[Bug 683790] Review Request: rubygem-hoe-yard - A Hoe plug-in for generating YARD documentation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=683790
--- Comment #7 from Bohuslav Kabrda 2011-11-18 01:55:50
EST ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> > - You don't need to specify BuildRoot tag, see [2]
> - I know, as there is still open possibility to have this for EPEL in future,
> I
> keep it there.
Ah, I see. All right.
> > - You don't need to use the "%defattr(-, root, root, -)" line, see [3]
> - Yes, I'm aware of that, however i prefer to keep it there
>
Any reasons for this? If it is not necessary, I recommend putting it away.
> > - Consider moving documentation into a subpackage (except of README.rdoc,
> > which contains licensing info and therefore should be left in the main
> > package).
> - Documentation is too small to put it into subpackage, not worth of effort.
>
Ok, this is not a blocker, but next time, consider using gem2rpm from package
rubygem-gem2rpm, which will generate a nice scaffold and you won't have to take
care of this yourself.
> > - rpmbuild complains about History.rdoc and Manifest.txt listed twice. To
> > solve
> > it:
> > ** the package shouldn't own the whole %{gemdir}/gems/%{gemname}-%{version}/
> > directory (BTW you can use %{geminstdir} instead of it), but should rather
> > own
> > %dir %{geminstdir}
> > ** when you do that, you will need to add every subdirectory and file in
> > %{geminstdir} to %files, but you will be able to avoid the complaints about
> > files listed twice
> - Could not reproduce, works for me correctly (rpmlint-1.3.2).
Actually, you don't have to use rpmlint (and you are correct, it doesn't show
this warning), it is written in build log, see my scratch build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=3523114&name=build.log
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 754892] Review Request: perl-DBIx-Array - This module is a wrapper around DBI with array interfaces
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=754892 mrdvt92 changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 754892] New: Review Request: perl-DBIx-Array - This module is a wrapper around DBI with array interfaces
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-DBIx-Array - This module is a wrapper around DBI with array interfaces https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=754892 Summary: Review Request: perl-DBIx-Array - This module is a wrapper around DBI with array interfaces Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: unspecified Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: da...@geocities.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Spec URL: http://linux.davisnetworks.com/yumrepo/fc/16/SPEC/perl-DBIx-Array.spec SRPM URL: http://linux.davisnetworks.com/yumrepo/fc/16/SRPMS/perl-DBIx-Array-0.22-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: This module is for people who truly understand SQL and who understand Perl data structures. If you understand how to modify your SQL to meet your data requirements then this module is for you. --- This is my package from CPAN http://search.cpan.org/dist/DBIx-Array/ that I'd like to get into Fedora. FE-NEEDSPONSOR: This is not my first package on Fedora (e.g. perl-Geo-Ellipsoids) but this will be the first one that I'll be maintaining. So, I will need a sponsor. I've worked with Miroslav Lichvar on gpsd in the past so I was hoping to con him into the task. Thanks, Mike mrdvt92 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 754848] Review Request: python-webob1.0 - WSGI request and response object
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=754848 Steve Traylen changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |python-webob10 - WSGI |python-webob1.0 - WSGI |request and response object |request and response object --- Comment #2 from Steve Traylen 2011-11-17 23:30:44 EST --- > This package should be named python-webob1.0 for consistency with others of > its > ilk. I'll do that in 12 hours if no one beats me to it. http://cern.ch/straylen/rpms/python-webob10/python-webob1.0.spec http://cern.ch/straylen/rpms/python-webob10/python-webob1.0-1.0.8-3.el6.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 705372] Review Request: perl-Unicode-LineBreak - UAX #14 Unicode Line Breaking 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=705372 --- Comment #13 from Xavier Bachelot 2011-11-17 21:33:32 EST --- Emmanuel, Petr, based on the above comments, I'm not sure if I need to filter the duplicates provides or not. Also, the referenced ticket and draft confused me more than it helped and I need to study them again. I'll wait for an answer whether to filter the duplicate provide or not before changing the filtering to accommodate for all 3 variants (EL5; F14/EL6; F15+) Anyway, upstream released a new version : http://www.bachelot.org/fedora/SPECS/perl-Unicode-LineBreak.spec http://www.bachelot.org/fedora/SRPMS/perl-Unicode-LineBreak-2011.11-1.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 754879] New: Review Request: kup - Kernel.org Uploader
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: kup - Kernel.org Uploader https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=754879 Summary: Review Request: kup - Kernel.org Uploader Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: unspecified Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: i...@fedoraproject.org QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~icon/f/kup.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~icon/f/kup-0.3-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: Kup is a secure upload tool used by kernel developers to upload cryptographically verified packages to kernel.org. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 751722] Review Request: ghc-hakyll - Static website compiler library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=751722 Jens Petersen changed: What|Removed |Added Status Whiteboard|Ready | Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Jens Petersen 2011-11-17 19:54:45 EST --- Thank you very for reviewing the package. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: ghc-hakyll Short Description: Static website compiler library Owners: petersen Branches: f16 f15 el6 InitialCC: haskell-sig -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 705587] Review Request: android-tools - Android platform tools (adb, fastboot, etc)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=705587 --- Comment #18 from nucleo 2011-11-17 18:51:54 EST --- adb ans fastboot are statically linked with libzipfile (adb also with libcutils). Can you modify makefiles for using shared libs? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 754848] Review Request: python-webob10 - WSGI request and response object
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=754848 Pádraig Brady changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pbr...@redhat.com --- Comment #1 from Pádraig Brady 2011-11-17 18:44:21 EST --- This specific version of python-webob is being suggested for el6 because it's needed by the diablo release of openstack. I've requested a rebase against RHEL6.3 but in the meantime we need this package. This package should be named python-webob1.0 for consistency with others of its ilk. I'll do that in 12 hours if no one beats me to it. Thanks again 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 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 changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System 2011-11-17 18:32:29 EST --- perl-DateTime-TimeZone-Tzfile-0.006-1.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 testing repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 746079] Review Request: rubygem-grit library for extracting info from a git repository in Ruby
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=746079 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||rubygem-grit-2.4.1-2.fc16 Resolution||ERRATA Last Closed||2011-11-17 18:25:54 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System 2011-11-17 18:25:54 EST --- rubygem-grit-2.4.1-2.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 723756] Review Request: bliss - Compute automorphism groups and canonical labelings of graphs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=723756 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System 2011-11-17 18:27:12 EST --- bliss-0.72-2.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 testing repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 705587] Review Request: android-tools - Android platform tools (adb, fastboot, etc)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=705587
--- Comment #17 from nucleo 2011-11-17 17:46:46 EST
---
So if there are tags available then maybe it would be more correct to use tag
number in Version and %{date}git%{git_commit} in Release as for pre-release
packages?
