[Bug 753911] Review Request: django-profiles - A fairly simple user-profile management application for Django
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=753911 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-11-16 03:28:45 EST --- django-profiles-0.2-1.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/django-profiles-0.2-1.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 753676] Review Request: gnome-shell-extention-netspeed -an internet speed indicator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=753676 --- Comment #6 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com 2011-11-16 03:33:07 EST --- I can sponsor you once you will do some unofficial reviews. When you will do other package reviews then post that review link here to let me know. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 753900] Review Request: abi-compliance-checker - An ABI Compliance Checker
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=753900 --- Comment #3 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com 2011-11-16 03:30:32 EST --- Thanks for your comment Iain. yes license should be GPLv2+ or LGPLv2+ See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#.22or_later_version.22_licenses -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 753019] Review Request: perl-Crypt-RC4-XS - Perl implementation of the RC4 encryption algorithm
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=753019 Mathieu Bridon boche...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Mathieu Bridon boche...@fedoraproject.org 2011-11-16 03:32:13 EST --- Suggestions: 1) you don't need following in Fedora now %defattr(-,root,root,-) Right, I'll remove it. APPROVED. Thanks! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: perl-Crypt-RC4-XS Short Description: Perl implementation of the RC4 encryption algorithm Owners: bochecha Branches: f16 el6 InitialCC: perl-sig -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 638786] Review Request: guessencoding - Guess encoding of files and return configured reader
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=638786 Tomas Radej tra...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Tomas Radej tra...@redhat.com 2011-11-16 03:39:27 EST --- Funny, other packages gave me a wrong path when copying apidocs. This one does not do that, mea culpa. *** 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 750664] Review Request: drupal7-footnotes - Allows to easily create automatically numbered footnote references
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=750664 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-11-16 03:51:58 EST --- drupal7-footnotes-2.5-3.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/drupal7-footnotes-2.5-3.fc15 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 700344] Review Request: perl-Authen-CAS-Client - Interface for authentication via JA-SIG's Central Authentication Service
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=700344 Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||panem...@gmail.com --- Comment #2 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com 2011-11-16 03:50:23 EST --- Nicholas, its been some time since this package has been added for review. Are you around? If you want me to review then I can start reviewing 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 750664] Review Request: drupal7-footnotes - Allows to easily create automatically numbered footnote references
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=750664 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 750664] Review Request: drupal7-footnotes - Allows to easily create automatically numbered footnote references
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=750664 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-11-16 04:04:36 EST --- drupal7-footnotes-2.5-4.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/drupal7-footnotes-2.5-4.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 754123] Review Request: fedora-review - Tool to automate package reviews
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=754123 --- Comment #5 from Stanislav Ochotnicky socho...@redhat.com 2011-11-16 04:04:47 EST --- Actually scratch that, reuploaded -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 750664] Review Request: drupal7-footnotes - Allows to easily create automatically numbered footnote references
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=750664 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-11-16 04:13:56 EST --- drupal7-footnotes-2.5-4.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/drupal7-footnotes-2.5-4.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 750664] Review Request: drupal7-footnotes - Allows to easily create automatically numbered footnote references
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=750664 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-11-16 04:19:41 EST --- drupal7-footnotes-2.5-4.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/drupal7-footnotes-2.5-4.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 750664] Review Request: drupal7-footnotes - Allows to easily create automatically numbered footnote references
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=750664 Peter Borsa peter.bo...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2011-11-16 04:27:57 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 750664] Review Request: drupal7-footnotes - Allows to easily create automatically numbered footnote references
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=750664 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-11-16 04:25:32 EST --- drupal7-footnotes-2.5-4.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/drupal7-footnotes-2.5-4.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 752858] Review Request: perl-Qt - Perl bindings for Qt
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=752858 Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||panem...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|panem...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com 2011-11-16 04:32:04 EST --- Review:- + koji build -http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3504521 + rpmlint on a package gave perl-Qt-devel.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/perl-Qt-devel-0.96.0/examples/tools/codecs/encodedfiles/iso-8859-1.txt perl-Qt-devel.x86_64: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/share/doc/perl-Qt-devel-0.96.0/examples/linguist/hellotr/hellotr.pro [0] perl-Qt-devel.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/perl-Qt-devel-0.96.0/examples/tools/codecs/encodedfiles/iso-8859-15.txt perl-Qt-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary puic4 perl-Qt-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary prcc4_bin perl-Qt-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary qdbusxml2perl 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 5 warnings. + Source verified with upstream as (sha1sum) 147428a10da852e82c0da06307c3c45ac8dada88 Qt-0.96.0.tar.gz 147428a10da852e82c0da06307c3c45ac8dada88 ../SOURCES/Qt-0.96.0.tar.gz + make test gave 100% tests passed, 0 tests failed out of 26 Total Test time (real) = 6.11 sec + Follows packaging guidelines suggestions: 1) Fix the rpmlint warnings for file-not-utf8 for iso-8859-1.txt and iso-8859-15.txt. See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging_tricks#Convert_encoding_to_UTF-8 2) Fix the rpmlint error as given above. 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 722829] Review Request: python-bottle-sqlite - SQLite3 integration for Bottle Python WSGI framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=722829 Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo?(methe...@gmail.co ||m) --- Comment #5 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com 2011-11-16 04:35:56 EST --- what happened no builds on koji for 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 754137] Review Request: nagios-plugins-bdii - Nagios Probe for the BDII
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=754137
--- Comment #4 from laurence.fi...@cern.ch 2011-11-16 04:51:09 EST ---
Here is a new version
Spec URL: http://lfield.web.cern.ch/lfield/nagios-plugins-bdii.spec
SRPM URL: lfield.web.cern.ch/lfield/nagios-plugins-bdii-1.0.12-1.el5.src.rpm
Changes:
1) I have removed the use of buildroot for the compile and now remove the
buildroot before the install as I am also targeting EPEL5.
2) I have put the plugin in /usr/lib64/nagios/plugins/ and added this directory
to the package. I am now consistent with other nagios plugins.
rpm -ql nagios-plugins-ldap
/usr/lib64/nagios/plugins/check_ldap
/usr/lib64/nagios/plugins/check_ldaps
2.5) Having absolutely no documentation is odd. This is consistent with other
plugins (see above).
3) I have changed Url to URL in the specfile.
4) Upstream has added a license header to the source resulting in a new
version.
5) BuildRequires is now openldap-devel%{?_isa}
6) Requires: openldap has been removed from the specfile.
