14:57:09 EDT --- Well, I got some of the fixes made, but there's a new tar with some different files, so I have some work to do, along with tracking down the questionable licensing bits. But the one thing I didn't quite understand: R-qcc.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/R/library/qcc/COPYING What's that supposed to be telling me? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 732205] Review Request: airsched - C++ Simulated Airline Schedule Manager 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=732205 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System 2011-11-04 14:58:44 EDT --- airsched-0.1.2-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/airsched-0.1.2-1.el6 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 732205] Review Request: airsched - C++ Simulated Airline Schedule Manager 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=732205 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System 2011-11-04 14:56:34 EDT --- airsched-0.1.2-1.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/airsched-0.1.2-1.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 732205] Review Request: airsched - C++ Simulated Airline Schedule Manager 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=732205 Fedora Update System 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 732205] Review Request: airsched - C++ Simulated Airline Schedule Manager 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=732205 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System 2011-11-04 14:53:29 EDT --- airsched-0.1.2-1.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/airsched-0.1.2-1.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 744340] Review Request: targetcli - Configuration shell for kernel target subsystem
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=744340 --- Comment #12 from Jon Ciesla 2011-11-04 14:37:33 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests). Removed InitialCC, not a valid FAS account. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 744340] Review Request: targetcli - Configuration shell for kernel target subsystem
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=744340 Andy Grover changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #11 from Andy Grover 2011-11-04 14:29:36 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: targetcli Short Description: An administration shell for storage targets Owners: grover Branches: f16 InitialCC: zdzichu -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 744340] Review Request: targetcli - Configuration shell for kernel target subsystem
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=744340 --- Comment #10 from Andy Grover 2011-11-04 14:27:10 EDT --- Thanks for the review, I will incorporate your remaining fixes, and go ahead with new pkg scm request as you have set fedora-review+. If you can, would you also consider reviewing the library dependencies for this package, bug 744342, bug 744347, and bug 744349? Thanks again. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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
Tom "spot" Callaway changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||tcall...@redhat.com
Blocks|177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|tcall...@redhat.com
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Tom "spot" Callaway 2011-11-04
14:18:04 EDT ---
== Review ==
Good:
- rpmlint checks return:
ruby-rhubarb.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) versioned -> version ed,
version-ed, version
ruby-rhubarb.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) versioned -> version ed,
version-ed, version
ruby-rhubarb.src:21: W: unversioned-explicit-provides ruby(rhubarb/rhubarb)
All safe to ignore, although, I would strongly recommend that you consider
appending = %{version} to that explicit provides, even if you're not planning
on checking version of it at this time.
- package meets naming guidelines
- package meets packaging guidelines
- license (ASL 2.0) OK, text in %doc, matches source
- spec file legible, in am. english
- source matches upstream
(288cd1251a41d8daa4dcc081f2f8b65b86eaab246babc3157e0d64eeab552c59)
- package compiles on f16 (x86_64)
- no missing BR
- no unnecessary BR
- no locales
- not relocatable
- owns all directories that it creates
- no duplicate files
- permissions ok
- macro use consistent
- code, not content
- no need for -docs
- nothing in %doc affects runtime
- no need for .desktop file
Looks good, so APPROVED. Consider versioning that explicit provides before
commit (and, like in the previous review, dropping the Requires: ruby).