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Pre-Release_packages
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 705587] Review Request: android-tools - Android platform tools (adb, fastboot, etc)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=705587 --- Comment #16 from nucleo 2011-11-17 17:39:44 EST --- "(adb, fastboot, etc)" should not be in Summary (The summary should be a short and concise description of the package. The description expands upon this.) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Summary_and_description If you want yum search to find adb and fastboot than you can add Provides: adb Provides: fastboot -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 747357] Review Request: geronimo-validation - Geronimo implementation of JSR 303
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=747357
Andrew Robinson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Robinson 2011-11-17 17:32:00
EST ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[X] Rpmlint output:
geronimo-validation.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
geronimo-validation_1.0_spec-1.1.tar.xz
The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL.
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
[X] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines[1].
[X] Spec file name must match the base package name, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[X] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines[2].
[X] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms.
[X] Buildroot definition is not present
[X] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines[3,4].
[X] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type: APL 2.0
[X] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package is included in %doc.
[X] All independent sub-packages have license of their own
[X] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[X] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
MD5SUM this package:c657b56c21c70a4142e92c468d98ea05
MD5SUM upstream package:68058ee8dbe90cc6554e8b8ca7113cf8
Recursive diff of extracted tarballs produced no differences, so probably a
compression issue. Not a blocker.
[X] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines[5].
[X] Package must own all directories that it creates or must require other
packages for directories it uses.
[X] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[X] File sections do not contain %defattr(-,root,root,-) unless changed with
good reason
[X] Permissions on files are set properly.
[X] Package does NOT have a %clean section which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}
(or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). (not needed anymore)
[X] Package consistently uses macros (no %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
mixing)
[X] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
[X] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[X] Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
subpackage
[X] Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlinks)
[X] Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
[X] Javadoc subpackages have Require: jpackage-utils
[X] Package uses %global not %define
[X] If package uses tarball from VCS include comment how to re-create that
tarball (svn export URL, git clone URL, ...)
[-] If source tarball includes bundled jar/class files these need to be
removed prior to building
[X] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
[X] Jar files are installed to %{_javadir}/%{name}.jar (see [6] for details)
[X] If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even when
building with ant
[X] pom files has correct add_maven_depmap
=== Maven ===
[X] Use %{_mavenpomdir} macro for placing pom files instead of
%{_datadir}/maven2/poms
[-] If package uses "-Dmaven.test.skip=true" explain why it was needed in a
comment
[-] If package uses custom depmap "-Dmaven.local.depmap.file=*" explain why
it's needed in a comment
[X] Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun
[X] Packages DOES NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on
jpackage-utils for %update_maven_depmap macro
=== Other suggestions ===
[X] If possible use upstream build method (maven/ant/javac)
[X] Avoid having BuildRequires on exact NVR unless necessary
[X] Package has BuildArch: noarch (if possible)
[X] Latest version is packaged.
[X] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
Tested on: x86_64
*** APPROVED ***
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 747357] Review Request: geronimo-validation - Geronimo implementation of JSR 303
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=747357 Andy Grimm changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|needinfo?(agr...@gmail.com) | --- Comment #3 from Andy Grimm 2011-11-17 17:13:15 EST --- Fixed here: SPEC: http://downloads.eucalyptus.com/software/devel/fedora-16-gwt/SPECS/geronimo-validation.spec SRPM: http://downloads.eucalyptus.com/software/devel/fedora-16-gwt/SRPMS/geronimo-validation-1.1-3.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 737286] Review Request: salt - A parallel remote execution 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=737286 --- Comment #4 from Clint Savage 2011-11-17 17:04:17 EST --- Updated SRPM and spec file below. SRPM: http://herlo.fedorapeople.org/rpms/salt-0.9.3-1.el6.src.rpm SPEC: http://herlo.fedorapeople.org/rpms/salt.spec Thank you for reviewing this package. Clint -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 747448] Review Request: joda-convert - Java library for conversion to and from standard string formats
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=747448 --- Comment #2 from Andy Grimm 2011-11-17 16:50:22 EST --- oops, I guess there are two different download methods, and I did one and documented the other. Anyway, I've fixed that and updated to 1.2 (which, FWIW, was released after I submitted this package). New SRPM and SPEC: SPEC: http://downloads.eucalyptus.com/software/devel/fedora-16-gwt/SPECS/joda-convert.spec SRPM: http://downloads.eucalyptus.com/software/devel/fedora-16-gwt/SRPMS/joda-convert-1.2-1.fc16.src.rpm Thanks for reviewing. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 747357] Review Request: geronimo-validation - Geronimo implementation of JSR 303
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=747357
Andrew Robinson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Flag||needinfo?(agr...@gmail.com)
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Robinson 2011-11-17 16:53:36
EST ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[X] Rpmlint output:
geronimo-validation.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
geronimo-validation_1.0_spec-1.1.tar.xz
The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL.
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
[X] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines[1].
[X] Spec file name must match the base package name, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[X] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines[2].
[X] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms.
[X] Buildroot definition is not present
[X] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines[3,4].
[X] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type: APL 2.0
[X] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package is included in %doc.
[X] All independent sub-packages have license of their own
[X] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[X] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
MD5SUM this package:c657b56c21c70a4142e92c468d98ea05
MD5SUM upstream package:68058ee8dbe90cc6554e8b8ca7113cf8
Recursive diff of extracted tarballs produced no differences, so probably a
compression issue. Not a blocker.
[X] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines[5].
[X] Package must own all directories that it creates or must require other
packages for directories it uses.
[X] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[X] File sections do not contain %defattr(-,root,root,-) unless changed with
good reason
[X] Permissions on files are set properly.
[X] Package does NOT have a %clean section which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}
(or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). (not needed anymore)
[X] Package consistently uses macros (no %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
mixing)
[X] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
[X] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[X] Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
subpackage
[X] Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlinks)
[X] Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
[!] Javadoc subpackages have Require: jpackage-utils
[X] Package uses %global not %define
[X] If package uses tarball from VCS include comment how to re-create that
tarball (svn export URL, git clone URL, ...)
[-] If source tarball includes bundled jar/class files these need to be
removed prior to building
[X] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
[X] Jar files are installed to %{_javadir}/%{name}.jar (see [6] for details)
[X] If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even when
building with ant
[X] pom files has correct add_maven_depmap
=== Maven ===
[X] Use %{_mavenpomdir} macro for placing pom files instead of
%{_datadir}/maven2/poms
[-] If package uses "-Dmaven.test.skip=true" explain why it was needed in a
comment
[-] If package uses custom depmap "-Dmaven.local.depmap.file=*" explain why
it's needed in a comment
[X] Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun
[X] Packages DOES NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on
jpackage-utils for %update_maven_depmap macro
=== Other suggestions ===
[X] If possible use upstream build method (maven/ant/javac)
[X] Avoid having BuildRequires on exact NVR unless necessary
[X] Package has BuildArch: noarch (if possible)
[X] Latest version is packaged.