7) The setting of CFLAGS has been removed.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 734014] Review Request: nafees-pakistani-web-naskh-fonts nafees-pakistani-web-naskh-fonts for writing Urdu
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=734014 anish apa...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #8 from anish apa...@redhat.com 2011-11-16 04:59:11 EST --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: nafees-pakistani-web-naskh-fonts Short Description: Nafees pakistani web naskh font for writing Urdu Owners: anishpatil Branches: f16,f17 InitialCC: apa...@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 747674] Review Request: perl-ZeroMQ - ZeroMQ2 wrapper for Perl
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=747674 Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||panem...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|panem...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com 2011-11-16 05:14:55 EST --- Review:- + koji build -http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3518307 + rpmlint on rpms gave perl-ZeroMQ.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/auto/ZeroMQ/ZeroMQ.so ZeroMQ.so()(64bit) perl-ZeroMQ.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/auto/ZeroMQ/ZeroMQ.so ZeroMQ.so()(64bit) 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. + Source verified with upstream as (sha1sum) 4d96b2b89b57db8b1e80a6fa99d4c1d99713d5bc ZeroMQ-0.18.tar.gz 4d96b2b89b57db8b1e80a6fa99d4c1d99713d5bc ../SOURCES/ZeroMQ-0.18.tar.gz + make test All tests successful. Files=13, Tests=63, 8 wallclock secs ( 0.05 usr 0.02 sys + 0.73 cusr 0.11 csys = 0.91 CPU) + Package perl-ZeroMQ-0.18-1.fc17.x86_64 = Provides: ZeroMQ.so()(64bit) perl(ZeroMQ) = 0.18 perl(ZeroMQ::Constants) perl(ZeroMQ::Context) perl(ZeroMQ::Message) perl(ZeroMQ::Poller) perl(ZeroMQ::Raw) perl(ZeroMQ::Socket) Requires: libc.so.6()(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.14)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4)(64bit) libuuid.so.1()(64bit) libzmq.so.1()(64bit) perl = 0:5.008 perl(Carp) perl(Exporter) perl(IO::Handle) perl(Scalar::Util) perl(XSLoader) perl(ZeroMQ) perl(ZeroMQ::Constants) perl(ZeroMQ::Context) perl(ZeroMQ::Message) perl(ZeroMQ::Poller) perl(ZeroMQ::Raw) perl(ZeroMQ::Socket) perl(base) perl(strict) perl(warnings) rtld(GNU_HASH) Suggestions: 1) BR: on perl is really not needed 2) If building this on Fedora only then you don't need a) buidlroot b) cleaning of buildroot in %install c) %clean section d) defattr(-,root,root,-) 3) you don't need following explicit Requires: as they will get automatically pulled by yum Requires: perl(JSON) = 2.00 Requires: perl(Task::Weaken) 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 752838] Review Request: perl-TAP-Formatter-JUnit - Harness output delegate for JUnit output
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=752838 Daniel Berrange berra...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Daniel Berrange berra...@redhat.com 2011-11-16 05:43:14 EST --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: perl-TAP-Formatter-JUnit Short Description: Harness output delegate for JUnit output Owners: berrange Branches: f15 f16 InitialCC: perl-sig -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 754123] Review Request: fedora-review - Tool to automate package reviews
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=754123 --- Comment #6 from leigh scott leigh123li...@googlemail.com 2011-11-16 05:54:10 EST --- I will review 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 754123] Review Request: fedora-review - Tool to automate package reviews
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=754123 leigh scott leigh123li...@googlemail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 754123] Review Request: fedora-review - Tool to automate package reviews
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=754123 leigh scott leigh123li...@googlemail.com changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|leigh123li...@googlemail.co ||m -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 749562] Review Request: comoonics-base-py - Comoonics minimum base libraries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=749562
laurence.fi...@cern.ch changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||laurence.fi...@cern.ch
--- Comment #1 from laurence.fi...@cern.ch 2011-11-16 05:57:59 EST ---
I have had a quick look at this package to try to do an informal review as part
of my sponsorship process.
From a visual check of the specfile I have found the following issues.
1) Url: should probably be URL: as it is more conventional and it's an acronym
after all.
2) The first line in the specfile is
%{!?python_sitelib: %global python_sitelib %(%{__python} -c from
distutils.sysconfig import get_python_lib; print get_python_lib())}
However, the from reading the python packaging guidelines
(http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python) it suggests to me that it
should be the following is required.
%if 0%{?rhel} = 5
%{!?python_sitelib: %global python_sitelib %(%{__python} -c from
distutils.sysconfig import get_python_lib; print(get_python_lib()))}
%{!?python_sitearch: %global python_sitearch %(%{__python} -c from
distutils.sysconfig import get_python_lib; print(get_python_lib(1)))}
%endif
3) Again, from reading the python packaging guidelines it suggests that the
following should be used instead of BuildRequires: python-devel if targeting
python 2 and 3.
BuildRequires: python2-devel
BuildRequires: python3-devel
From running rpmlint on the src package.
1) The default file attribute should be set.
comoonics-base-py.src:30: E: files-attr-not-set
comoonics-base-py.src:31: E: files-attr-not-set
comoonics-base-py.src:32: E: files-attr-not-set
Add %defattr(-,root,root) as the first line in the %files section
2) No cleaning of build root in the %install section
comoonics-base-py.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install
Add rm -rf %{buildroot} as the first line in the %install section
3) No clean section.
comoonics-base-py.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %clean
Add to the spec file the following lines.
%clean
rm -rf %{buildroot}
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 754123] Review Request: fedora-review - Tool to automate package reviews
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=754123 --- Comment #7 from leigh scott leigh123li...@googlemail.com 2011-11-16 05:55:47 EST --- I will review 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 752447] Review Request: plasma-mobile - A Plasma Active mobile workspace
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=752447 Jaroslav Reznik jrez...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Jaroslav Reznik jrez...@redhat.com 2011-11-16 05:59:14 EST --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: plasma-mobile Short Description: A Plasma Active mobile workspace Owners: jreznik rdieter kkofler than rnovacek ltinkl 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 753583] Review Request: gedit-code-assistance - gedit plugin for code assistance for C, C++ and Objective-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=753583 Elad Alfassa el...@doom.co.il changed: What|Removed |Added CC||el...@doom.co.il AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|el...@doom.co.il Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #3 from Elad Alfassa el...@doom.co.il 2011-11-16 06:00:02 EST --- I will review this. -- Fedora Bugzappers volunteer triage team https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 752829] Review Request: glue-validator - A validation framework for GLUE 2.0 information
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=752829 --- Comment #6 from laurence.fi...@cern.ch 2011-11-16 06:02:48 EST --- First informal reviews of other packages: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=749562#c1 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 753583] Review Request: gedit-code-assistance - gedit plugin for code assistance for C, C++ and Objective-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=753583 --- Comment #4 from Elad Alfassa el...@doom.co.il 2011-11-16 06:09:08 EST --- Package looks good, although it makes gedit crash every time I open some C files, and it doesn't work as intended with other C files. I would like to debug this further before approving the package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 754137] Review Request: nagios-plugins-bdii - Nagios Probe for the BDII
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=754137 --- Comment #5 from Steve Traylen steve.tray...@cern.ch 2011-11-16 06:07:30 EST --- Add a protocol to your SRPM URL next time, easier to copy paste. Please reread http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Compiler_flags CFLAGS is not meant to be unset. Steve -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 753583] Review Request: gedit-code-assistance - gedit plugin for code assistance for C, C++ and Objective-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=753583 --- Comment #5 from Ignacio Casal Quinteiro (nacho) i...@gnome.org 2011-11-16 06:11:21 EST --- There have been quite some important fixes upstream, not yet released but that we will release soon. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 752829] Review Request: glue-validator - A validation framework for GLUE 2.0 information
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=752829 --- Comment #7 from laurence.fi...@cern.ch 2011-11-16 06:23:37 EST --- More detailed review of the comoonics-base-py package https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=749562#c2 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 749562] Review Request: comoonics-base-py - Comoonics minimum base libraries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=749562
--- Comment #2 from laurence.fi...@cern.ch 2011-11-16 06:22:28 EST ---
+:ok, =:needs attention, -:needs fixing
MUST Items:
[-] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package.