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on 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 Tom "spot" Callaway changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||tcall...@redhat.com Blocks|177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|tcall...@redhat.com Flag||fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Tom "spot" Callaway 2011-11-04 14:13:12 EDT --- == Review == Good: - rpmlint checks return: ruby-spqr.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/ruby-spqr-0.3.4/examples/hello.rb ruby-spqr.noarch: W: doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/ruby-spqr-0.3.4/examples/logservice.rb /usr/bin/env spqr-gen.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) xml -> XML, ml, x ml spqr-gen.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary spqr-gen.rb All safe to ignore. - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - license (ASL 2.0) OK, text in %doc, matches source - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream (d3ef30d1000f1f00187cc1a6d59d8713e37701b21d4ff4c90368f55a33ad6e5a) - package compiles on f16 (x86_64) - no missing BR - no unnecessary BR - no locales - not relocatable - owns all directories that it creates - no duplicate files - permissions ok - macro use consistent - code, not content - no need for -docs - nothing in %doc affects runtime - no need for .desktop file It all looks good, so I'm marking this as APPROVED. One minor item: I don't think there is a need for Requires: ruby, since you have Requires: ruby(abi) = 1.8, but this should be safe to remove before committing to Fedora git. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 751083] Review Request: jetty-build-support - Jetty build support 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=751083 sami changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from sami 2011-11-04 14:09:47 EDT --- Please ignore this itme 3 it is not applicable here. 3. [!] If package uses tarball from VCS include comment how to re-create that tarball (svn export URL, git clone URL, ...) There are no git export instructions. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 751070] Review Request: jetty-version-maven-plugin - Jetty version management Maven plugin
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=751070 sami changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from sami 2011-11-04 14:06:12 EDT --- Package builds properly in rawhide mock. Also, the other issue about instructions of exporting from VCS I think is only applicable when there is no tarball provided upstream which is the case here. So this package is all good. 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 665733] Review Request: Coin3 - High-level 3D visualization 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=665733
--- Comment #2 from Ralf Corsepius 2011-11-04 13:17:59
EDT ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> 1. Are you planning on building for EL5?
Well, note the age of this submission (~ 1 year) - It predates this change in
Fedora - and the history of this package (Coin[12] packages's spec. This
rpm'specs origins are much older than Fedora - Can now be cleaned up ;)
> 2. I had managed to get a build before getting your email response. Just to
> see
> how minimal I could go I stripped out a bunch of stuff including:
>
> # bogus permissions
> find . \( -name '*.h' -o -name '*.cpp' -o -name '*.c' \) -a -executable -exec
> chmod -x {} \;
>
> rpmlint only complained about files in one directory so I replaced the above
> with:
The files with bogus permission repeatedly changed in Coin's history.
I once decided to use the "generic permission fix axe", because it turned
tiresome to chase permissions ;)
> 3. Ok, in %configure I made quite a few changes. I went ahead and took
> advantage of all the options that seemed appropriate. Here's my version, keep
> in mind I removed all the alternative stuff for my personal build:
>
> %configure \
> --includedir=%{_includedir}/Coin3 \
> --htmldir=%{_datadir}/doc/Coin3 \
> --disable-dependency-tracking \
> --enable-shared \
> --disable-dl-libbzip2 \
> --disable-dl-glu \
> --disable-dl-zlib \
> --disable-dl-freetype \
> --disable-dl-fontconfig \
> --disable-spidermonkey \
> --enable-man \
> --enable-html \
> --enable-3ds-import \
> CPPFLAGS=$(pkg-config --cflags freetype2)
>
> The htmldir environment variable worked but since it offered a --htmldir
> option
> I went ahead and used it. If this is truly documentation, should it not go in
> /usr/share/doc/... and not /usr/share/...?
I don't recall the details - Could be an artefact from Coin1 and Coin2 or a
side effect of coin-config's habit to hard-code paths.
To be checked.
> I also got rid of the coin_includedir and coin_htmldir.
Your preference - mine is different, because these reduce size of the diffs
between Coin1, Coin2 and Coin3 and eases comparing the specs.
> 4. %files:
>
> %doc AUTHORS COPYING README* LICENSE* THANKS FAQ*
>
> - The README* also grabs readme's for windows and mac so change to:
>
> %doc AUTHORS COPYING README README.UNIX LICENSE* THANKS FAQ*
OK, I'll look into this.
> Nit-picks:
>
> 5. I like %{buildroot} but the guidelines say just be consistent :)
I hate %{buildroot} and am not using it anywhere inside of my specs ;)
> 6. There's a blank line in the middle of your BuildRequires. It looks like
> you're separating the GL/X stuff from everything else. If you're not going to
> put in a comment, it would be better to remove the blank line.
OK, will check.
> Other:
>
> The alternatives doesn't bother me but you'll have to explain the i18n
> problems
> to me...
The source code is written using some ISO8859 variant as being used in Norway.
This causes doxygen to generate ISO8859 encoded docs and causes doxygen to get
confused on some characters. IIRC, there also where some doxygen constructs
inside of doxygen comments in the source-code, which newer doxygen handles
differently than older doxygens. - I'll try to check.