[X] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
Tested on: x86_64
=== Issues ===
1. Add requires for jpackage-utils to javadoc subpackage.
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines
[2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines
[3] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines
[4] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main
[5] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2
[6] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#File
[Bug 747429] Review Request: sablecc - A parser generator written in Java
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=747429 Andy Grimm changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Andy Grimm 2011-11-17 16:53:44 EST --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: sablecc Short Description: A parser generator written in Java Owners: arg Branches: 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 754749] Review Request: perl-Glib-Object-Introspection - Dynamically create Perl language bindings
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=754749 Emmanuel Seyman changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||emmanuel.seyman@club-intern ||et.fr AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|emmanuel.seyman@club-intern ||et.fr Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Emmanuel Seyman 2011-11-17 16:49:20 EST --- Taking. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 754848] New: Review Request: python-webob10 - WSGI request and response object
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: python-webob10 - WSGI request and response object https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=754848 Summary: Review Request: python-webob10 - WSGI request and response object Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: steve.tray...@cern.ch QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Spec URL: http://cern.ch/straylen/rpms/python-webob10/python-webob10.spec SRPM URL: http://cern.ch/straylen/rpms/python-webob10/python-webob10-1.0.8-2.el6.src.rpm Description: WebOb provides wrappers around the WSGI request environment, and an object to help create WSGI responses. The objects map much of the specified behavior of HTTP, including header parsing and accessors for other standard parts of the environment. Scratch Build http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3522731 this is an EPEL6 only 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 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 #6 from Stanislav Ochotnicky 2011-11-17 16:25:54 EST --- (In reply to comment #5) > (In reply to comment #4) > > (In reply to comment #3) > > > > Another thing: Upstream version is 0.4 not 0.4.1. Version numbers in > > > > Fedora > > > > should match versions from upstream tarball. I know you are upstream, > > > > but it's > > > > still better to be consistent. > > > > > > I actually pushed the tag for presence-0.4.1, this should match upstream. > > > Or am > > > I missing something? > > > > Well, configure.ac in tarball states it's version 0.4 so I assumed that. But > > you're right that it's created from 0.4.1 tag so I guess it's more of a > > configure.ac problem. > > Ah yes, I need to get used to update all those relevant places ... > One question remains for me: How do I "mark" the software as GPLv2+ (and not > just GPLv2)? This is usually done by adding "or (at your option) any later version" to licensing headers of source files. Look for "How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs" in your COPYING file. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 574545] Review Request: python26-mysqldb : Interface to MySQL for python26 on EPEL5
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=574545
--- Comment #8 from Ricardo Rocha 2011-11-17 16:18:07
EST ---
Review of python26-mysqldb:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=574545
Package builds with mock in a EL5 machine, and koji also succeeds:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3522613
EL6 and F16 fail, but this is not targetted at those.
+:ok, =:needs attention, -:needs fixing
MUST Items:
[+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package.
rpmlint is not silent, but it looks reasonable.
E: no-binary
W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
This is the same issue as for nagios packages i guess, python site-packages in
under /usr/$libdir/python2.6/site-packages.
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
Follows the rest of the python26-* packages.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}
[-] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines.
See below.
[-] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
Sources mention GPL (in metadata.cfg and README), and according to the
guidelines:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#SoftwareLicenses
...
A GPL or LGPL licensed package that lacks any statement of what version that
it's licensed under in the source code/program output/accompanying docs is
technically licensed under *any* version of the GPL or LGPL, not just the
version in whatever COPYING file they include.
So i guess it should be GPL+, not GPLv2 (or at least GPLv2+).
[+] 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.
The source package does not contain the license file.
[+] 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 MySQL-python-1.2.3.tar.gz*
215eddb6d853f6f4be5b4afc4154292f MySQL-python-1.2.3.tar.gz
215eddb6d853f6f4be5b4afc4154292f MySQL-python-1.2.3.tar.gzsrc
[+] MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one supported architecture.
Targeted only at EPEL5, works.
[+] 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
It does build without, but according to the python guidelines you need
python26-devel:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires
[+] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro.
Not used.
[+] 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.
Package has a _mysql.so, but not in a default path.
[+] 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. Every %files section must include a
%defattr(...) line.
[+] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
[+] 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.
Not the case.
[+] 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.
No header files.
[+] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
No static libraries.
[+] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'
(for directory ownership and usability).
No pkgconfig.
[+] 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.
Only _mysql.so is provided.
[+] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release}
No -devel.
[+] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, the
[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 #12 from leigh scott 2011-11-17 16:05:53 EST --- Can you add something about fedora-review tool to the wiki? https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process#Reviewer -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 744340] Review Request: targetcli - Configuration shell for kernel target subsystem
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=744340 Andy Grover changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2011-11-17 16:06:34 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 #20 from Jiri Hladky 2011-11-17 16:08:43 EST --- Hi Richard, thanks a lot for the reviewing the package. It's my fourth package for Fedora and I always learn something new. I'm still waiting for the reply from the author. I will let you know as soon as I get feedback from him. Thanks Jiri -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 752223] Review Request: racoon2 - an implementation of key management system for IPsec
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=752223
--- Comment #34 from Ben Thompson 2011-11-17 15:49:04 EST ---
Package Review (Informal)
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
C/C++
[x] : MUST - Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x] : MUST - Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
Generic
[x] : MUST - Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported architecture.
[x] : MUST - Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}
(or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).(EPEL6 & Fedora < 13)
[x] : MUST - %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[x] : MUST - Each %files section contains %defattr
[x] : MUST - Permissions on files are set properly.
[x] : MUST - Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x] : MUST - Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x] : MUST - Package run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) and the
beginning of %install. (EPEL5)
[x] : MUST - Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[!] : MUST - Rpmlint output is silent.
rpmlint racoon2-debuginfo-20100526a-8.fc17.i686.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
rpmlint racoon2-20100526a-8.fc17.src.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
rpmlint racoon2-20100526a-8.fc17.i686.rpm
racoon2.i686: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/racoon2/hook/functions
racoon2.i686: E: non-executable-script /etc/racoon2/hook/functions
0644L /bin/sh
racoon2.i686: E: non-readable /etc/racoon2/transport_ike.conf 0600L
racoon2.i686: E: non-readable /etc/racoon2/racoon2.conf 0600L
racoon2.i686: E: non-readable /etc/racoon2/vals.conf 0600L
racoon2.i686: E: non-readable /etc/racoon2/tunnel_ike.conf 0600L
racoon2.i686: E: non-readable /etc/racoon2/local-test.conf 0600L
racoon2.i686: E: non-readable /etc/racoon2/tunnel_ike_natt.conf 0600L
racoon2.i686: E: non-readable /etc/racoon2/transport_kink.conf 0600L
racoon2.i686: E: non-readable /etc/racoon2/default.conf 0600L
racoon2.i686: E: non-readable /etc/racoon2/tunnel_kink.conf 0600L
racoon2.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary iked
racoon2.i686: W: dangerous-command-in-%post chmod
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 10 errors, 3 warnings.
[x] : MUST - Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
/mnt/docs/development/fedora-git/FedoraReview/src/752223/racoon2-20100526a.tgz
:
MD5SUM this package : 2fa33abff1ccd6fc22876a23db77aaa8
MD5SUM upstream package : 2fa33abff1ccd6fc22876a23db77aaa8
[x] : MUST - Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x] : MUST - Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x] : MUST - File names are valid UTF-8.