rpmlint is not silent:
comoonics-base-py.src:30: E: files-attr-not-set
comoonics-base-py.src:31: E: files-attr-not-set
comoonics-base-py.src:32: E: files-attr-not-set
The default file attribute should be set.
comoonics-base-py.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install
No cleaning of build root in the %install section
comoonics-base-py.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %clean
No clean section.
Add to the spec file the following lines.
%clean
rm -rf %{buildroot}
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 4 warnings.
[+] 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.
Check the Python Packaging Guidlines
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[+] MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package must be included in %doc.
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL.
# md5sum pius-2.0.9.tar.bz2*
md5sum comoonics-base-py-0.1.tar.gz*
b2d928a1368af23aae4d5a7c8fa3f346 comoonics-base-py-0.1.tar.gz.srcrpm
b2d928a1368af23aae4d5a7c8fa3f346 comoonics-base-py-0.1.tar.gz
[+] MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one supported 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.
[=] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires
See note on python packaging
[+] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro.
[+] MUST: Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files (not just
symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in
%post and %postun.
[+] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not
create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
create that directory.
[+] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, for example
- and %defattr not required anymore
[=] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
- Missing and submission suggests that RHEL 5 is targeted
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros
section of Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissible content. This is
described in detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: Large documentation files should go in a doc subpackage.
[+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application.
[+] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[+] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[+] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'
(for directory ownership and usability).
[+] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g.
libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in
a -devel package.
[+] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release}
[+] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be
removed in the spec.
[+] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the
%install section.
[+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
[=] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
- Missing and submission suggests that RHEL 5 is targeted
[+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
SHOULD Items:
[+] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to
[Bug 745510] Review Request: vdsm - Virtual Desktop Server Manager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=745510
--- Comment #16 from Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com 2011-11-16 06:29:03
EST ---
Thanks for correcting all of the problems that I found before.
The Source0 file appears to be generated from git. This is fine,
but it would be better to have a comment stating how to regenerate
this file. I thought this was required by the review guidelines,
but I cannot find anything that says that now; therefore this is
not a review blocker.
Here is the rest of my package review:
- rpmlint output
vdsm.src: W: invalid-url Source0: vdsm-4.9.1.tar.gz
vdsm.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency cyrus-sasl-lib
Not quite sure what rpmlint is on about here. The dependency seems OK
to me.
vdsm.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 4.9.1-0
['4.9.1-0.git31.039976c.fc16', '4.9.1-0.git31.039976c']
This should be fixed.
vdsm.x86_64: E: non-readable /etc/sudoers.d/50_vdsm 0440L
vdsm.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/sudoers.d/50_vdsm
Bug in rpmlint probably.
vdsm.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/vdsm/configNetwork.py 0644L
/usr/bin/python
Are the permissions on this script correct?
vdsm.x86_64: E: non-readable /etc/pki/vdsm/keys/libvirt_password 0600L
vdsm.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang /etc/cron.d/vdsm-libvirt-logrotate
vdsm.x86_64: E: executable-crontab-file /etc/cron.d/vdsm-libvirt-logrotate
vdsm.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/libvirt/qemu/channels 0775L
This should probably be 0755 unless you want a group to write to
this directory.
vdsm.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/vdsm/supervdsmServer.py 0644L
/usr/bin/python
As above.
vdsm.x86_64: W: non-ghost-in-var-run /var/run/vdsm
vdsm.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/udev/rules.d/12-vdsm-lvm.rules
I believe this is a bug: udev rules files that are installed from
RPMs ought to go somewhere under /lib/udev/...
vdsm.x86_64: W: non-ghost-in-var-run /var/run/vdsm/pools
vdsm.x86_64: W: service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/vdsmd
vdsm.x86_64: E: incoherent-subsys /etc/rc.d/init.d/vdsmd libvirt-guests
Just so you know, all Fedora packages MUST now include systemd
configuration. SysV-init is not required and can be removed.
vdsm.x86_64: W: service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/vdsmd
vdsm-hook-vhostmd.noarch: E: non-readable /etc/sudoers.d/50_vdsm_hook_vhostmd
0440L
vdsm-hook-vhostmd.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc
/etc/sudoers.d/50_vdsm_hook_vhostmd
vdsm-debug-plugin.noarch: W: no-documentation
vdsm-hook-faqemu.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) qemu - emu, q emu
vdsm-hook-faqemu.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary vdsm-faqemu
vdsm-cli.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/vdsm/vdsClient.py 0644L
/usr/bin/python
vdsm-cli.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/bash_completion.d/vdsClient
vdsm-bootstrap.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bootstap -
bootstrap, boots tap, boots-tap
vdsm-bootstrap.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/share/vdsm-bootstrap/vds_bootstrap_complete.py 0644L /usr/bin/python
vdsm-bootstrap.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/share/vdsm-bootstrap/vds_bootstrap.py 0644L /usr/bin/python
vdsm-reg.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ovirt_config_setup/rhevm.py 0644L
/usr/bin/python
vdsm-reg.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/ovirt-commandline.d/vdsm-reg
vdsm-reg.noarch: W: service-default-enabled /etc/init.d/vdsm-reg
vdsm-reg.noarch: W: no-reload-entry /etc/init.d/vdsm-reg
Please run rpmlint yourself and look at these errors and warnings.
Some can be ignored, but some look more serious.
+ package name satisfies the packaging naming guidelines
+ specfile name matches the package base name
? package should satisfy packaging guidelines
Fix the rpmlint problems.