An updated package to come sometime next week.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 749299] Review Request: lcgdm-dav - HTTP/DAV frontend to the DPM/LFC services
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=749299
--- Comment #2 from Ricardo Rocha 2011-11-04 12:58:51
EDT ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> For the purposes of process bug #749132 details the sponsorship of you.
>
> Quick parse:
> 1) Please include details of how the tar ball is created.
Fixed.
> 2) BuildRequires: autoconf%{?_isa}
> BuildRequires: automake%{?_isa}
>
> makes no sense since they noarch, these are probably all over kill but
> certainly these two are wrong.
Actually they're not needed at all, it's a leftover from a previous spec.
Removed.
> 3) There is no such package on curl-devel on newer than RHEL5, even if it
>is satisfied by obsoleted provides possible. Use a dist tag to be more
>exact. Eventually libcurl-devel should drop the curl-devel
>
> %if %{?fedora}%{!?fedora:0} >= 10 || %{?rhel}%{!?rhel:0} >= 6
> BuildRequires: libcurl-devel
> %else
> BuildRequires: curl-devel
> %endif
>
> is what I use.
Cool thanks. I was submitting koji builds to el5/epel only, guess i have to do
it for more than that before putting any specs here.
>
> 4) You have excessive BuildRequires, e.g (lib)curl-devel requires
>pkgconfig so there is no need to specify it. Similarly gridsite-devel
>requires openssl-devel, there are probably others.
>
>This probably goes for some of your other packages, if you can trim
>them down preferably to the minimum the better.
Makes sense. I've cleaned it up with what looks to me like the minimum.
> 5) BuildRequires: libtool%{?_isa} you have twice.
Fixed.
> 6) On the libs package you almost certainly don't need
>Requires: curl%{?_isa}
>Requires: gridsite-libs%{?_isa} >= 1.7
>Requires: gsoap%{?_isa}
>Requires: openssl%{?_isa}
>
>since they will auto generated as .so requirements. Check other sub package
>as well.
Removed.
For the server it's a dependency on the httpd (the daemon) and gridsite (for
the delegation portType). So i believe they're needed.
And i left the ones for the -devel.
> 7) Pointless comment: #cd build
>%post devel -p /sbin/ldconfig
>%postun devel -p /sbin/ldconfig
>almost certainly not needed, should show up in a rpmlint.
Actually it doesn't.
Shouldn't i do this? It does provide the .so link.
> 8) Duplication of
>%doc README LICENSE
>in at least devel and libs package.
Removed (i was going to swear i had a rpmlint W before, but i'm not getting one
now).
> 9) %{_sysconfdir}/init.d/lcgdm-dav
>is presumably an init.d script so should be in /etc/rc.d/init.d
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SysVInitScript#Initscripts_on_the_filesystem
Ups, sorry. Missed that one.
> # rpmlint items:
> 10) Fails on http://svnweb.cern.ch/trac/lcgdm, switch to https since
> its a permanent 301 relocation.
>
> Am surprised that rpmlint does not complain about
> $ rpm -qp --scripts lcgdm-dav-devel-0.5.0-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm
> postinstall program: /sbin/ldconfig
> postuninstall program: /sbin/ldconfig
>
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Shared_libraries
I don't get it. Should i remove this from the devel package? From the docs
anything providing a shared library (or symlink) should invoke this?
> 11) lcgdm-dav-debuginfo.x86_64: E: debuginfo-without-sources
>
> Hmm indeed they are not there, see:
>
> rpmlint -I debuginfo-without-sources
>
> for info and indeed despite %{cmake} being used it's seems something
> inside mangled your cflags and you built with
>
> /usr/bin/gcc -Dlcgdmhtext_EXPORTS -D_LARGEFILE64_SOURCE -D_REENTRANT
> -DNSTYPE_DPNS -Wall -fPIC -I/usr/include/httpd -I/usr/include/apr-1
> -I/usr/include/lcgdm -I/usr/include/dpm
> -I/home/steve/rpmbuild/BUILD/lcgdm-dav-0.5.0/client -o
> CMakeFiles/lcgdmhtext.dir/htext_common.c.o -c
> /home/steve/rpmbuild/BUILD/lcgdm-dav-0.5.0/client/htext_common.c
>
> which is not
>
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Compiler_flags
I've spent some time looking at this one and couldn't find where it's
happening. I'll put a new comment as soon as i find it, and a new version of
spec/srcrpm for review.