[x] : SHOULD - Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x] : SHOULD - Dist tag is present.
[!] : SHOULD - SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
Source0:
http://ftp.racoon2.wide.ad.jp/pub/racoon2/racoon2-20100526a.tgz
(racoon2-20100526a.tgz)
Patch0: racoon2-autotools.patch (racoon2-autotools.patch)
Patch1: racoon2-systemd.patch (racoon2-systemd.patch)
[x] : SHOULD - SourceX is a working URL.
[x] : SHOULD - Spec use %global instead of %define.
Issues:
[!] : MUST - Buildroot is correct (EPEL5 & Fedora < 10)
Multiple BuildRoot definitions found
[!] : MUST - Rpmlint output is silent.
rpmlint racoon2-debuginfo-20100526a-8.fc17.i686.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
rpmlint racoon2-20100526a-8.fc17.src.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
rpmlint racoon2-20100526a-8.fc17.i686.rpm
===
[Bug 747357] Review Request: geronimo-validation - Geronimo implementation of JSR 303
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=747357 Andrew Robinson changed: What|Removed |Added CC||arobi...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|arobi...@redhat.com --- Comment #1 from Andrew Robinson 2011-11-17 15:48:40 EST --- I'll review this. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System 2011-11-17 15:24:02 EST --- django-profiles-0.2-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 #25 from Fedora Update System 2011-11-17 14:51:33 EST --- gsi-openssh-5.6p1-3.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gsi-openssh-5.6p1-3.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 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 #23 from Fedora Update System 2011-11-17 14:51:09 EST --- gsi-openssh-5.3p1-3.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gsi-openssh-5.3p1-3.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 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 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |MODIFIED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 #24 from Fedora Update System 2011-11-17 14:51:19 EST --- gsi-openssh-4.3p2-3.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gsi-openssh-4.3p2-3.el5 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 #26 from Fedora Update System 2011-11-17 14:51:41 EST --- gsi-openssh-5.8p2-2.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gsi-openssh-5.8p2-2.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 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 #5 from Fabian Deutsch 2011-11-17 14:45:23 EST --- (In reply to comment #4) > (In reply to comment #3) > > > Another thing: Upstream version is 0.4 not 0.4.1. Version numbers in > > > Fedora > > > should match versions from upstream tarball. I know you are upstream, but > > > it's > > > still better to be consistent. > > > > I actually pushed the tag for presence-0.4.1, this should match upstream. > > Or am > > I missing something? > > Well, configure.ac in tarball states it's version 0.4 so I assumed that. But > you're right that it's created from 0.4.1 tag so I guess it's more of a > configure.ac problem. Ah yes, I need to get used to update all those relevant places ... One question remains for me: How do I "mark" the software as GPLv2+ (and not just GPLv2)? I've updated the spec at https://gitorious.org/valastuff/presence/blobs/spec/presence.spec The new srpm is here http://fabiand.fedorapeople.org/presence/presence-0.4.2-1.fc15.src.rpm and the corresponding koji task is http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3522354 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 749232] Review Request: nagios-plugins-lcgdm - nagios probes for DPM / LFC nodes
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=749232
--- Comment #7 from Ricardo Rocha 2011-11-17 14:13:19
EST ---
Hi.
See explanations below before i provide a new package (if one is needed).
> [=] 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.
> /etc/nagios.d is now owned or required but see below.
>
> Also you should probably own.
>
> /usr/share/pnp4nagios
> /usr/share/pnp4nagios/lcgdm-templates
I'll double check this one. It looks line pnp4nagios provides
/usr/share/nagios/html/pnp4nagios, so maybe it's more logical to add a lcgdm
directory there.
> Comments:
> 1) The layout of files between packages does not make sense to me.
>e.g.
>nagios-plugins-lcgdm-0.4.0-3.fc16.x86_64.rpm
>contains
>/usr/share/pnp4nagios/lcgdm-templates/check_dpm_perf.php
>and all the php4nagios files
>but
>nagios-plugins-dpm-head-0.4.0-3.fc16.x86_64.rpm
>contains
>/usr/lib64/nagios/plugins/lcgdm/check_dpm_perf
>
>there should be some correlation between files for the same probe
>or alternativley probes in one and php4nagios files in another
>though the first is a better option.
I didn't put them with the probe, as the probe is to be run on the monitored
host, while the template is needed in the monitoring host (where the web
interface is running). Unless we also install all the probes in the Nagios
host, but they're really not needed as they're run remotely with nrpe.
The current layout is pretty much one rpm per 'node type' - dpm-head, dpm-disk,
lfc and lcgdm (lcgdm meaning the nagios master itself,
nagios-plugins-lcgdm-nagios being a weird name).
The second option you suggest is splitting the templates into additional
packages following the probe layout? Something like:
nagios-templates-dpm-head|dpm-disk|lfc?
I couldn't find any existing packages with names suggesting this.
> 2) You have
>%define debug_package %{nil}
>this must be justified with a comment or removed.
If i remove it i get from rpmlint:
...
nagios-plugins-lcgdm-debuginfo.x86_64: E: empty-debuginfo-package
and as it was an error i added it. There's nothing in the packages generating
debuginfo, i guess that's why it's empty (they're all python probes).
> 3) I don't understand the /etc/nagios.d directory at least on
>Centos6 where I am looking nagios does not contain this directory,
>is this something you are introducing? I presume these
>are probe configuration files.
I guess it is. Nagios gives the option of a confdir (or several), and
/etc/nagios.d seemed logical, although it does not seem to be standard. Should
we call it something else or simply own it like this? Maybe /etc/nagios.lcgdm.d
instead just to make sure we don't clash?
> 4) arch vs noarch, I appreciate the problem that the path is
>architecture dependent when it comes to nagios locations
>reguardless of the file contents.
>If after reording the files between packages you end
>up with out a non-architecture path then that sub package
>can be marked noarch except for on .el5.
>
>Someone really should tackle this in a future nagios version but
>not your problem for now.
All the packages have probes, so i guess for now they can't be noarch?
> 5) Adding nagios-common and nagios-plugins is probably
>fine. I think neither of these actually require nagios which is
>worth leaving behind.
Yes, confirmed.
> 6) As long as LICENSE is pulled in by every package that can
>be installed in isolation to the others you are fine, more
>over you should not supply it elsewhere.
Only provided in lcgdm-common, guess it is ok?
I'll provide a new version right after these issues are cleared up.
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 590387] Review Request: lcms2 - Color Management 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=590387 --- Comment #18 from Richard Hughes 2011-11-17 13:47:15 EST --- Xavier, I intended to build these, but got lost along the way. If you want to maintain them in EPEL I would be happy for the help. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 #25 from Martin Gieseking 2011-11-17
13:41:55 EST ---
(In reply to comment #23)
> Added manual, disabled debuginfo package because it's not generate those
> debuginfo for which rpm is looking for.