+ license meets guidelines and is acceptable to Fedora
+ license matches the actual package license
+ %doc includes license file
+ spec file written in American English
+ spec file is legible
+ upstream sources match sources in the srpm
+ package successfully builds on at least one architecture
(built on x86-64)
n/a ExcludeArch bugs filed
+ BuildRequires list all build dependencies
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3518406
n/a %find_lang instead of %{_datadir}/locale/*
n/a binary RPM with shared library files must call ldconfig in %post and
%postun
+ does not use Prefix: /usr
+ package owns all directories it creates
+ no duplicate files in %files
+ package must contain code or permissible content
n/a large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage
+ files marked %doc should not affect package
n/a header files should be in -devel
n/a static libraries should be in -static
n/a packages containing pkgconfig (.pc) files need 'Requires: pkgconfig'
n/a libfoo.so must go in -devel
n/a -devel must require the fully versioned base
n/a packages should not contain libtool .la files
n/a packages containing
[Bug 754137] Review Request: nagios-plugins-bdii - Nagios Probe for the BDII
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=754137 --- Comment #6 from laurence.fi...@cern.ch 2011-11-16 06:26:34 EST --- I didn't unset it, just removed the setting of it in the Makefile. It how uses the one from the default environment. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 752858] Review Request: perl-Qt - Perl bindings for Qt
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=752858 Iain Arnell iarn...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Iain Arnell iarn...@gmail.com 2011-11-16 06:36:03 EST --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: perl-Qt Short Description: Perl bindings for Qt Owners: iarnell Branches: f15 f16 InitialCC: perl-sig -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 752858] Review Request: perl-Qt - Perl bindings for Qt
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=752858 --- Comment #3 from Iain Arnell iarn...@gmail.com 2011-11-16 06:34:54 EST --- (In reply to comment #2) suggestions: 1) Fix the rpmlint warnings for file-not-utf8 for iso-8859-1.txt and iso-8859-15.txt. That would ruin the point of the files - the example code demonstrates how to read and write files using various encodings. 2) Fix the rpmlint error as given above. That's not a script - and it's not executable. It just a text file that happens to start with a shebang. APPROVED. 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 734014] Review Request: nafees-pakistani-web-naskh-fonts nafees-pakistani-web-naskh-fonts for writing Urdu
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=734014 --- Comment #9 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2011-11-16 07:08:24 EST --- Git done (by process-git-requests). Removed incorrect branch and InitialCC values. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 752447] Review Request: plasma-mobile - A Plasma Active mobile workspace
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=752447 --- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2011-11-16 07:09:26 EST --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 751809] Review Request: perl-DateTime-TimeZone-Tzfile - Tzfile (zoneinfo) timezone 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=751809 --- Comment #3 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2011-11-16 07:08:50 EST --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 752838] Review Request: perl-TAP-Formatter-JUnit - Harness output delegate for JUnit output
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=752838 --- Comment #3 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2011-11-16 07:09:53 EST --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 753019] Review Request: perl-Crypt-RC4-XS - Perl implementation of the RC4 encryption algorithm
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=753019 --- Comment #3 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2011-11-16 07:11:03 EST --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 754137] Review Request: nagios-plugins-bdii - Nagios Probe for the BDII
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=754137 --- Comment #7 from Steve Traylen steve.tray...@cern.ch 2011-11-16 07:13:39 EST --- Look at some other examples of CFLAGS being set within Fedora .spec files. e.g http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/gitweb/?p=dpm-dsi.git;a=blob;f=dpm-dsi.spec;h=47e8319c1de19e2b98ee8c546f1a2e9f0bb6310b;hb=HEAD Steve. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 734014] Review Request: nafees-pakistani-web-naskh-fonts nafees-pakistani-web-naskh-fonts for writing Urdu
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=734014 --- Comment #10 from anish apa...@redhat.com 2011-11-16 07:14:49 EST --- Thanks Jon for correction and 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 754123] Review Request: fedora-review - Tool to automate package reviews
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=754123 Stanislav Ochotnicky socho...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #9 from Stanislav Ochotnicky socho...@redhat.com 2011-11-16 07:13:47 EST --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: fedora-review Short Description: Review tool for fedora rpm packages Owners: sochotni pingou Branches: el5 f15 f16 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 754123] Review Request: fedora-review - Tool to automate package reviews
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=754123 --- Comment #10 from Stanislav Ochotnicky socho...@redhat.com 2011-11-16 07:38:03 EST --- Correction, el5-el6 New Package SCM Request === Package Name: fedora-review Short Description: Review tool for fedora rpm packages Owners: sochotni pingou Branches: el6 f15 f16 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 754137] Review Request: nagios-plugins-bdii - Nagios Probe for the BDII
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=754137 --- Comment #8 from laurence.fi...@cern.ch 2011-11-16 07:49:21 EST --- Sorry, I misunderstood. I have uploaded a new specfile. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 754137] Review Request: nagios-plugins-bdii - Nagios Probe for the BDII
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=754137 --- Comment #9 from Steve Traylen steve.tray...@cern.ch 2011-11-16 07:53:36 EST --- Please actually check the resulting compiler flags being used rather than edit and hope. They have not changed. /usr/bin/gcc -lldap src/check_bdii_entries.c -o /afs/cern.ch/user/s/straylen/rpmbuild/BUILD/nagios-plugins-bdii-1.0.12/build/che ck_bdii_entries -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 716299] Review Request: clipit - lightweight, fully featured GTK+ clipboard manager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=716299 Nikos Roussos ni...@autoverse.net changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2011-11-16 07:59:16 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 752838] Review Request: perl-TAP-Formatter-JUnit - Harness output delegate for JUnit output
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=752838 Daniel Berrange berra...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE Last Closed||2011-11-16 08:11:07 --- Comment #4 from Daniel Berrange berra...@redhat.com 2011-11-16 08:11:07 EST --- built into rawhide -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 752836] Review Request: perl-Class-Field - Class Field Accessor Generator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=752836 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-11-16 08:31:00 EST --- perl-Class-Field-0.15-2.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Class-Field-0.15-2.fc16 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 754436] New: Review Request: libvirt-glib - libvirt glib integration for event