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 745296] Review Request: drupal7-context - Allows you to manage contextual conditions and reactions of your site
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=745296 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System 2011-11-04 12:40:15 EDT --- drupal7-context-3.0-0.1.beta1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/drupal7-context-3.0-0.1.beta1.el6 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 745296] Review Request: drupal7-context - Allows you to manage contextual conditions and reactions of your site
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=745296 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System 2011-11-04 12:39:59 EDT --- drupal7-context-3.0-0.1.beta1.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/drupal7-context-3.0-0.1.beta1.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 745296] Review Request: drupal7-context - Allows you to manage contextual conditions and reactions of your site
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=745296 Fedora Update System 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 745296] Review Request: drupal7-context - Allows you to manage contextual conditions and reactions of your site
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=745296 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System 2011-11-04 12:40:23 EDT --- drupal7-context-3.0-0.1.beta1.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/drupal7-context-3.0-0.1.beta1.el5 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 745296] Review Request: drupal7-context - Allows you to manage contextual conditions and reactions of your site
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=745296 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System 2011-11-04 12:40:07 EDT --- drupal7-context-3.0-0.1.beta1.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/drupal7-context-3.0-0.1.beta1.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 745291] Review Request: drupal7-active_tags - adds a taxonomy widget with a new jQuery enabled tag entry widget
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=745291 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System 2011-11-04 12:26:47 EDT --- drupal7-active_tags-2.0-0.1.dev.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/drupal7-active_tags-2.0-0.1.dev.el6 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 745291] Review Request: drupal7-active_tags - adds a taxonomy widget with a new jQuery enabled tag entry widget
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=745291 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System 2011-11-04 12:26:24 EDT --- drupal7-active_tags-2.0-0.1.dev.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/drupal7-active_tags-2.0-0.1.dev.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 745291] Review Request: drupal7-active_tags - adds a taxonomy widget with a new jQuery enabled tag entry widget
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=745291 Fedora Update System 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 745291] Review Request: drupal7-active_tags - adds a taxonomy widget with a new jQuery enabled tag entry widget
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=745291 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System 2011-11-04 12:26:39 EDT --- drupal7-active_tags-2.0-0.1.dev.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/drupal7-active_tags-2.0-0.1.dev.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 747050] Review Request: python-postman - cli for working with Amazon SES
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=747050 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System 2011-11-04 12:25:15 EDT --- python-postman-0.5.2-4.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-postman-0.5.2-4.el6 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 745291] Review Request: drupal7-active_tags - adds a taxonomy widget with a new jQuery enabled tag entry widget
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=745291 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System 2011-11-04 12:26:54 EDT --- drupal7-active_tags-2.0-0.1.dev.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/drupal7-active_tags-2.0-0.1.dev.fc14 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 745291] Review Request: drupal7-active_tags - adds a taxonomy widget with a new jQuery enabled tag entry widget
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=745291 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System 2011-11-04 12:26:32 EDT --- drupal7-active_tags-2.0-0.1.dev.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/drupal7-active_tags-2.0-0.1.dev.el5 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 747050] Review Request: python-postman - cli for working with Amazon SES
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=747050 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System 2011-11-04 12:24:11 EDT --- python-postman-0.5.2-4.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-postman-0.5.2-4.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 751411] New: Review Request: bash-modules - Modules for bash
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: bash-modules - Modules for bash https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=751411 Summary: Review Request: bash-modules - Modules for bash Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: unspecified Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: vlisi...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Spec URL: http://trac.assembla.com/bash-modules/export/107/bash-modules/branches/bash-modules-1.0.8/bash-modules/spec/bash-modules.spec SRPM URL: http://trac.assembla.com/bash-modules/attachment/wiki/WikiStart/bash-modules-1.0.8.83-1.fc14.noarch.rpm Description: Optional modules to use with bash, like log, argument parsing, etc. All modules are designed to work in strict mode (set -u -e) and well covered by test cases. PS. Home page: http://trac.assembla.com/bash-modules -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 751102] Review Request: jetty-test-policy - Jetty test policy 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=751102 Jeff Johnston changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jjohn...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jjohn...@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 749232] Review Request: nagios-plugins-lcgdm - nagios probes for DPM / LFC nodes
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=749232
--- Comment #3 from Ricardo Rocha 2011-11-04 11:59:34
EDT ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> A quick first parse.