Disabling the generation of the debuginfo package is not a good idea. You can
easily enable the generation of the debug data by patching the Makefiles. Just
replace the options "-g-" with "-g" (see attached patch).
Also, don't compress the manpage manually. Instead, add the uncompressed file
with Source2, and replace %{_mandir}/man1/%{name}.1.gz with
%{_mandir}/man1/%{name}.1* in %files. rpmbuild automatically chooses a
compression format and applies 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 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 Richard Shaw changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #19 from Richard Shaw 2011-11-17 13:44:07 EST --- +: OK -: must be fixed =: should be fixed (at your discretion) ?: Question or clairification needed N: not applicable MUST: [+] rpmlint output: shown in comment: none [+] follows package naming guidelines [+] spec file base name matches package name [+] package meets the packaging guidelines [+] package uses a Fedora approved license: GPLv2+ [+] license field matches the actual license. [+] license file is included in %doc: COPYING [+] spec file is in American English [+] spec file is legible [+] sources match upstream: md5sum matches (b57404dfb812d4548caaf71a05be2d17) [+] package builds on at least one primary arch: Tested F15 x86_64 [N] appropriate use of ExcludeArch [+] all build requirements in BuildRequires [N] spec file handles locales properly [+] ldconfig in %post and %postun [+] no bundled copies of system libraries [N] no relocatable packages [+] package owns all directories that it creates [+] no files listed twice in %files [+] proper permissions on files [+] consistent use of macros [+] code or permissible content [N] large documentation in -doc [+] no runtime dependencies in %doc [+] header files in -devel [N] static libraries in -static [+] .so in -devel [+] -devel requires main package [+] package contains no libtool archives [N] package contains a desktop file, uses desktop-file-install/validate [+] package does not own files/dirs owned by other packages [+] all filenames in UTF-8 SHOULD: [+] query upstream for license text [N] description and summary contains available translations [+] package builds in mock [+] package builds on all supported arches: Tested x86_64 [?] package functions as described: Didn't test [+] sane scriptlets [+] subpackages require the main package [N] placement of pkgconfig files [N] file dependencies versus package dependencies [+] package contains man pages for binaries/scripts *** 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 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 #24 from Martin Gieseking 2011-11-17 13:41:19 EST --- Created attachment 534288 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=534288 patch to enable the generation of debug information -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 #13 from Fedora Update System 2011-11-17 13:38:57 EST --- abi-compliance-checker-1.95.10-1.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/abi-compliance-checker-1.95.10-1.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 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 #12 from Fedora Update System 2011-11-17 13:38:50 EST --- abi-compliance-checker-1.95.10-1.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/abi-compliance-checker-1.95.10-1.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 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 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 749291] Review Request: dpm-xrootd - xroot interface to the Disk Pool Manager (DPM)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=749291
--- Comment #5 from Ricardo Rocha 2011-11-17 13:14:35
EST ---
Thanks Steve.
New spec and src rpms:
Spec URL: http://rocha.web.cern.ch/rocha/fedora/dpm-xrootd.spec
SRPM URL: http://rocha.web.cern.ch/rocha/fedora/dpm-xrootd-2.2.3-1.src.rpm
I've fixed the issues you mentioned, but also did a main change upstream. I got
tired of loosing time with autotools and changed the build to use cmake
instead.
There's one issue left, regarding the license. I checked the xrootd packages
already in Fedora, and it's defined as BSD + LGPLv2+. I would say we should
keep the same licensing (David agrees)?
For details on the individual fixes, you can have a look inline.
Koji builds (successful):
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3522044 (dist-5E-epel)
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3522052 (dist-6E-epel)
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3522058 (f16)
(In reply to comment #4)
> Here is the review:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=749291
>
> +:ok, =:needs attention, -:needs fixing
>
> MUST Items:
> [-] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package.
> rpmlint ./dpm-xrootd.spec
> ./dpm-xrootd.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: dpm-xrootd-2.2.2.tar.gz
>
> dpm-xrootd.src: W: invalid-url Source0: dpm-xrootd-2.2.2.tar.gz
> dpm-xrootd.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US plugin -> plug in,
> plug-in, plugging
> dpm-xrootd.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gridFTP -> grid
> Ftp,
> grid-ftp, griddle
> dpm-xrootd.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US scalable ->
> salable,
> scalawag, scalar
>
> plugin should be plug-in.
> scalable seems not to be word... You can swap "high performance, scalable
> fault
> tolerant"
> for "high performance, easy to scale and fault tolerant" or something.
Fixed as suggested.
> dpm-xrootd.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libXrdDPMXmi.so.0.0.0
> _exit@GLIBC_2.2.5
> dpm-xrootd.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit
> /usr/lib64/libXrdDPMOfsAndN2N.so.0.0.0 _exit@GLIBC_2.2.5
> You commented on this, hopefully fix one day.
Bug added upstream:
https://svnweb.cern.ch/trac/lcgdm/ticket/345
> dpm-xrootd.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink /usr/bin/dpm-cmsd /usr/bin/cmsd
>
> dpm-xrootd.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink /usr/bin/dpm-manager-xrootd
> /usr/bin/xrootd
> dpm-xrootd.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink /usr/bin/dpm-manager-cmsd /usr/bin/cmsd
> dpm-xrootd.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink /usr/bin/dpm-xrootd /usr/bin/xrootd
>
> It's okay the 3 targets are provided by xrootd, ... but what is the point of
> these symbolic
> links?
I discussed this, and a solution should be possible. I added a bug here:
https://svnweb.cern.ch/trac/lcgdm/ticket/344
and it should be fixed for the next release of the component.
> dpm-xrootd-devel.x86_64: W: no-dependency-on
> dpm-xrootd/dpm-xrootd-libs/libdpm-xrootd
Added.
> Indeed dpm-xrootd-devel should contain
> Requires: dpm-xrootd%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
Added.
> [+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming
> Guidelines.
> Based on SVN moulde name.
> [+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}
> [+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
> the Licensing Guidelines.
> ASL 2.0
> [-] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
> license.
> The only thing anywhere to suggest a license is a GPLv3 COPYING file. The c++
> files and headers contain a copyright from SLAC but no hint as to what the
> license
> is. Presumably you must clarify with SLAC what the license is or was.
Not yet totally clear, but see above.
> [-] 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.
> The COPYING file is included but it's unclear if that is correct.
See above.
> [+] 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.
> I think the svn checkout resolves to
> svn export
> http://svn.cern.ch/guest/lcgdm/dpm-xrootd/glite-data-dpm-xrootd_R_2_2_2_1
> dpm-xrootd-2.2.2
> which fails.
Fixed.
> [+] MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
> at least one supported architecture.
> Mock builds.
> [+] 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.
> Builds on all.
> [+] 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.
> No locales present.