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: libvirt-glib - libvirt glib integration for event https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=754436 Summary: Review Request: libvirt-glib - libvirt glib integration for event Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: berra...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Spec URL: http://berrange.fedorapeople.org/review/libvirt-glib/libvirt-glib.spec SRPM URL: http://berrange.fedorapeople.org/review/libvirt-glib/libvirt-glib-0.0.1-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: This package provides integration between libvirt and the glib event loop. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 754437] New: Review Request: mingw32-libvirt-glib - libvirt glib integration for event
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: mingw32-libvirt-glib - libvirt glib integration for event https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=754437 Summary: Review Request: mingw32-libvirt-glib - libvirt glib integration for event Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: berra...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Spec URL: http://berrange.fedorapeople.org/review/mingw32-libvirt-glib/mingw32-libvirt-glib.spec SRPM URL: http://berrange.fedorapeople.org/review/mingw32-libvirt-glib/mingw32-libvirt-glib-0.0.1-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: This package provides integration between libvirt and the glib event loop. This is the mingw32 build. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 683587] Review Request: gsi-openssh - An implementation of the SSH protocol with GSI authentication
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=683587 --- Comment #19 from Andrew Elwell andrew.elw...@gmail.com 2011-11-16 08:59:36 EST --- Mock build results - EPEL5 - i386, x86_64 - Both OK INFO: Done(gsi-openssh-4.3p2-3.el5.src.rpm) Config(epel-5-i386) 7 minutes 50 seconds INFO: Done(gsi-openssh-4.3p2-3.el5.src.rpm) Config(epel-5-x86_64) 7 minutes 30 seconds EPEL6 - i386, x86_64 - Both FAILED - ERROR: Exception(gsi-openssh-5.3p1-3.el6.src.rpm) Config(epel-6-i386) 1 minutes 38 seconds ERROR: Exception(gsi-openssh-5.3p1-3.el6.src.rpm) Config(epel-6-x86_64) 0 minutes 34 seconds Error: No Package found for audit-libs-devel = 2.0.5 Fedora-14 - i386,x86_64 - Both OK INFO: Done(gsi-openssh-5.5p1-3.fc14.src.rpm) Config(fedora-14-i386) 5 minutes 15 seconds INFO: Done(gsi-openssh-5.5p1-3.fc14.src.rpm) Config(fedora-14-x86_64) 3 minutes 28 seconds Fedora-15 - i386,x86_64 - both OK INFO: Done(gsi-openssh-5.6p1-3.fc15.src.rpm) Config(fedora-15-i386) 3 minutes 46 seconds INFO: Done(gsi-openssh-5.6p1-3.fc15.src.rpm) Config(fedora-15-x86_64) 6 minutes 29 seconds Fedora-16 - i386,x86_64 - Both OK (see comment above) Fedora-17 (rawhide) - i386,x86_64 - OK INFO: Done(gsi-openssh-5.9p1-1.fc17.src.rpm) Config(fedora-rawhide-i386) 5 minutes 28 seconds INFO: Done(gsi-openssh-5.9p1-1.fc17.src.rpm) Config(fedora-rawhide-x86_64) 5 minutes 32 seconds Given the above, I'm happy to mark as OK once the EL6 one builds OK -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 752838] Review Request: perl-TAP-Formatter-JUnit - Harness output delegate for JUnit output
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=752838 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-11-16 09:15:57 EST --- perl-TAP-Formatter-JUnit-0.08-2.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-TAP-Formatter-JUnit-0.08-2.fc16 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 752838] Review Request: perl-TAP-Formatter-JUnit - Harness output delegate for JUnit output
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=752838 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-11-16 09:15:11 EST --- perl-TAP-Formatter-JUnit-0.08-2.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-TAP-Formatter-JUnit-0.08-2.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 747674] Review Request: perl-ZeroMQ - ZeroMQ2 wrapper for Perl
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=747674 Jose Pedro Oliveira j...@di.uminho.pt changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Jose Pedro Oliveira j...@di.uminho.pt 2011-11-16 09:32:43 EST --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: perl-ZeroMQ Short Description: ZeroMQ2 wrapper for Perl Owners: jpo Branches: F15 F16 InitialCC: perl-sig -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 753900] Review Request: abi-compliance-checker - An ABI Compliance Checker
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=753900 --- Comment #4 from Richard Shaw hobbes1...@gmail.com 2011-11-16 09:29:47 EST --- I have updated everything but need clarification. Iain says it's GPLv2 or LGPLv2 whereas you're saying it's GPLv2+ or LGPLv2+, but I agree with Iain here. I did not see any text in the license file that indicated it was forward compatible. SPEC: http://hobbes1069.fedorapeople.org/abi-compliance-checker/abi-compliance-checker.spec SRPM: http://hobbes1069.fedorapeople.org/abi-compliance-checker/abi-compliance-checker-1.95.9-2.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 734410] Review Request: abootimg - tool for manipulating Android boot images
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=734410
laurence.fi...@cern.ch changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||laurence.fi...@cern.ch
--- Comment #1 from laurence.fi...@cern.ch 2011-11-16 09:32:53 EST ---
+:ok, =:needs attention, -:needs fixing
MUST Items:
[-] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package.
rpmlint is not silent:
abootimg.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Porject - Project
abootimg.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Porject - Project
Spelling mistake in the specfile
abootimg.x86_64: W: non-standard-group Unspecified
abootimg.src: W: non-standard-group Unspecified
Need to specify a Group in the specfile
abootimg.src:37: E: files-attr-not-set
abootimg.src:38: E: files-attr-not-set
abootimg.src:39: E: files-attr-not-set
The default file attribute should be set.
abootimg.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install
No cleaning of build root in the %install section
abootimg.src: W: no-%clean-section
abootimg.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %clean
No clean section.
abootimg.src: W: no-buildroot-tag
abootimg.src: W: invalid-url Source0: abootimg-0.6-20110830gitff8e759.tar.gz
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 10 warnings.
[+] 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 and meet
the Licensing Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[+] MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package must be included in %doc.
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[-] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL.
- Could not general the source from the specified commands
[+] MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one supported 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.
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires
[+] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro.
[+] MUST: Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files (not just
symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in
%post and %postun.
[+] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not
create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
create that directory.
[+] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, for example
- and %defattr not required anymore
[-] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
- Missing
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros
section of Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissible content. This is
described in detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: Large documentation files should go in a doc subpackage.
[+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application.
[+] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[+] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[+] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'
(for directory ownership and usability).
[+] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g.
libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in
a -devel package.
[+] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release}
[+] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be
removed in the spec.
[+] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the
%install section.