>
> Some similar comments to bug #749132.
>
> 1) Add details about making the tar ball.
Fixed.
> 2) CFLAGS
> It seems that Fedora and RHEL6 do have a %{cmake} macro to do all this
> for you. See $(rpm -E '%{cmake}'
> Assuming RHEL5 as well then you can case the dist tag to do it by hand.
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:DistTag and effectively implement
> the same thing by hand.
I simply started using the cmake macro and it's looking fine - even for RHEL5.
> 3) rpmlint
>
> nagios-plugins-dpm-disk.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
> nagios-plugins-dpm-head.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
>
>okay this seems to be normal for nagios-plugins even it seems wrong
>to me, precedent is there so fine.
Yes, i had followed the feedback from:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=423821#c6
The other one is E: no-binary, but i couldn't make it noarch to have it going
in /usr/lib64 along with the rest.
> 4) There are directories such as
>/etc/nrpe.d/
>/usr/lib64/nagios/plugins/lcgdm
>/usr/lib64/nagios/plugins
>/usr/lib64/nagios
> ...
>
>that you create but are not part of your package nor owned
>by something you pull in.
>
>It makes sense as you have done not to require nagios to make
>the probes easily available to other monitoring systems so you should
>at least own the directories.
>
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_and_Directory_Ownership
Thanks for the pointer, i had a new look.
I'll add the ownership of /etc/nrpe.d.
However looking at the other nagios plugins packages, they all seem to require
both nagios-common and nagios-plugins, so i was thinking of adding that to
nagios-plugins-lcgdm-common. They provide the remaining dirs.
The packages are called nagios-plugins-*, so maybe thinking that other
monitoring systems might use them is not needed?
>
> 5) When you require a sub package it should be exactly matched
>
> Requires: nagios-plugins-lcgdm-common%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
Fixed.
> 6) You duplicate
>%doc LICENSE README RELEASE-NOTES
>but they are only needed in just one package with the exception
>of the LICENSE which should be in all packages that can be installed in
>isolation as defined by the inter requires of your sub packages.
Just to make sure... should i just put the %doc LICENSE in the 3 packages
depending on nagios-plugins-lcgdm-common?
If i don't put a %doc at all, rpmlint complains of no-documentation for
package.
After the doubts above, i'll provide a new spec/srcrpm.
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 751070] Review Request: jetty-version-maven-plugin - Jetty version management Maven plugin
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=751070 sami changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #3 from sami 2011-11-04 11:55:54 EDT --- Okay let me try to build in rawhide mock -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 751083] Review Request: jetty-build-support - Jetty build support 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=751083
--- Comment #1 from sami 2011-11-04 11:49:16 EDT ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x] Rpmlint output:
rpmlint jetty-build-support-1.1-1.fc15.src.rpm
jetty-build-support.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rulesets ->
rule sets, rule-sets, runlets
That spelling is fine though.
[x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines[1].
[x] Spec file name must match the base package name, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines[2].
[x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms.
[x] Buildroot definition is not present
[x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines[3,4].
[x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type:
[!] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package is included in %doc.
It seems that jetty-distribution-remote-resources has text files of the
licenses
jetty-distribution-remote-resources/src/main/resources/LICENSE-APACHE-2.0.txt
jetty-distribution-remote-resources/src/main/resources/LICENSE-ECLIPSE-1.0.html
Not sure what the right answer here is but I guess adding these in %doc would
not hurt.
[!] All independent sub-packages have license of their own
Hmm
jetty-build-support-1.1/jetty-version-maven-plugin does not seem to have a
license.
[x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
MD5SUM this package: 997b7aa7e669e34ba15cd20e73e662db
MD5SUM upstream package: 997b7aa7e669e34ba15cd20e73e662db
[x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines[5].
[x] Package must own all directories that it creates or must require other
packages for directories it uses.