> [=]
[Bug 754749] Review Request: perl-Glib-Object-Introspection - Dynamically create Perl language bindings
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=754749
Trond H. Amundsen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||t.h.amund...@usit.uio.no
--- Comment #1 from Trond H. Amundsen 2011-11-17
12:10:20 EST ---
A few comments and nitpicks:
1. According to the perl packaging guidelines[1] you should include a Requires
to the particular version of perl the module was built against:
Requires: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_%(eval "`%{__perl} -V:version`"; echo
$version))
2. The same guidelines also states that the package should own vendorarch and
exlude the auto dir:
%{perl_vendorarch}/*
%exclude %dir %{perl_vendorarch}/auto/
3. If you plan an EPEL branch, you need to add a %clean section, and for EPEL5
and below also a BuildRoot tag and manual cleaning of %{buildroot} in the
%install section. Just something to consider.
4. I prefer %{buildroot} and %{optflags} over $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and
$RPM_OPT_FLAGS, respectively, but that's just me :)
[1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Perl
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 710386] Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet - A Gnome shell system monitor extension
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=710386 Fabian Affolter changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||WONTFIX Flag|fedora-review? | Last Closed||2011-11-17 11:59:57 -- 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 683790] Review Request: rubygem-hoe-yard - A Hoe plug-in for generating YARD documentation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=683790
--- Comment #6 from Jan Klepek 2011-11-17 11:40:32 EST
---
(In reply to comment #3)
> - License is MIT.
- Fixed
> - The defined %ruby_sitelib macro is never used, so please remove it.
- Fixed
> - You should use %global instead of %define, according to [1].
- Fixed
> - You don't need to specify BuildRoot tag, see [2]
- I know, as there is still open possibility to have this for EPEL in future, I
keep it there.
> - Could you explain the Requires: rubygem(rubyforge) and Requires:
> rubygem(gemcutter)? I don't see why the library wouldn't work without them.
> - Simlarly, can you explain the BuildRequires: rubygem(yard)? I don't see what
> you need yard for during the build.
- Fixed
BuildRequires on rubygem(yard) is there because build fail without it, due to
[1]
> - You don't need to use the "%defattr(-, root, root, -)" line, see [3]
- Yes, I'm aware of that, however i prefer to keep it there
> - Consider moving documentation into a subpackage (except of README.rdoc,
> which contains licensing info and therefore should be left in the main
> package).
- Documentation is too small to put it into subpackage, not worth of effort.
> - rpmbuild complains about History.rdoc and Manifest.txt listed twice. To
> solve
> it:
> ** the package shouldn't own the whole %{gemdir}/gems/%{gemname}-%{version}/
> directory (BTW you can use %{geminstdir} instead of it), but should rather own
> %dir %{geminstdir}
> ** when you do that, you will need to add every subdirectory and file in
> %{geminstdir} to %files, but you will be able to avoid the complaints about
> files listed twice
- Could not reproduce, works for me correctly (rpmlint-1.3.2).
[1] https://github.com/postmodern/hoe-yard/issues/1
Spec URL: http://hpejakle.fedorapeople.org/packages/rubygem-hoe-yard.spec
SRPM URL:
http://hpejakle.fedorapeople.org/packages/rubygem-hoe-yard-0.1.2-2.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 590387] Review Request: lcms2 - Color Management 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=590387 Xavier Bachelot changed: What|Removed |Added CC||xav...@bachelot.org --- Comment #17 from Xavier Bachelot 2011-11-17 11:21:44 EST --- Richard, you requested branches for EPEL 5 and 6, but the package has not been imported nor, indeed, built. Do you plan to build for EPEL sooner or later ? This is a dependency for java-1.7.0-openjdk. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 754754] New: Review Request: perl-Gtk3 - Perl interface to the 3.x series of the gtk+ toolkit
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-Gtk3 - Perl interface to the 3.x series of the gtk+ toolkit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=754754 Summary: Review Request: perl-Gtk3 - Perl interface to the 3.x series of the gtk+ toolkit 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/perl-Gtk3/perl-Gtk3.spec SRPM URL: http://berrange.fedorapeople.org/review/perl-Gtk3/perl-Gtk3-0.001-1.fc15.src.rpm Description:The Gtk3 module allows a Perl developer to use the gtk+ graphical user interface library. Find out more about gtk+ at http://www.gtk.org. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 754749] Review Request: perl-Glib-Object-Introspection - Dynamically create Perl language bindings
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=754749 Daniel Berrange changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||754754 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 754754] Review Request: perl-Gtk3 - Perl interface to the 3.x series of the gtk+ toolkit
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=754754 Daniel Berrange changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||754749 --- Comment #1 from Daniel Berrange 2011-11-17 11:21:19 EST --- NB requires bug 754749 to be reviewed first. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 754749] New: Review Request: perl-Glib-Object-Introspection - Dynamically create Perl language bindings
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-Glib-Object-Introspection - Dynamically create Perl language bindings https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=754749 Summary: Review Request: perl-Glib-Object-Introspection - Dynamically create Perl language bindings 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/perl-Glib-Object-Introspection/perl-Glib-Object-Introspection.spec SRPM URL: http://berrange.fedorapeople.org/review/perl-Glib-Object-Introspection/perl-Glib-Object-Introspection-0.003-1.fc15.src.rpm Description: Glib::Object::Introspection uses the gobject-introspection and libffi projects to dynamically create Perl bindings for a wide variety of libraries. Examples include gtk+, webkit, libsoup and many more. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 #23 from Praveen Kumar 2011-11-17 10:28:10 EST --- Added manual, disabled debuginfo package because it's not generate those debuginfo for which rpm is looking for. SPEC : http://kumarpraveen.fedorapeople.org/transgui/transgui.spec SRPM : http://kumarpraveen.fedorapeople.org/transgui/transgui-3.2-5.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 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 #4 from Stanislav Ochotnicky 2011-11-17 10:15:07 EST --- (In reply to comment #3) > > Another thing: Upstream version is 0.4 not 0.4.1. Version numbers in Fedora > > should match versions from upstream tarball. I know you are upstream, but > > it's > > still better to be consistent. > > I actually pushed the tag for presence-0.4.1, this should match upstream. Or > am > I missing something? Well, configure.ac in tarball states it's version 0.4 so I assumed that. But you're right that it's created from 0.4.1 tag so I guess it's more of a configure.ac problem. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list 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 #3 from Fabian Deutsch 2011-11-17 10:06:40
EST ---
Thanks for looking at it.
(In reply to comment #2)
> If you want to create tarball from git it's better to use "git archive" to do
> it. Your "tar -cJvf presence-%{version}.tar.xz presence-%{version}" packs .git
> directory as well.
True. I wonder why I used tar in the first place.
> Another thing: Upstream version is 0.4 not 0.4.1. Version numbers in Fedora
> should match versions from upstream tarball. I know you are upstream, but it's
> still better to be consistent.
I actually pushed the tag for presence-0.4.1, this should match upstream. Or am
I missing something?
> License is also incorrect, COPYING file is LGPL 2.1, yet spec states GPLv2+.
Ouch, will be fixed.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on 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 #11 from Jon Ciesla 2011-11-17 09:42:11 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 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
Stanislav Ochotnicky changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||socho...@redhat.com
--- Comment #2 from Stanislav Ochotnicky 2011-11-17
09:35:16 EST ---
If you want to create tarball from git it's better to use "git archive" to do
it. Your "tar -cJvf presence-%{version}.tar.xz presence-%{version}" packs .git
directory as well.