[+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
[-] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each
[Bug 734410] Review Request: abootimg - tool for manipulating Android boot images
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=734410 --- Comment #2 from laurence.fi...@cern.ch 2011-11-16 09:35:57 EST --- I should mention that the previous review was only an informal review as part of my sponsorship process. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 752829] Review Request: glue-validator - A validation framework for GLUE 2.0 information
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=752829 --- Comment #8 from laurence.fi...@cern.ch 2011-11-16 09:34:45 EST --- Another informal review, this time for abootimg https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=734410#c1 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 683587] Review Request: gsi-openssh - An implementation of the SSH protocol with GSI authentication
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=683587 Andrew Elwell andrew.elw...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 753900] Review Request: abi-compliance-checker - An ABI Compliance Checker
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=753900 --- Comment #5 from Iain Arnell iarn...@gmail.com 2011-11-16 09:45:32 EST --- Looking again, both LICENSE.txt and doc/Readme.html state GPL or LGPL without mentioning the version - which technically means any version, i.e. GPL+ or LGPLv2+. The comments in abi-compliance-checker.pl header contain either version 2 of the Licenses, or any later version, while the usage text in the code simply says GPLv2 or LGPLv2. The best solution is to ask upstream to clarify the situation. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 754137] Review Request: nagios-plugins-bdii - Nagios Probe for the BDII
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=754137 --- Comment #10 from laurence.fi...@cern.ch 2011-11-16 09:49:39 EST --- I have updated the specfile. Here is the result from the test. rpmbuild --rebuild build/SRPMS/nagios-plugins-bdii-1.0.12-1.el5.src.rpm 2/dev/null | grep gcc /usr/bin/gcc -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m64 -mtune=generic -lldap src/check_bdii_entries.c -o /usr/src/redhat/BUILD/nagios-plugins-bdii-1.0.12/build/check_bdii_entries -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 754246] Review Request: TV-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=754246 Rudolf Kastl che...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||che...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Rudolf Kastl che...@gmail.com 2011-11-16 10:19:11 EST --- Well you made your life rather easy but unfortunately what you are doing is packaging prebuilt binaries that are built with provided libs instead of building against fedora provided libraries with the fedora provided java. todo: * package the src zip (upstream provides one) * remove lib/* * patch the build.xml or create symlinks to the appropriate libraries in lib/ * build it with ant * package the results in a working manner thanks for your effort in getting that nice application into the distribution. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 747674] Review Request: perl-ZeroMQ - ZeroMQ2 wrapper for Perl
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=747674 --- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2011-11-16 10:39:39 EST --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 753900] Review Request: abi-compliance-checker - An ABI Compliance Checker
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=753900 --- Comment #6 from Richard Shaw hobbes1...@gmail.com 2011-11-16 10:44:13 EST --- (In reply to comment #5) The best solution is to ask upstream to clarify the situation. I've emailed the primary developer. Do we want to hold up the review for this? I can update the spec once I receive an answer. Since it is unlikely that anyone will be building against this as a library it should affect any other packages. If we can continue, which license(s) should we reference? Isn't there a order of precedence for situations like this? Thanks, Richard -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 754476] New: Review Request: perl-Class-Load-XS - XS implementation of parts of Class::Load
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: perl-Class-Load-XS - XS implementation of parts of Class::Load https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=754476 Summary: Review Request: perl-Class-Load-XS - XS implementation of parts of Class::Load Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: p...@city-fan.org QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Spec URL: http://subversion.city-fan.org/repos/cfo-repo/perl-Class-Load-XS/branches/fedora/perl-Class-Load-XS.spec SRPM URL: http://www.city-fan.org/~paul/extras/perl-Class-Load-XS/perl-Class-Load-XS-0.02-2.fc17.src.rpm Description: This module provides an XS implementation for portions of Class::Load. See Class::Load for API details. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 638786] Review Request: guessencoding - Guess encoding of files and return configured reader
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=638786 Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com 2011-11-16 11:13:10 EST --- Thanks for the review New Package SCM Request === Package Name: guessencoding Short Description: Guess encoding of files and return configured reader Owners: orion Branches: f15 f16 el6 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 695058] Review Request: transgui - An App to remotely control a Transmission Bit-Torrent client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=695058 --- Comment #22 from Praveen Kumar kumarpraveen.nit...@gmail.com 2011-11-16 11:22:47 EST --- Sent mail to upstream about debuginfo, waiting for reply.Will update spec soon according to 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 753855] Review Request: pslib - C-library to create PostScript 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=753855 --- Comment #2 from Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com 2011-11-16 11:38:03 EST --- Looks like it should be LGPLv2+ and MPLv1.0 and MIT (although I think the only MIT source is bmp.* which isn't currently being built). Now, MPLv1.0 is listed and GPL incompatible, does that also apply to the LGPL? I'll report the issue with COPYING. * Wed Nov 16 2011 Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com - 0.4.5-2 - Fix encoding - Fix permissions - Fix 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 638786] Review Request: guessencoding - Guess encoding of files and return configured reader
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=638786 Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2011-11-16 11:46:56 --- Comment #9 from Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com 2011-11-16 11:46:56 EST --- Checked in and built. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 638786] Review Request: guessencoding - Guess encoding of files and return configured reader
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=638786 Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||akurt...@redhat.com Blocks|652183(FE-JAVASIG) | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 751809] Review Request: perl-DateTime-TimeZone-Tzfile - Tzfile (zoneinfo) timezone 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=751809 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 751809] Review Request: perl-DateTime-TimeZone-Tzfile - Tzfile (zoneinfo) timezone 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=751809 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-11-16 12:00:23 EST --- perl-DateTime-TimeZone-Tzfile-0.006-1.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-DateTime-TimeZone-Tzfile-0.006-1.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 751809] Review Request: perl-DateTime-TimeZone-Tzfile - Tzfile (zoneinfo) timezone 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=751809 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-11-16 12:00:35 EST --- perl-DateTime-TimeZone-Tzfile-0.006-1.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-DateTime-TimeZone-Tzfile-0.006-1.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 235925] Review Request: dnssec-tools - Is a tool set for use with signed DNS zones
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=235925 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ppi...@redhat.com --- Comment #26 from Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com 2011-11-16 12:08:23 EST --- dnssec-tools-1.11-1.fc17 contains file validator/libsres/base64.c which starts with: /* * Copyright (c) 2004 by Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. (ISC) * Copyright (c) 1996-1999 by Internet Software Consortium. * * Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software for any * purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above * copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies. * * THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED AS IS AND ISC DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES * WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF * MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS. IN NO EVENT SHALL ISC BE LIABLE FOR * ANY SPECIAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES * WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN * ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT * OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE. */ /* * Portions Copyright (c) 1995 by International Business Machines, Inc. * * International Business Machines, Inc. (hereinafter called IBM) grants * permission under its copyrights to use, copy, modify, and distribute this * Software with or without fee, provided that the above copyright notice and * all paragraphs of this notice appear in all copies, and that the name of IBM * not be used in connection with the marketing of any product incorporating * the Software or modifications thereof, without specific, written prior * permission. * * To the extent it has a right to do so, IBM grants an immunity from suit * under its patents, if any, for the use, sale or manufacture of products to * the extent that such products are used for performing Domain Name System * dynamic updates in TCP/IP networks by means of the Software. No immunity is * granted for any product per se or for any other function of any product. * * THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED AS IS, AND IBM DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, * INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A * PARTICULAR PURPOSE. IN NO EVENT SHALL IBM BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, * DIRECT, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER ARISING * OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN * IF IBM IS APPRISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. */ The first part is ICS license which is O.k. for Fedora, the second is some amendment by IBM which Fedora-suitability is not known to me. I think these two licenses should be put into package meta-data. (Current is License: BSD.) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 734410] Review Request: abootimg - tool for manipulating Android boot images
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=734410
--- Comment #3 from Yanko Kaneti yan...@declera.com 2011-11-16 12:11:21 EST
---
Thanks for the review.
abootimg.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Porject - Project
abootimg.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Porject - Project
Spelling mistake in the specfile
Fixed.