[x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x] File sections do not contain %defattr(-,root,root,-) unless changed with
good reason
[x] Permissions on files are set properly.
[x] Package does NOT have a %clean section which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}
(or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). (not needed anymore)
[x] Package consistently uses macros (no %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
mixing)
[x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
$ file -b `find . *` | sort | uniq
ASCII C++ program text
ASCII English text
ASCII English text, with very long lines
ASCII Java program text
ASCII text
ASCII text, with no line terminators
directory
exported SGML document, ASCII text
HTML document, ASCII text
HTML document, ASCII text, with very long lines
Java KeyStore
XML document text
[x] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
[x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x] Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
subpackage
[x] Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlinks)
[x] Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
[x] Javadoc subpackages have Require: jpackage-utils
[-] Package uses %global not %define
[!] If package uses tarball from VCS include comment how to re-create that
tarball (svn export URL, git clone URL, ...)
There are no git export instructions.
[-] If source tarball includes bundled jar/class files these need to be
removed prior to building
[x] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
[x] Jar files are installed to %{_javadir}/%{name}.jar (see [6] for details)
[x] If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even when
building with ant
[x] pom files has correct add_maven_depmap
=== Maven ===
[x] Use %{_mavenpomdir} macro for placing pom files instead of
%{_datadir}/maven2/poms
[-] If package uses "-Dmaven.test.skip=true" explain why it was needed in a
comment
[-] If package uses custom depmap "-Dmaven.local.depmap.file=*" explain why
it's needed in a comment
[x] Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun
[x] Packages DOES NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on
jpackage-utils for %update_maven_depmap macro
=== Other suggestions ===
[x] If possible use upstream build method (maven/ant/javac)
[x] Avoid having BuildRequires on exact NVR unless necessary
[x] Package has BuildArch: noarch (if possible)
[x] Latest version is packaged.
[x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
Tested on:
F15 X86_64
=== Issues ===
1. [!] If (and only if) the source package includes the te
[Bug 751095] Review Request: jetty-assembly-descriptors - Jetty assembly descriptors used for building
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=751095
Andrew Robinson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Robinson 2011-11-04 11:44:59
EDT ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[X] Rpmlint output:
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[X] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines[1].
[X] Spec file name must match the base package name, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[X] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines[2].
[X] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms.
[X] Buildroot definition is not present
[X] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines[3,4].
[X] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type: ASL 2.0 or EPL
[-] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package is included in %doc.
[-] All independent sub-packages have license of their own
[X] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[X] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
MD5SUM this package:24453985a19a381839b1cb56374afaea
MD5SUM upstream package:24453985a19a381839b1cb56374afaea
[X] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines[5].
[X] Package must own all directories that it creates or must require other
packages for directories it uses.
[X] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[X] File sections do not contain %defattr(-,root,root,-) unless changed with
good reason
[X] Permissions on files are set properly.
[X] Package does NOT have a %clean section which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}
(or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). (not needed anymore)
[X] Package consistently uses macros (no %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
mixing)
[X] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
[X] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[-] Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
subpackage
[-] Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlinks)
[X] Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
[X] Javadoc subpackages have Require: jpackage-utils
[-] Package uses %global not %define
[-] If package uses tarball from VCS include comment how to re-create that
tarball (svn export URL, git clone URL, ...)
[-] If source tarball includes bundled jar/class files these need to be
removed prior to building
[X] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
[X] Jar files are installed to %{_javadir}/%{name}.jar (see [6] for details)
[X] If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even when
building with ant
[X] pom files has correct add_maven_depmap
=== Maven ===
[X] Use %{_mavenpomdir} macro for placing pom files instead of
%{_datadir}/maven2/poms
[-] If package uses "-Dmaven.test.skip=true" explain why it was needed in a
comment
[-] If package uses custom depmap "-Dmaven.local.depmap.file=*" explain why
it's needed in a comment
[X] Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun
[X] Packages DOES NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on
jpackage-utils for %update_maven_depmap macro
=== Other suggestions ===
[X] If possible use upstream build method (maven/ant/javac)
[X] Avoid having BuildRequires on exact NVR unless necessary
[X] Package has BuildArch: noarch (if possible)
[X] Latest version is packaged.