Another thing: Upstream version is 0.4 not 0.4.1. Version numbers in Fedora
should match versions from upstream tarball. I know you are upstream, but it's
still better to be consistent.
License is also incorrect, COPYING file is LGPL 2.1, yet spec states GPLv2+.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 452427] Review Request: awesome - Extremely fast, small, dynamic and awesome floating and tiling window 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=452427 Lars Kellogg-Stedman changed: What|Removed |Added CC||l...@oddbit.com --- Comment #125 from Lars Kellogg-Stedman 2011-11-17 09:34:25 EST --- Thomas, I don't know if this is the appropriate place to report this problem, but the default configuration for "awesome" as installed by this package appears to use "xterm" for the "open terminal" command. Unfortunately, "xterm" is not included by default under common F16 (and possibly earlier) desktop configurations. I would suggest either: - Adding xterm as a requirement to the awesome rpm, or - Have the default configuration call "exo-open --launch TerminalEmulator", which will use the preferred terminal emulator as configured by the desktop 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 727635] Review Request: java-1.7.0-openjdk - OpenJDK runtime environment
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727635 --- Comment #12 from Deepak Bhole 2011-11-17 09:32:02 EST --- The latest F16 update has the lcms dependency as well. We do not plan to add this to EPEL. As for EL.. one of the main reasons why it is not in EL yet is the lack of a TCK. Until we can access and run the TCK, it cannot go into EL. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 Richard Shaw changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 #10 from Richard Shaw 2011-11-17 09:31:33 EST --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: abi-compliance-checker Short Description: An ABI Compliance Checker Owners: hobbes1069 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 #9 from Iain Arnell 2011-11-17 09:28:38 EST --- (In reply to comment #8) > > Does this make it "GPL+ or LGPLv2+"? Yes. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 #8 from Richard Shaw 2011-11-17 09:02:47 EST --- I got an answer: From: Andrey Ponomarenko Hello, This is great news, that this tool will be a part of such a popular Fedora operating system. Very thanks for your work. The answer for your question is: dual GPL or LGPL of any versions. I've corrected it in the new release (1.95.10 [1-2]). [1] http://forge.ispras.ru/projects/abi-compliance-checker/files [2] http://forge.ispras.ru/svn/abi-compliance-checker --- Does this make it "GPL+ or LGPLv2+"? 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 727635] Review Request: java-1.7.0-openjdk - OpenJDK runtime environment
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727635 Xavier Bachelot changed: What|Removed |Added CC||xav...@bachelot.org --- Comment #11 from Xavier Bachelot 2011-11-17 08:46:19 EST --- Out of interest, is there a plan for EPEL branches ? It would be nice to have openjdk 1.7 for EL6 at least. I've rebuilt the latest rawhide srpm locally in mock for EL6 x86_64. The same openjdk build against EL6 i386 failed, but I've not looked why. The only missing BR was lcms2, which is branched but not imported for EL5/6 (owned by rhughes). Latest rawhide srpm of lcms2 rebuild fine on 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 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 #18 from Richard W.M. Jones 2011-11-17 08:37:03 EST --- Thanks for tracking that guideline down :-) Agreed with Alan on both points. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[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 #17 from Alan Pevec 2011-11-17 08:25:01 EST --- (In reply to comment #16) > 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; It's here http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Using_Revision_Control > therefore this is not a review blocker. sourceurl guidelines do say "may" not "must" but IMHO it should be a review blocker, how would you rebuild and compare source tarball otherwise? > 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. Seems to be packaging bug that cyrus-sasl-lib contains binaries, maybe better to put explicit: Requires(post): /usr/sbin/sasldblistusers2 Requires(post): /usr/sbin/saslpasswd2 ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 695022] Review Request: pygtkhelpers - assists the building of PyGTK applications
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=695022 --- Comment #10 from Jon Ciesla 2011-11-17 08:23:47 EST --- Ping? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 705249] Review Request: ibus-tutcode - Japanese TUT-Code input method for ibus
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=705249 --- Comment #3 from Jon Ciesla 2011-11-17 07:59:58 EST --- Git done (by process-git-requests). Remove f14 branch, not accepting new f14 branches due to impending EOL. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 #22 from Jon Ciesla 2011-11-17 07:58:15 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 704484] Review Request: idjc - DJ application with streaming capabilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=704484 Nikos Roussos changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 704484] Review Request: idjc - DJ application with streaming capabilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=704484 Nikos Roussos changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||DUPLICATE Last Closed||2011-11-17 07:24:25 --- Comment #2 from Nikos Roussos 2011-11-17 07:24:25 EST --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 754698 *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 754698] New: Review Request: idjc - DJ application with streaming capabilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: idjc - DJ application with streaming capabilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=754698 Summary: Review Request: idjc - DJ application with streaming capabilities Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: ni...@autoverse.net QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Spec URL: http://comzeradd.fedorapeople.org/specs/idjc.spec SRPM URL: http://repos.fedorapeople.org/repos/comzeradd/autoverse/fedora-16/SRPMS/idjc-0.8.5-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: It's a two panel DJ application, with automatic cross-fading, Icecast streaming and it uses jack as a back-end. rpmlint idjc-0.8.6-1.fc16.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 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 754698] Review Request: idjc - DJ application with streaming capabilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=754698 --- Comment #1 from Nikos Roussos 2011-11-17 07:24:25 EST --- *** Bug 704484 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 754685] New: Review Request: glue-service-provider - GLUE 1.3 and 2.0 Information provider for Grid services
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: glue-service-provider - GLUE 1.3 and 2.0 Information provider for Grid services https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=754685 Summary: Review Request: glue-service-provider - GLUE 1.3 and 2.0 Information provider for Grid services Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: unspecified Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: laurence.fi...@cern.ch QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Spec URL: http://lfield.web.cern.ch/lfield/glue-service-provider.spec< SRPM URL: http://lfield.web.cern.ch/lfield/glue-service-provider-1.8.0-1.el5.src.rpm Description:GLUE 1.3 and 2.0 Information provider for Grid services -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 754685] Review Request: glue-service-provider - GLUE 1.3 and 2.0 Information provider for Grid services
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=754685 laurence.fi...@cern.ch changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 751722] Review Request: ghc-hakyll - Static website compiler library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=751722
Lakshmi Narasimhan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Lakshmi Narasimhan 2011-11-17
05:47:25 EST ---
[+]MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
the review.
rpmlint -i ghc-hakyll-3.2.0.10-1.fc15.src.rpm
ghc-hakyll-3.2.0.10-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm
ghc-hakyll-devel-3.2.0.10-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm ../ghc-hakyll.spec
3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[+]MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+]MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec
[+]MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
Naming-Yes
Version-release - Matches
No prebuilt external bits - OK
Spec legibity - OK
Package template - OK
Arch support - OK
Libexecdir - OK
rpmlint - yes
changelogs - OK
Source url tag - OK, validated.