Need to specify a Group in the specfile
Not necessary. Group tag is basically deprecated from around F10..
Granted the guidelines simply do not mention it.
abootimg.src:37: E: files-attr-not-set
abootimg.src:38: E: files-attr-not-set
abootimg.src:39: E: files-attr-not-set
The default file attribute should be set.
Not necessary unless some file has explicitly wrong ones.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_Permissions
abootimg.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install
No cleaning of build root in the %install section
Not necessary.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag
abootimg.src: W: no-%clean-section
abootimg.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %clean
No clean section.
Not necessary.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#.25clean
[-] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream
source,
as provided in the spec URL.
- Could not general the source from the specified commands
The instructions certainly work for me. I'll need more details on what actually
failed for you.
[-] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
- Missing
See the %clean guidelines mentioned above.
[-] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
- Missing and submission suggests that RHEL 5 is targeted
I am not sure what makes you think the submission targets RHEL5
0.6-2.20110830gitff8e759
- Fixed a typo pointed by the first review.
Spec URL: http://declera.com/~yaneti/abootimg/abootimg.spec
SRPM URL:
http://declera.com/~yaneti/abootimg/abootimg-0.6-2.20110830gitff8e759.fc17.src.rpm
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 744349] Review Request: python-rtslib - python lib to configure TCM/LIO kernel target
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=744349 Andy Grover agro...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Andy Grover agro...@redhat.com 2011-11-16 13:47:34 EST --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-rtslib Short Description: Python API for generic SCSI target Owners: grover Branches: f16 InitialCC: ttorcz -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 744349] Review Request: python-rtslib - python lib to configure TCM/LIO kernel target
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=744349 --- Comment #7 from Andy Grover agro...@redhat.com 2011-11-16 13:55:32 EST --- Thanks for the reviews, Tomasz! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 #44 from Steve Traylen steve.tray...@cern.ch 2011-11-16 14:15:38 EST --- Ricardo, It woud be great if you update http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Grid_Computing with some of these packages Steve. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 190139] Review Request: rapidsvn - Graphical interface for the Subversion version-control system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=190139 Tim Jackson r...@timj.co.uk changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #12 from Tim Jackson r...@timj.co.uk 2011-11-16 14:24:56 EST --- Package Change Request == Package Name: rapidsvn New Branches: el6 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 #45 from Ricardo Rocha rocha.po...@gmail.com 2011-11-16 14:35:38 EST --- Done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 190139] Review Request: rapidsvn - Graphical interface for the Subversion version-control system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=190139 --- Comment #13 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2011-11-16 14:57:09 EST --- No owners listed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 744349] Review Request: python-rtslib - python lib to configure TCM/LIO kernel target
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=744349 --- Comment #8 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2011-11-16 14:58:45 EST --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 747470] Review Request: perl-Devel-CheckLib - Check that a library is available
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=747470
Jose Pedro Oliveira j...@di.uminho.pt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
CC||dw...@infradead.org
Component|Package Review |0x
Resolution||NOTABUG
Flag|fedora-review+ |
Last Closed||2011-11-16 15:02:37
--- Comment #8 from Jose Pedro Oliveira j...@di.uminho.pt 2011-11-16 15:02:37
EST ---
Marcela: Thanks for the review.
Closing: RPMS already in the {F15, F16, EL6} testing repositories.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 190139] Review Request: rapidsvn - Graphical interface for the Subversion version-control system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=190139 Tim Jackson r...@timj.co.uk changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #14 from Tim Jackson r...@timj.co.uk 2011-11-16 15:07:49 EST --- Package Change Request == Package Name: rapidsvn New Branches: el6 Owners: timj -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 754554] New: Review Request: presence - Bi-directional audio/video connections
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: presence - Bi-directional audio/video connections
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=754554
Summary: Review Request: presence - Bi-directional audio/video
connections
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Platform: All
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: medium
Priority: medium
Component: Package Review
AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org
ReportedBy: fabian.deut...@gmx.de
QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: nott...@redhat.com,
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Classification: Fedora
Story Points: ---
Type: ---
Spec URL: https://gitorious.org/valastuff/presence/blobs/spec/presence.spec
SRPM URL:
http://fabiand.fedorapeople.org/presence/presence-0.4.1-1.fc16.src.rpm
Description:
A simple tool to establish a bi-directional audio/video connection in simple
networks (aka LAN).
$ rpmlint presence.spec
presence.spec:9: W: macro-in-comment %{version}
presence.spec:10: W: macro-in-comment %{version}
presence.spec:10: W: macro-in-comment %{version}
presence.spec:11: W: macro-in-comment %{version}
presence.spec:11: W: macro-in-comment %{version}
presence.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: presence-0.4.1.tar.xz
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings.
$ rpmlint ~/rpmbuild/SRPMS/presence-0.4.1-1.fc16.src.rpm
presence.src:9: W: macro-in-comment %{version}
presence.src:10: W: macro-in-comment %{version}
presence.src:10: W: macro-in-comment %{version}
presence.src:11: W: macro-in-comment %{version}
presence.src:11: W: macro-in-comment %{version}
presence.src: W: invalid-url Source0: presence-0.4.1.tar.xz
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings.