[X] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
Tested on: x86_64
*** APPROVED ***
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 702143] Review Request: wallaby - configuration service for Condor pools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=702143 Tom "spot" Callaway changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|tcall...@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 725310] Review Request: osdlyrics - Show on-screen lyrics with your favorite media players
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725310 --- Comment #11 from Tom "spot" Callaway 2011-11-04 11:33:16 EDT --- Good information to have, thanks. I'll ask if that changes the guidance. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 702143] Review Request: wallaby - configuration service for Condor pools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=702143 Tom "spot" Callaway changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Blocks|177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | Flag||fedora-review+ --- Comment #11 from Tom "spot" Callaway 2011-11-04 11:32:04 EDT --- Looks good, thanks for figuring that out. This package is APPROVED. I've also sponsored you in FAS. Pick up from step 14 here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers#Install_the_Client_Tools_.28Koji.29 (You can skip step 15, I did that.) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 #10 from Ricardo Rocha 2011-11-04 11:23:35
EDT ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> Ricardo,
> If possible can you at least take the newer file from globus.org since
> is after globus switched to the apache license.
>
> Otherwise this package becomes 'ASL2.0 and Globus' where globus
> is now the old defunct Globus license which is today not fedora
> approved. There would be no problem getting it approved I'm sure
> if that's the only option.
I had to also include an additional header - globus_gsi_gss_constants.h - which
was commented in the copied file of dpm-dsi (and not in the original).
I searched for it first and couldn't find a globus package providing. Guess
i'll need to ask for this way to come with globus too.
> Mattias's suggestion to request globus exposes this header makes sense,
> could you request this so it may get fixed one day.
Bug in the fedora tracker or globus?
> New items or things I missed first time:
>
> (i) Can you parallelize the make?
> make %{?_smp_mflags}
Done.
> (ii) Source code does not match.
> Your instructions say to use
> tar -czvf dpm-dsi-1.8.2.tar.gz dpm-dsi-1.8.2
> however your .src.rpm contains a misnamed tar file only
> $ file ../SOURCES/dpm-dsi-1.8.2.tar.gz
> ../SOURCES/dpm-dsi-1.8.2.tar.gz: POSIX tar archive (GNU)
>
> Moreover when I compare what is checkout vs what is in the tar ball they
> are different.
> $ diff --brief -r dpm-dsi-1.8.2 ../SOURCES/dpm-dsi-1.8.2
> Only in ../SOURCES/dpm-dsi-1.8.2: config.status
> Only in ../SOURCES/dpm-dsi-1.8.2: Makefile
> i.e these files are only in the .src.rpm and not in the checkout.
The contents of the tarball it's my bad, i've fixed it.
Regarding the commands... i didn't get it, how is it misnamed?
> (iii) Redundant files
> %doc LICENSE RELEASE-NOTES
> are not needed in devel since it can't be installed without the main package.
Fixed.
> (iv) dpm-dsi-devel should probably Require
It Requires dpm-dsi, which Require do you mean?
> (v) Reading the init.d script
> if [ `uname -m` = "x86_64" ]; then
> LD_LIBRARY_PATH=/opt/glite/lib64:/opt/lcg/lib64:$GLOBUS_LOCATION/lib
> else
> LD_LIBRARY_PATH=/opt/glite/lib:/opt/lcg/lib:$GLOBUS_LOCATION/lib
> fi
> export LD_LIBRARY_PATH
>
> The /opt directories have no place on FHS system,
> would better to junk it or at least case it so does not get used.
Should i put a patch for this one in Fedora? It will stay upstream given the
same package is used for the gLite installations.
>
> Everything else from comment #2 is good.
>
> Other wise looking good.
I'll wait for your comments on the items above, and will provide a new version
just after.
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 751095] Review Request: jetty-assembly-descriptors - Jetty assembly descriptors used for building
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=751095 --- Comment #2 from Stanislav Ochotnicky 2011-11-04 11:19:57 EDT --- That's what I get for reusing mock multiple times :-) Fixed version uploaded. Spec URL: http://sochotni.fedorapeople.org/packages/jetty-assembly-descriptors.spec SRPM URL: http://sochotni.fedorapeople.org/packages/jetty-assembly-descriptors-1.0-2.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