Build Requires list - OK
Summary and description - OK
API documentation - OK, in devel package
[+]MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines.
License is BSD
[+]MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[+]MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package must be included in %doc.
LICENSE file is included
[+]MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+]MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+]MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream
source,as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task.
md5sum ghc-hakyll-3.2.0.10-1.fc15.src/hakyll-3.2.0.10.tar.gz
d5580221bad36fd7adfb5e50639107d1
ghc-hakyll-3.2.0.10-1.fc15.src/hakyll-3.2.0.10.tar.gz
md5sum hakyll-3.2.0.10.tar.gz
d5580221bad36fd7adfb5e50639107d1 hakyll-3.2.0.10.tar.gz
[+]MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture.
Built on x86_64
[+]MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch.
[+]MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.
[+]MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
Checked with rpmquery --list
[NA]MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review.
[+]MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates.
Checked with rpmquery --whatprovides
[+]MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file's %files listings.
[+]MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
Checked with ls -lR
[+]MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[+]MUST: The package must contain code, or permissible content.
[+]MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
[+]MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application.
[+]MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[+]MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned
dependency: Requires: {name} = %{version}-%{release}
rpm -e ghc-hakyll
error: Failed dependencies:
ghc(hakyll-3.2.0.10) = 3c875a8599ec59086ef3e0bcb6cd1f27 is needed by
(installed) ghc-hakyll-devel-3.2.0.10-1.fc15.x86_64
ghc-hakyll = 3.2.0.10-1.fc15 is needed by (installed)
ghc-hakyll-devel-3.2.0.10-1.fc15.x86_64
[NA]MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be
removed in the spec if they are built.
[NA]MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the
%install section
[+]MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
Checked with rpmquery --whatprovides and list
[+]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 include it.
[-]SHOULD: If license header is not included in the sources files, the packager
should query upstream to include it
[+]SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described.
Installed the packages. Loaded Hakyll.Core.CompiledItem into ghci. Loads fine.
[+]SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane.
cabal2spec-diff is OK.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are r
[Bug 749991] Review Request: eclipse-wtp-servertools - WTP Server Tools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=749991 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System 2011-11-17 05:22:33 EST --- eclipse-wtp-servertools-3.3.1-2.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/eclipse-wtp-servertools-3.3.1-2.fc16 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 728504] Review Request: jboss-sasl - SASL Provider for J2SE
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=728504 --- Comment #3 from Marek Goldmann 2011-11-17 05:23:27 EST --- Updated to Beta4. Spec URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/jboss-sasl/3/jboss-sasl.spec SRPM URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/jboss-sasl/3/jboss-sasl-1.0.0-0.1.Beta4.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 737858] Review Request: eclipse-wtp-sourceediting - WTP Source Editing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=737858 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System 2011-11-17 05:15:56 EST --- eclipse-wtp-sourceediting-3.3.1-1.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/eclipse-wtp-sourceediting-3.3.1-1.fc16 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 742166] Review Request: wmctrl - X Window Manager command-line tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=742166 --- Comment #8 from Jens Petersen 2011-11-17 05:12:14 EST --- Erm this: https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/4981 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 742166] Review Request: wmctrl - X Window Manager command-line tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=742166 --- Comment #7 from Jens Petersen 2011-11-17 05:07:55 EST --- Requested unblocking: https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/3021 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 749756] Review Request: zita-at1 - autotuner for JACK
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=749756 Julian Sikorski changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo?(brendan.jones.it@ ||gmail.com) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 749756] Review Request: zita-at1 - autotuner for JACK
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=749756
--- Comment #5 from Julian Sikorski 2011-11-17 04:58:01
EST ---
I took a liberty of adding desktop-file-utils to move this forward:
* rpmlint output OK:
$ rpmlint zita-at1.spec /var/lib/mock/fedora-16-x86_64/result/*rpm
zita-at1.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) autotuner -> auto tuner,
auto-tuner, autoimmune
zita-at1.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US autotuner -> auto tuner,
auto-tuner, autoimmune
zita-at1.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) autotuner -> auto tuner,
auto-tuner, autoimmune
zita-at1.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US autotuner -> auto
tuner, auto-tuner, autoimmune
zita-at1.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary zita-at1
3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
* Naming guidelines followed
* spec file naming correct: zita-at1.spec
* Packaging guidelines
- use of --ffast-math violates [1]
- BR: desktop-file-utils is missing [2]
* Licensing is correct: GPLv2+
* License tag matches the actual license
* COPYING file is included in %doc
* spec file is written in American English
* spec file is legible
* source matches upstream: d901f378da09407b550c72b2607cc97f
zita-at1-0.2.3.tar.bz2
* package does not build
- BR: desktop-file-utils is missing
* ExcludeArch: unable to test
* BuildRequires: desktop-file-utils is missing
* locales do not apply
* there are no shared libraries
* there are no copies of system libs bundled
* package is not relocatable
* directory ownership is correct
* there are no duplicate files
* permissions are correct
* macros consistency:
- please replace zita-at1 in Source1 and Patch0 with %{name}
* package contains code
* documentation is not big enough to warrant a -doc subpackage
* there are no header files, static nor dynamic libraries
* there are no subpackages
* there are no libtool archives
* there is a desktop file correctly installed with desktop-file-install
* there are no overlapping ownerships
* filenames are UTF-8
Summary:
* use of --ffast-math violates [1]. Either remove it or provide rationale on
why is it needed.
* BR: desktop-file-utils is missing [2]
* please replace zita-at1 in Source1 and Patch0 with %{name}
Once these issues are resolved, I'll approve the package.
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Compiler_flags
[2]
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#desktop-file-install_usage
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on 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) changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|NOTABUG |NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 #3 from Parag AN(पराग) 2011-11-17 04:18:41 EST --- I can see libps library is also getting built using bmp.c file. also post the newer modified package links. Regarding license you can ask to legal list for clarification. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 --- Comment #4 from laurence.fi...@cern.ch 2011-11-17 03:50:17 EST --- I tried the instructions again and it worked. I must have made a mistake when constructing the command. Is there a way to automatically generate it or do I have to copy and paste the variables? If the three warnings reported by rpmlint (File Permissions, %clean and BuildRoot tag) are no longer required, do you know why rpmlint reports this?. It seems that many of the checks above could be automated, any idea why a specific Fedora test is not available? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Resolution||NOTABUG Last Closed||2011-11-17 03:24:35 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 Mattias Ellert changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #21 from Mattias Ellert 2011-11-17 03:19:32 EST --- Many thanks for the review! Mattias New Package SCM Request === Package Name: gsi-openssh Short Description: An implementation of the SSH protocol with GSI authentication Owners: ellert Branches: f15 f16 el5 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 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 #20 from Mattias Ellert 2011-11-17 03:10:02 EST --- The epel 6 srpm builds OK for me as a koji scratch build for the dist-6E-epel build target: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3521322 Mattias -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