$ rpmlint ~/rpmbuild/SRPMS/presence-0.4.1-1.fc16.src.rpm
~/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/presence-0.4.1-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm
~/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/presence-debuginfo-0.4.1-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm
presence.src:9: W: macro-in-comment %{version}
presence.src:10: W: macro-in-comment %{version}
presence.src:10: W: macro-in-comment %{version}
presence.src:11: W: macro-in-comment %{version}
presence.src:11: W: macro-in-comment %{version}
presence.src: W: invalid-url Source0: presence-0.4.1.tar.xz
presence.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary presence
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 190139] Review Request: rapidsvn - Graphical interface for the Subversion version-control system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=190139 --- Comment #15 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2011-11-16 15:11:59 EST --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 754554] Review Request: presence - Bi-directional audio/video connections
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=754554 --- Comment #1 from Fabian Deutsch fabian.deut...@gmx.de 2011-11-16 15:23:59 EST --- More about the tool at http://dummdida.blogspot.com/p/presence.html -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 711899] Review Request: opendnssec - DNSSEC key and zone management software
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=711899 --- Comment #5 from Paul Wouters p...@xelerance.com 2011-11-16 16:49:06 EST --- [paul@bofh ldns]$ git push Everything up-to-date [paul@bofh ldns]$ fedpkg build Could not initiate build: ldns-1.6.11-2.fc17 has already been built [paul@bofh ldns]$ git branch el5 el6 f12 f13 f14 f15 f16 * master I'm not sure why you only have ldns-1.6.9 ? I'll put up a new srpm later today -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 754583] New: Review Request: dnssec-trigger - Update/reconfigure DNSSEC resolving
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: dnssec-trigger - Update/reconfigure DNSSEC resolving https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=754583 Summary: Review Request: dnssec-trigger - Update/reconfigure DNSSEC resolving Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: p...@xelerance.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Spec URL: ftp://ftp.xelerance.com/dnssec-trigger/dnssec-trigger.spec SRPM URL: ftp://ftp.xelerance.com/dnssec-trigger/dnssec-trigger-0.7-1.fc14.src.rpm Description: dnssec-trigger reconfigures the local unbound DNS server. This unbound DNS server performs DNSSEC validation, but dnsesc-trigger will signal it to use the DHCP obtained forwarders if possible, and fallback to doing its own AUTH queries if that fails, and if that fails prompt the user via dnssec-trigger-applet the option to go with insecure DNS only. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 754583] Review Request: dnssec-trigger - Update/reconfigure DNSSEC resolving
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=754583 --- Comment #1 from Paul Wouters p...@xelerance.com 2011-11-16 17:05:58 EST --- $ rpmlint /home/paul/SRPMS/dnssec-trigger-0.7-1.fc14.src.rpm /home/paul/RPMS/x86_64/dnssec-trigger-0.7-1.fc14.x86_64.rpm /home/paul/RPMS/x86_64/dnssec-trigger-debuginfo-0.7-1.fc14.x86_64.rpm dnssec-trigger.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) plugin - plug in, plug-in, plugging dnssec-trigger.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dnsesc - menses, descant, descend dnssec-trigger.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) plugin - plug in, plug-in, plugging dnssec-trigger.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dnsesc - menses, descant, descend dnssec-trigger.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dnssec-trigger-panel dnssec-trigger.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dnssec-triggerd dnssec-trigger.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dnssec-trigger-control dnssec-trigger.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dnssec-trigger-control-setup 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings. Note one concern that needs addressing before adding to fedora is whether or not to enable the dns-over-port-433 fallback, that uses an open recursor at NLnetlabs.nl that has a dnssec capable validator listening at that port. It could in theory be a privacy issue (though I trust NLnetlabs as they write lots of software that runs as root, like unbound and nsd). Though they might also not be expecting as many clients as fedora might possible end up giving them. We could setup such a DNS resolver within the Fedora Project as well, where we do control the logging (eg none) I will talk to NLnetlabs, and with Adam@fedora about this, but other opinions also appreciated on this issue. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 744339] Review Request: dieharder - Random number generator tester and timer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=744339
--- Comment #17 from Jiri Hladky hladky.j...@gmail.com 2011-11-16 18:16:56
EST ---
Hi Richard,
thanks a lot for all your effort! I do really appreciate that.
Thanks also for uploading updated SPEC file. It feels like I'm now reviewing
your changes:-)
ad 1) Done.
ad 2) I have checked difference between COPYING, NOTES and README files under
libdieharder/ directory
and the top level directory and it seems to me like that COPYING, NOTES and
README files under libdieharder/ directory are just older versions of the files
in the top level.
I have contacted developer to check what is the current status of these files
and what is his opinion on splitting the main package to library and program.
I personally think that only COPYING, NOTES and README files are maintained. In
such case I would vote to move the files
COPYING
ChangeLog
Copyright
NOTES
README
from the main package to the libs package as the libs package has to be always
installed. But let's wait for the developer response first.
ad 3) Thanks for that! It was on my TODO list. I have just moved
manual/%{name}.pdf
from the devel package to the main package. Or perhaps it belongs to the libs
package? It's pretty general documentation of random number testing methodology
and then it goes to the detailed description of the tests provided by the
library.
I have uploaded new version of SPEC file and source rpm to this location:
Spec URL: http://jhladky.fedorapeople.org/dieharder.spec
SRPM URL: http://jhladky.fedorapeople.org/dieharder-3.31.1-3.fc16.src.rpm
I will post update here as soon as I get response from the author.
Thanks
Jirka
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 744339] Review Request: dieharder - Random number generator tester and timer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=744339 --- Comment #18 from Richard Shaw hobbes1...@gmail.com 2011-11-16 18:44:43 EST --- (In reply to comment #17) ad 2) I have checked difference between COPYING, NOTES and README files under libdieharder/ directory and the top level directory and it seems to me like that COPYING, NOTES and README files under libdieharder/ directory are just older versions of the files in the top level. That may be, but one thing I noticed when doing a diff of the two COPYING files: $ diff -u COPYING libdieharder/COPYING --- COPYING 2011-10-14 08:41:37.0 -0500 +++ libdieharder/COPYING 2011-10-14 08:41:37.0 -0500 @@ -1,8 +1,8 @@ -$Id: COPYING 215 2006-07-25 18:57:50Z rgb $ +$Id: COPYING 221 2006-08-16 22:43:03Z rgb $ License is granted to build or use the accompanying software: - dieharder + libdieharder according to the following standard Gnu General Public License or any later versions, with the one minor Beverage modification listed below. --- The files specifically callout dieharder and libdieharder. I'm not familiar enough with the legalease of software licenses but the safest thing to do is how I set things up in my spec. Hopefully the developer will clarify. As far as the manual goes, since it has instructions for the binary, I would keep it in the main package. I think you're pretty much done, just change the documentation as necessary depending on what the developer says. I already did the review but it's on my work computer so instead of doing it all over again I'll approve your package first thing in the morning! Richard -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 732215] Review Request: mined - Powerful Text Editor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=732215 --- Comment #9 from Matthieu Saulnier casper.le.fan...@gmail.com 2011-11-16 19:51:12 EST --- Hello, This is a new version of the package. Spec URL: http://fantom.fedorapeople.org/mined.spec SRPM URL: http://fantom.fedorapeople.org/mined-2011.19-1.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 700344] Review Request: perl-Authen-CAS-Client - Interface for authentication via JA-SIG's Central Authentication Service
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=700344 --- Comment #3 from Nicholas van Oudtshoorn vano...@gmail.com 2011-11-16 19:53:51 EST --- Hi Parag, Yes - I'm still around! (Although the priority of this isn't huge - just chipping away at getting the dependencies for Koha ILS packaged one of these years). If you feel up for a review - go for it! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 Bug 744340 depends on bug 744349, which changed state. Bug 744349 Summary: Review Request: python-rtslib - python lib to configure TCM/LIO kernel target https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=744349 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Status|NEW |CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 744349] Review Request: python-rtslib - python lib to configure TCM/LIO kernel target
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=744349 Andy Grover agro...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2011-11-16 20:45:39 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 744347] Review Request: python-simpleparse - a parser generator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=744347 Andy Grover agro...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2011-11-16 20:45:22 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
